Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 20:51 +0100 (BST)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <memo.20240913205156.19028s@jgd.cix.co.uk>
Reply-To: jgd@cix.co.uk
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 21:51:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f75615aa7c6793f8bb07fdc11ea59e6f";
	logging-data="1084010"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/BcM455odWKhF/Bkk+xzJTOgs4nwHlbpw="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:z7NBEOfYMuvrJhikKgngQ5VU6tk=
X-Clacks-Overhead-header: GNU Terry Pratchett
Bytes: 1903

The tribe of x86 architectures didn't originate as an Intel design. The
8008 ISA originated at Datapoint, and grew through the 8080 and 8085.
Intel recognised their limitations, and decided to make something better,
but the iAPX 432 took time to mature and the 8086 was designed as an
extended 8080 to keep the company going until the 432 succeeded. 

The 432 was a total failure, but the x86 line kept the company going and
growing. Then they came up with the i960, which had some success as a
high0end embedded processor, but was cancelled when Intel acquired rights
to DEC's StrongARM cores. They produced XScale as an improved StrongARM,
then sold the line. 

The i860 was a pretty comprehensive failure, but the x86 line made them
into a behemoth. Then they decided to phase that out and do Itanium. It
was less of a failure than 432 or i860, but they had to adopt AMD's
x86-64 ISA to avoid shrinking themselves into a subsidiary of HP. 

Not many computer companies survive three failed architectures: has that
record been beaten? 

John