←back to thread

331 points giuliomagnifico | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.019s | source
Show context
ndiddy ◴[] No.45377533[source]
Fun fact: Bob Colwell (chief architect of the Pentium Pro through Pentium 4) recently revealed that the Pentium 4 had its own 64-bit extension to x86 that would have beaten AMD64 to market by several years, but management forced him to disable it because they were worried that it would cannibalize IA64 sales.

> Intel’s Pentium 4 had our own internal version of x86–64. But you could not use it: we were forced to “fuse it off”, meaning that even though the functionality was in there, it could not be exercised by a user. This was a marketing decision by Intel — they believed, probably rightly, that bringing out a new 64-bit feature in the x86 would be perceived as betting against their own native-64-bit Itanium, and might well severely damage Itanium’s chances. I was told, not once, but twice, that if I “didn’t stop yammering about the need to go 64-bits in x86 I’d be fired on the spot” and was directly ordered to take out that 64-bit stuff.

https://www.quora.com/How-was-AMD-able-to-beat-Intel-in-deli...

replies(11): >>45377674 #>>45377914 #>>45378427 #>>45378583 #>>45380663 #>>45382171 #>>45384182 #>>45385968 #>>45388594 #>>45389629 #>>45391228 #
1. userbinator ◴[] No.45382171[source]
"Recently revealed" is more like a confirmation of what I had read many years before; and furthermore, that Intel's 64-bit x86 would've been more backwards-compatible and better-fitting than AMD64, which looks extremely inelegant in contrast, with several stupid missteps like https://www.pagetable.com/?p=1216 (the comment near the bottom is very interesting.)

If you look at the 286's 16-bit protected mode and then the 386's 32-bit extensions, they fit neatly into the "gaps" in the former; there are some similar gaps in the latter, which look like they had a future extension in mind. Perhaps that consideration was already there in the 80s when the 386 was being designed, but as usual, management got in the way.

replies(2): >>45382493 #>>45382651 #
2. Dylan16807 ◴[] No.45382493[source]
> (the comment near the bottom is very interesting.)

Segmentation very useful for virtualization? I don't follow that claim.

replies(1): >>45382694 #
3. CheeseFromLidl ◴[] No.45382651[source]

   would've been more backwards-compatible and better-fitting
Eagerly awaiting the first submission of someone decapping, forcing the fuse, capping and running it.
4. userbinator ◴[] No.45382694[source]
https://www.pagetable.com/?p=25
replies(1): >>45383635 #
5. Dylan16807 ◴[] No.45383635{3}[source]
"The virtual machine monitor’s trap handler must reside in the guest’s address space, because an exception cannot switch address spaces."

I would call this the real problem, and segmentation a bad workaround.