Intel and AMD form advisory group to reshape x86 ISA

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Intel and AMD’s plan to jointly “reshape” the x86 instruction set architecture has reignited debate over whether the industry should double down on x86 or move to alternatives like ARM or RISC‑V. Commenters weigh x86’s vast software ecosystem, standardized PC platform, and improving power efficiency against its architectural cruft, licensing lock‑in, and competition from open ISAs and fast ARM designs such as Apple’s M‑series. Many see the move as both a defensive response to growing ARM/RISC‑V momentum and a chance to rationalize extensions like AVX and APX, though opinions differ on whether x86 can—or should—remain dominant long term.

x86’s future vs “let it die”

  • Many want to move away from x86, arguing emulation (Apple M-series, Snapdragon X) is “good enough” to preserve legacy.
  • Others say x86 will persist for decades due to massive software, driver, and platform inertia.
  • Some see Intel+AMD’s advisory group as a defensive move to keep x86 relevant and re‑patentable rather than truly modernize.

ARM: promise and limitations

  • Apple’s ARM chips are praised for performance and perf/W, but several note that:
    • Apple’s success is as much implementation, integration, and process node as ISA.
    • Rosetta 2 is fast but incomplete (e.g., no AVX), and whole‑VM/x86 Linux emulation can be slow.
  • Non‑Apple ARM (Qualcomm, Ampere, generic cores) is seen as:
    • Competitive or better on efficiency, but usually behind top x86 on peak performance.
    • Hampered by weak Linux support, slow mainlining, missing GPU drivers.
  • Concern that ARM licensing is “another dead end” similar to x86, not true openness.

RISC‑V and open ISAs

  • RISC‑V is viewed by some as the real escape hatch: open ISA, competitive commodity ecosystem, fewer patent traps.
  • Skeptics argue current RISC‑V/ARM SoCs are highly fragmented, each needing custom OS ports.
  • Counterpoint: RISC‑V defenders claim SoCs generally follow platform specs and use common firmware (OpenSBI), calling fragmentation fears overblown.

Platform standardization vs SoC chaos

  • Strong appreciation for x86 PCs: ACPI/UEFI plus mature drivers mean “buy-anything-and-install-Linux.”
  • Many fear a post‑x86 world of locked‑down, phone‑like devices and bootloader exploits.
  • Debate over whether ARM/RISC‑V platform standards (UEFI, DTB, ACPI-for-RISC‑V) are real and promoted enough.

ISA evolution: AVX, APX, cruft

  • Interest in cleaning x86 up:
    • AVX‑512/AVX10 and wide vectors shown as beneficial, especially via better frontends.
    • APX (more GPRs, 3‑operand ops, predication) is seen as “AVX for scalar code.”
    • Some advocate an open, cleaner x86‑64 subset, even if slightly backward‑incompatible.
  • Others insist ISA “ugliness” matters less than performance, power, and stability.

Use cases: gaming, desktops, and real workloads

  • Gaming and DIY PCs are cited as major anchors for x86; ARM/RISC‑V gaming is seen as far off.
  • Many general users could live on ARM, but specialized workloads, drivers, and high‑FPS gaming keep x86 attractive.