Hell Freezes Over as AMD and Intel Come Together for x86

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

AMD and Intel’s unprecedented cooperation on x86 is framed as a defensive move against the rapid rise of ARM in mobile, laptops, servers, and even supercomputing, with RISC‑V emerging as a longer‑term wildcard. Commenters debate whether x86 is entering its “twilight” or simply adapting yet again, weighing raw performance, energy efficiency, software ecosystem lock‑in, and economics of cloud providers designing their own ARM chips. Underneath, there is concern about closed firmware (Intel ME, AMD PSP), boot and hardware standards (UEFI, ACPI vs device trees), and whether more open architectures like RISC‑V can eventually deliver both competitiveness and user freedom.

Hardware trust and management engines

  • Some want the ability to truly disable Intel ME and AMD PSP, viewing them as potential backdoors due to closed code with deep system access.
  • Skeptics argue even “disabled” firmware can’t be verified, echoing “trusting trust” concerns: if you didn’t build the stack yourself, you can’t be sure.
  • Others say you must either trust the platform or design systems so that untrusted platforms are isolated (e.g., behind a trusted firewall), but note firewalls rarely stop outbound “phone home” behavior.
  • A minority points to open hardware / open ISAs as the only real way to reduce this trust gap.

x86 vs ARM vs RISC‑V trajectory

  • One side thinks AMD–Intel cooperation signals shared defense of a weakening x86 against ARM’s rise in mobile, laptops, servers, and even supercomputers.
  • Others push back: x86 “death” has been predicted for decades; its backwards compatibility and software ecosystem should keep it relevant for at least another decade.
  • ARM is seen as already dominant in mobile/embedded and growing in servers and PCs; RISC‑V is viewed as more open but currently far behind in performance, mainly suitable for embedded use.
  • Several expect long‑term ISA plurality rather than a single winner.

Performance and efficiency debates

  • Heated debate over whether ARM can match “highest‑end” x86:
    • Some cite Apple M‑series and Snapdragon X as matching or beating top x86 in single‑core and efficiency.
    • Others note that multi‑socket x86 workstations and servers (Threadripper, EPYC) still vastly exceed any current ARM desktop SoC in total throughput.
  • Cloud ARM chips (Graviton, Ampere) are argued to be similar or slightly behind in raw perf/power, but meaningfully cheaper, making them attractive on a price‑normalized basis.

Cloud, servers, and supercomputers

  • Many note strong ARM inroads: AWS Graviton (cost advantage), ARM‑based supercomputers like Fugaku and Astra, and NVIDIA Grace/Grace‑Hopper systems.
  • Some question how much TOP500 rankings say about per‑chip merit versus overall cluster scale.

Platform openness and firmware standards

  • Concern that an ARM “win” could lead to Android‑style, board‑specific Linux that depends on device trees and vendor kernels.
  • Others counter that ARM can and does use UEFI/ACPI in servers; the fragmentation is about vendor choices, not the ISA.
  • Debate over UEFI/ACPI vs u‑boot + devicetree:
    • Pro‑ACPI/UEFI camp values a single standardized boot and enumeration path.
    • Pro‑devicetree camp argues UEFI/ACPI are opaque blobs that enable persistent firmware rootkits; DT keeps policy and code out of the OS runtime.

Industry structure and future moves

  • Speculation about an AMD–Intel merger or Qualcomm acquiring Intel is met with skepticism due to antitrust and licensing issues.
  • Some think x86 vendors should also back RISC‑V to hedge ARM and keep competition alive.