Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 15th Nov 2011 22:32 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 497960
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/14/13 18:22 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
That's more nuanced, I think, with many technologies patented ...well, one could ignore it, I suppose - but in the process closing too many markets, being too risky for buyers of chips (manufacturers, really, not end-users*).
OTOH, i486 is over 20 years old. And in 2013, you can do P5-level implementation without any legal issues, I guess. Two years later - i686, essentially bringing compatibility with most of present software, if it doesn't require MMX (2016) or SSE (2019...). x64 would be probably at least as big of a problem before 2023 - I imagine that AMD doesn't want additional competition, much more than Intel doesn't want it (Intel just wants some competition, to avoid antitrust; for AMD, being that "sanctioned" by Intel competition is the lifeline)
*hm, I wrote it originally as end-suers ;p (and almost submitted like that, auto-correct giving me a false sense of correctness)