Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 54

Thread: VMware CEO: Intel's x86 is filled with "junk silicon"

  1. #1
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    America's Finest City
    Posts
    2,078

    VMware CEO: Intel's x86 is filled with "junk silicon"

    While i most certainly dont agree with all of this, it is coming from somebody who has had quite a prolonged relationship with AMD and i found it interesting that someone like the CEO of VMware would say something like that considering his background.
    Former Intel employee and current CEO of VMware, Mr. Paul Maritz recently "opened a can of whoop-ass" on the x86 architecture. Delivering a keynote speech at TiEcon 2009, Paul attacked Intel's pitch of "x86 inside mobile device" with powerpoint slideware that just ripped into Intel's x86 "green" pitch.

    According to the TechPulse360, Paul didn't spare heavy words to the assembled audience: "It’s a power hog, it loves electricity, all those [unused] gates are basically consuming power". If you thought that this was less than flattery, this quote made sure Intel's PR machine gets into damage limitation mode with the following statement: "It’s all junk silicon."
    http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news...k-silicon.aspx
    Last edited by Russian; 07-06-2009 at 11:17 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by FUGGER View Post
    I am magical.

  2. #2
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom, South East England Kent
    Posts
    741
    Impressive, he made 3 points which are exactly the same.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by DeltZ View Post
    Impressive, he made 3 points which are exactly the same.
    Obviously they weren't meant to be three points.. it was one point with three fragments to elaborate on the 1 idea.

  4. #4
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,084
    BS-news article, surprising indeed...

  5. #5
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    2,740
    I thought most did agree that x86 is quite crap?
    Fold for XS!
    You know you want to

  6. #6
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Flying through Space, with armoire, Armoire of INVINCIBILATAAAAY!
    Posts
    1,939
    x86 is bloated with useless instructions, more news at 11..
    Sigs are obnoxious.

  7. #7
    Diablo 3! Who's Excited?
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Boulder, Colorado
    Posts
    9,412
    Quote Originally Posted by [XC] Lead Head View Post
    I thought most did agree that x86 is quite crap?
    Yes. Lots of legacy support so I can run Windows 95 on my X58 rig

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,125
    This seems like the perfect example of a topic that merits a thread lock.

  9. #9
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    401
    I actually tend to agree with his point of view. Taking a look at all the low-power RISC CPUs out there, it does seem pretty self-evident that x86 just isn't suited to that kind of space.
    Gaming Box

    Ryzen R7 1700X * ASUS PRIME X370-Pro * 2x8GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200 * XFX Radeon RX 480 8GB * Corsair HX620 * 250GB Crucial BX100 * 1TB Seagate 7200.11

    EK Supremacy MX * Swiftech MCR320 * 3x Fractal Venture HP-12 * EK D5 PWM

  10. #10
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    632
    wait, what is x86?
    himynameisfrank
    Flickr

    i7 2600K @ 4.4Ghz
    Corsair Hydro H80
    MSI Z68A-GD80
    EVGA GTX580 x 2 SLi
    Corsair XMS3 1600 12Gb
    Corsair HX850w
    OCZ Agility 3 SSD x 3 RAID 0
    Creative X-Fi Titanium / Astro A40 Audio System
    Corsair Graphite 600T SE White
    DELL U2410 24" IPS Panel

  11. #11
    I am Xtreme zanzabar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SF bay area, CA
    Posts
    15,871
    he said intels and it looks like he is targeting the atom. i personally dislike the atom its not fast enough and its platform cant compare with VIA
    5930k, R5E, samsung 8GBx4 d-die, vega 56, wd gold 8TB, wd 4TB red, 2TB raid1 wd blue 5400
    samsung 840 evo 500GB, HP EX 1TB NVME , CM690II, swiftech h220, corsair 750hxi

  12. #12
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,663
    Quote Originally Posted by iddqd View Post
    x86 is bloated with useless instructions, more news at 11..
    +1

    Old news, but good point. M$ is the one with the power to move us away from x86. Unfortunately, with the demise of Sun, what other viable uarchs and instruction sets can we look to?
    Core i7 2600K@4.6Ghz| 16GB G.Skill@2133Mhz 9-11-10-28-38 1.65v| ASUS P8Z77-V PRO | Corsair 750i PSU | ASUS GTX 980 OC | Xonar DSX | Samsung 840 Pro 128GB |A bunch of HDDs and terabytes | Oculus Rift w/ touch | ASUS 24" 144Hz G-sync monitor

    Quote Originally Posted by phelan1777 View Post
    Hail fellow warrior albeit a surat Mercenary. I Hail to you from the Clans, Ghost Bear that is (Yes freebirth we still do and shall always view mercenaries with great disdain!) I have long been an honorable warrior of the mighty Warden Clan Ghost Bear the honorable Bekker surname. I salute your tenacity to show your freebirth sibkin their ignorance!

  13. #13
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,870
    Quote Originally Posted by terrace215 View Post
    This seems like the perfect example of a topic that merits a thread lock.
    The truth hurts. C'est la vie.

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    49
    @threadstarter: it has nothing todo with AMD vs Intel.

    It's just that x86 in general is carrying a lot of old legacy stuff around. It's not pretty at all.

    Just look at the booting process from BIOS to an x86-64 operating system. Jumping from one legacy layer to the next. Awesome -_-

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,125
    Quote Originally Posted by trinibwoy View Post
    The truth hurts. C'est la vie.
    It just seems like an inflammatory topic, not really "tech news".

    I refer to the new news guidelines:



    http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=226784

  16. #16
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,663
    x86 Alternatives, Few but Strong:http://www.serverwatch.com/hreviews/article.php/3581551

    It's an old article from January 30th, 2006, but interesting. Heres a quote:
    Further, IBM is ahead of its x86 rivals when it comes to multicore technology.

    "The Quad-Core Module was introduced that doubled the number of cores per socket," says Jeff Howard, program director for IBM's eServer P5 Product Marketing. "Composed of two dual-core Power5 Plus chips on one substrate, the eight simultaneous threads per socket provided an excellent price to performance ratio."

    Howard says virtualization has resulted in a more efficient use of processor resources and better application responsiveness. Virtualization, he says, enables clients to deploy segments of a network independent of physical location and connection to the network.
    Wow...I actually didn't know IBM was that forward thinking. Everything from Intel and AMD seems like nothing but x86 copies of Power and SPARC ideas and technologies.
    Last edited by Mechromancer; 07-06-2009 at 02:16 PM.
    Core i7 2600K@4.6Ghz| 16GB G.Skill@2133Mhz 9-11-10-28-38 1.65v| ASUS P8Z77-V PRO | Corsair 750i PSU | ASUS GTX 980 OC | Xonar DSX | Samsung 840 Pro 128GB |A bunch of HDDs and terabytes | Oculus Rift w/ touch | ASUS 24" 144Hz G-sync monitor

    Quote Originally Posted by phelan1777 View Post
    Hail fellow warrior albeit a surat Mercenary. I Hail to you from the Clans, Ghost Bear that is (Yes freebirth we still do and shall always view mercenaries with great disdain!) I have long been an honorable warrior of the mighty Warden Clan Ghost Bear the honorable Bekker surname. I salute your tenacity to show your freebirth sibkin their ignorance!

  17. #17
    YouTube Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Klaatu barada nikto
    Posts
    17,574
    no surprise; Pre-RISC Instruction set, has alot of unused instructions.
    But atleast it has alot less unused instructions than VAX.
    Fast computers breed slow, lazy programmers
    The price of reliability is the pursuit of the utmost simplicity. It is a price which the very rich find most hard to pay.
    http://www.lighterra.com/papers/modernmicroprocessors/
    Modern Ram, makes an old overclocker miss BH-5 and the fun it was

  18. #18
    Muslim Overclocker
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,786
    Actually this has some truth.. especially when it comes to virtualization.

    I can't figure out why virtualization in a 64bit environment on an intel requires a special unit. On AMD it comes package and parcel.

    My watercooling experience

    Water
    Scythe Gentle Typhoons 120mm 1850RPM
    Thermochill PA120.3 Radiator
    Enzotech Sapphire Rev.A CPU Block
    Laing DDC 3.2
    XSPC Dual Pump Reservoir
    Primochill Pro LRT Red 1/2"
    Bitspower fittings + water temp sensor

    Rig
    E8400 | 4GB HyperX PC8500 | Corsair HX620W | ATI HD4870 512MB


    I see what I see, and you see what you see. I can't make you see what I see, but I can tell you what I see is not what you see. Truth is, we see what we want to see, and what we want to see is what those around us see. And what we don't see is... well, conspiracies.



  19. #19
    It is
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Copenhagen Denmark
    Posts
    2,214
    ..........................

    Despite its aging design, the x86 is still in charge

    Tom Krazit - 2007/04/04 14:27:01

    Few computing technologies from the late 1970s endure today, with one notable exception: the fundamental marching orders for the vast majority of the world's computers.

    The x86 instruction set architecture (ISA), used today in more than 90 percent of the world's PCs and servers, hit the marketplace in 1978 as part of Intel's 8086 chip.

    So when the worldwide Intel developer's community gathers for its annual conference in Beijing later this month, they'll spend most of their time talking about technology that was developed when Jimmy Carter was in the White House and the soundtrack for the John Travolta movie Saturday Night Fever was the best-selling album in the United States.

    Other instruction sets -- which are basically, lists of operations that a software program can use -- do exist, of course. There's IBM's Power, Sun Microsystems' Sparc and Intel's own EPIC (explicitly parallel instruction computing) Itanium project, to name a few. But x86 continues to thrive and has no serious competitors on the horizon because it provides "good enough" performance and because of the vast amount of software written over nearly three decades.

    "If you look at the history of computing, big moves happen because there is a dramatic new requirement or change in the marketplace," said a professor of computer science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who uses the single name Arvind.

    But x86 is apparently an exception to the rule. Whether it's the invention of the browser or low-cost network computers that were supposed to make PCs go away, the engineers behind x86 find a way to make it adapt to the situation.

    Is that a problem?

    Critics say x86 is saddled with the burden of supporting outdated features and software, and that improvements in energy efficiency and software development have been sacrificed to its legacy.

    A comedian would say it all depends on what you think about disco.

    Humble beginnings

    The x86 ISA made its debut with Intel's 8086 processor in 1978. Even at the time, it wasn't considered the most elegant implementation on the market because of the way it searched for memory addresses, said Dean McCarron, an analyst with Mercury Research. IBM chose a slightly different version -- the 8088 -- for its new PC, and the x86 architecture started to gain traction.

    "It was originally thought about as an eight-bit chip (Intel's and Advanced Micro Devices' current chips are 64-bits) designed to run spreadsheets," said Phil Hester, chief technology officer at AMD. Accordingly, the original design lacked support for, among other things, an appropriate number of general-purpose registers that would be needed for the modern computing era. Registers are essentially small holding stations for data as it awaits processing, and general-purpose registers are useful because they can store either data or an address where that data is stored.

    As the number of people using PCs made by IBM and so-called clone manufacturers grew, the x86 became the irreplaceable heart of the PC market. In the mid-1990s, Intel's entry into the server market with x86 chips cemented the ISA's dominance. Today, more than 90 percent of all servers shipped in the world use an x86 processor from either Intel or AMD.

    Intel and AMD have managed to keep x86 fresh by continually adding extensions to the ISA, such as Intel's MMX and SSE instructions in the mid-'90s that improved graphics performance, and AMD's 64-bit extensions this decade that helped bypass the register issue. "We have seen a huge amount of change at the instruction level; we just keep calling it the same thing," said Rick Rashid, a senior vice president at Microsoft in charge of that company's research division.

    But with each generation of extensions to the x86 ISA, more and more complexity is added to the chips, and support for the older feature remains to guarantee software compatibility.

    "There's no reason whatsoever why the Intel architecture remains so complex," said Simon Crosby, chief technology officer at virtualization software start-up XenSource. "There's no reason why they couldn't ditch 60 percent of the transistors on the chip, most of which are for legacy modes."

    If a chipmaker declared its chip could run only software written past some date such as 1990 or 1995, you would see a dramatic decrease in cost and power consumption, Crosby said. The problem is that deep inside Windows is code taken from the MS-DOS operating system of the early 1980s, and that code looks for certain instructions when it boots.

    This was part of the motivation behind Intel and Hewlett-Packard's EPIC project: a "clean-sheet" design that would remove many of x86's idiosyncrasies and support for legacy technologies, providing a modern foundation for the next 20 years.

    Instead, EPIC became a lesson in how not to introduce a new instruction set. Software developers shied away from having to learn a new computing language, and early roll-out problems hindered Intel and HP's chances of building a broad market for the processor. The warm embrace of AMD's Opteron x86-64 processor (later duplicated by Intel) was the final blow, relegating EPIC and Itanium to the high end of the server market where it makes sense to port applications to take advantage of the performance offered by Itanium.

    As with most things, it all came down to money. Billions of dollars have been invested in software written for x86. Even Intel -- one of the most influential companies in the technology industry -- couldn't convince software developers to move away from all those investments.

    Is there an alternative?

    Last year, Intel Chief Technology Officer Justin Rattner said the company had no plans to develop a new ISA in the foreseeable future. Microsoft's Rashid said his group doesn't have any projects that involve a rival instruction set, although Microsoft supported several different instruction sets as recently as 1999 with Windows NT 4.0.

    So what might change the game? Performance is always one way to make software developers sit up and take notice, but there's nothing dramatic on the horizon. It's unlikely that any so-called "clean sheet" design would be able to produce more than a 10 percent improvement in performance or power consumption over the modern x86 ISA, Hester said.

    A performance improvement that small isn't going to encourage a dramatic move away from x86, said Pat Gelsinger, a veteran chip designer and senior vice president and general manager of Intel's Digital Enterprise Group. "We're delivering 2x performance gains every year" with existing designs that can still run older applications.

    The chip industry's ability to continue packing transistors onto its processors means that it dedicates fewer and fewer transistors -- out of the whole -- to keeping legacy code alive. "The burden of compatibility is there," Gelsinger said. "But the value of compatibility overwhelms the cost it brings with it."

    One technology improvement that could be a wild card in the mix is the introduction of new chips with two or more processing cores. Chipmakers have settled on building chips with several lower-speed processor cores as a way of getting around power consumption problems caused by a single high-speed core. Right now, however, each core needs to use the same instruction set.

    Some think a hybrid future is possible: smaller, more power-efficient cores could be created on an x86 using other ISAs that would be dedicated for specific tasks, like video processing, Arvind said.

    IBM is doing something like this with its Cell processor design, found at the heart of Sony's PlayStation 3. Cell uses one PowerPC core in a sort of supervisory role over eight separate processing units. Further on down the road, chip companies could keep a basic x86 core to maintain backward compatibility and handle the next generation of complicated processing tasks with dedicated hardware -- that may or may not run x86.

    The earliest parts of this transition can be seen in efforts such as AMD's Fusion project, in which it plans to integrate a graphics processor onto a PC processor, McCarron said. By the next decade, processors with a mixture of cores using different ISAs could become a reality, he said.

    But don't count on it.

    "What has worked in (x86's) favor is that it's an evolutionary architecture, when problems come up it gets adapted," McCarron said. "This is ultimately the one that got picked. And for everything to work with each other, that's what we stick to."
    Last edited by Frisch; 07-06-2009 at 03:08 PM.
    ~Opinion about Dogs~~~~~~~Hug~~~~~~~~
    ~~~~
    ________________________________________________

  20. #20
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,326
    I think it's pretty much a given that x86 is not a good starting platform for low-power devices.
    It may even be a very bad platform for performance/transistor.

    But Intel can still make their transistors/gates smaller before everyone else. That's a given.
    What they lose in architectural efficiency, they gain in always having their factories with state-of-the-art equipment.


    No Snapdragon or Cortex A9 will survive if Intel can make Atom-based SOCs at 22nm.

  21. #21
    Xtreme X.I.P.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Shipai
    Posts
    31,147
    everybody knows x86 is inefficient, even intel... but what should we replace it with? and how?
    thats something nobody managed to accomplish so far...

    and for those cheering for arm, well... you might want to know that arm may be more efficient, a lot more efficient, but have a short peek at backwards compatibility and the sheer amount of diferent NOT compatible arm designs out there... arm is kinda like linux without a central body making sure there is a baseline compatibility... its quite messy afaik...

  22. #22
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Flying through Space, with armoire, Armoire of INVINCIBILATAAAAY!
    Posts
    1,939
    imo, just keep one core with legacy instructions, and prune them from the rest. no point in having 4(+) cores with archaic junk nobody uses
    Sigs are obnoxious.

  23. #23
    HWiNFO Author
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    801
    Great reading, I absolutely agree.
    As I said many times: the problem of x86 (CISC) is the complexity of the instruction set and so the painfull decoding and scheduling. The CPU has to decide which way and how to execute instructions.
    That's what makes EPIC a brilliant idea - shift this hard part from hardware (CPU) to software (compilers). Moreover it's much easier to tune software than hardware to improve performance.
    However, the x86 market is strong so there's a little chance to succeed with a new ISA. I could imagine a slow move from x86 (maybe AVX could be the first step?).
    I'm designing both x86 and ARM firmware/OAL/drivers/software... Sure, ARM's nice, but compatibility is a huuuge advantage. Building a device on ARM means you need to code nearly all component and peripheral drivers yourself...

    Quote Originally Posted by Frisch View Post
    ..........................

  24. #24
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,366
    Quote Originally Posted by iddqd View Post
    imo, just keep one core with legacy instructions, and prune them from the rest. no point in having 4(+) cores with archaic junk nobody uses
    And how exactly do you know what instructions to keep and what not? And how exactly can you tell to CPU if some thread uses "legacy" instructions or not? Any way your suggestion has no point at all since all current x86 CPUs (except may be Atom) dosn't execute x86 stuff nativelly but firstly decodes it into RISC-like internal instructions. So all that "archaic" hardware is just more complex instruction decoder.
    Last edited by kl0012; 07-06-2009 at 10:35 PM.

  25. #25
    Xtreme Recruit
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The Dark Side
    Posts
    99
    we need a new one that will be globalized on windows.. x86 is so goddamn old

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •