Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Potentially Reverse-Engineered AMD64

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the sincerest-form dept.

icypyr0 writes "Tom Halfhill, an analyst for In-Stat/MDR claims that due to similiarities in the instruction sets of AMD64 chips and the new 64-bit extensions for Intel Xeons, it is clear that Intel reverse-engineered the AMD64. However, due to the fact that the new Xeon is not an exact copy of the AMD64's microarchitecture, Intel has not broken the law. This very tactic has actually been used by firms such as AMD in the past to catch up to Intel."

5 of 324 comments (clear)

  1. AMD and Intel have a cross-licencing agreement. by norculf · · Score: 5, Informative

    So reverse engineering is not a problem in this case. In fact, it's not unlikely that AMD simply handed them the documentation.

    1. Re:AMD and Intel have a cross-licencing agreement. by Homology · · Score: 5, Informative
      So reverse engineering is not a problem in this case. In fact, it's not unlikely that AMD simply handed them the documentation.

      Security wise, it is bad that Intel decided not to copy the NX (No Excute on pages) part as well.The NX is not an AMD invention, of course, but it's very nice that they included it. And who uses this? OpenBSD developers was not very happy with the Intel decision : they actually recommend buying AMD before Intel.

  2. Not exactly a well informed article by Lface · · Score: 5, Informative

    Given that the instruction sets are compatible, you don't need to do much investigation to figure out that they have looked at AMD's x86-64.

    Apparently, there is still some confusion about whether the instructions sets are compatible or not, and people such as Linus has been critisizing Intel for trying to hide the fact that they are indeed compatible by giving the instruction set another name.

    When it comes to licensing of technology, AMD and Intel has had cross-licensing agreements since the seventies, and there has been roumors for a long time that these has included x86-64.

  3. Looks like... by Pollux · · Score: 5, Informative

    Intel pulled an AMD.

    So reverse engineering is not a problem in this case. In fact, it's not unlikely that AMD simply handed them the documentation.

    But reverse engineering isn't "Handing them the document," as you put it. They have the right to produce a chip which uses the same instruction set (x86-64) within their chip, but they have to find a way to build it themselves...unless they reverse engineer the design of the chip itself...happens all the time...Z80 ring a bell? AMD did the exact same thing with the Intel 286, 386, and 486...took Intel's chip and reversed the design...until they finally came out with their own design of the 5x86 architecture, the K5. The K5 still used the x86 instruction set, but executed it with their own engineered design. So, maybe this is a good sign of Intel now being the follower instead of the leader.

    1. Re:Looks like... by isdnip · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just to be more specific about the history...

      Intel licensed AMD to produce their designs, as a second source, up through the 80286. Intel masks and all. By the time the 386 came out, Intel didn't need AMD any more (they had multiple fabs and a good enough reputation, plus a lock on PC-compatible chips). So they told AMD that the agreement didn't apply any more. I don't remember if AMD won or lost on the 80386. But it certainly didn't last until the 486. So AMD did their own design, without any help from Intel. The court did note that a number could not be trademarked. It was thus never the "80486"; I think "i486" was a trademark, not that anybody cared, and that's why the next Intel chip was "Pentium".

      AMD's "586"-class chip, the K5, was a dog. They then bought NexGen and adapted its RISC-innard design to the K6, which rocked, and fit a Pentium socket. Intel put tighter patents on the PII socket so AMD built the Athlon on DEC's Alpha socket electrical design.

      Intel didn't have to change the ISA (drop the NX, for instance) in order to be legal. Either they goofed, or they sabotaged their own 64-bit x86 upgrade (as others here have suggested) in order to create a niche for the Itanic.