Less than a day is left before the start of sales of the new AMD EPYC™ Rome processors. In this article, we decided to recall how the history of rivalry between the two largest CPU manufacturers began.
The first 8-bit commercially available processor in the world was the Intel® i8008, released in 1972. The processor had a clock frequency of 200 kHz, was made according to a 10 micron (10000 nm) process and was intended for "advanced" calculators, input-output terminals and bottle filling machines.
In 1974, this processor became the basis for the Mark-8 microcomputer, presented as a DIY project on the cover of Radio-Electronics magazine. The author of the project, Jonathan Titus, offered to everyone a $ 5 booklet containing drawings of printed circuit board conductors and a description of the assembly process. Soon a similar project of the Altair 8800 personal microcomputer, created by MITS (Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems), was born.
The beginning of the rivalry
2 years after the creation of the i8008, Intel released its new chip - i8080, based on the improved i8008 architecture and made using a 6 micron (6000 nm) process technology. This processor was about 10 times faster than its predecessor (clocked at 2 MHz) and received a more advanced instruction set.
The reverse engineering of the Intel® i8080 processor by three talented engineers, Sean and Kim Haley and Jay Kumar, resulted in a modified clone dubbed AMD AM9080.
Initially, AMD Am9080 was released without a license, but later a license agreement was signed with Intel. Thus, both companies gained an advantage in the chip markets, as buyers tried to avoid possible dependence on a single supplier. The very first sales were extremely profitable, since the cost of production was 50 cents, and the chips themselves were actively bought by the military for $ 700 apiece.
After that, Kim Haley decided to try his hand at reverse engineering the Intel® EPROM 1702 memory chip. At that time, it was the most advanced persistent memory technology. The idea was only partially successful - the created clone stored data for only 3 weeks at room temperature.
After breaking many chips and based on his knowledge of chemistry, Kim concluded that without knowing the exact growth temperature of the oxide, it would be impossible to achieve Intel's claimed figures (10 years at 85 degrees). Showing a talent for social engineering, he called the Intel factory and asked what temperature their ovens were running at. Surprisingly, he was told the exact figure, 830 degrees, without hesitation. Bingo! Of course, such tricks could not but entail negative consequences.
First trial
In early 1981, Intel was preparing to enter into a contract for the production of processors with IBM, at that time the largest computer manufacturer in the world. Intel itself did not yet have sufficient production capacity to meet the needs of IBM, so in order not to lose the contract, a compromise had to be made. This compromise was a licensing agreement between Intel and AMD, which allowed the latter to start producing clones of the Intel® 8086, 80186 and 80286.
After 4 years, the latest Intel® 86 was introduced to the x80386 processor market with a clock speed of 33 MHz and made using a 1 micron (1000 nm) process technology. AMD was also preparing a similar chip at the time called Am386™, but the release was delayed indefinitely due to Intel's categorical refusal to provide technology data as part of a licensing agreement. This was the reason for going to court.
As part of the lawsuit, Intel tried to argue that the terms of the agreement only apply to processors of previous generations released before 80386. AMD, in turn, insisted that the terms of the agreement allow it not only to reproduce 80386, but also future models based on the x86 architecture.
Litigation dragged on for several years and ended in victory for AMD (Intel paid AMD $1 billion). The trust relationship between the companies came to an end, and Am386™ was released only in 1991. However, the processor was in high demand as it ran at a higher frequency than the original (40 MHz versus 33 MHz).
Development of competition
The first processor in the world based on a hybrid CISC-RISC core and having a math coprocessor (FPU) directly on the same die was the Intel® 80486. The FPU made it possible to significantly accelerate floating point operations, removing the load from the CPU. Another innovation was the introduction of a pipeline mechanism for executing instructions, which also increased performance. The size of one element was from 600 to 1000 nm, and already from 0,9 to 1,6 million transistors were placed on the crystal.
AMD, in turn, introduced a full functional analogue called Am486 using the Intel® 80386 microcode and the Intel® 80287 coprocessor. This circumstance has been the subject of numerous lawsuits. A 1992 judgment confirmed that AMD had infringed on the FPU 80287 microcode, after which the company began developing its own microcode.
Further litigation alternately confirmed and denied AMD's rights to use Intel® microcodes. The Supreme Court of California put an end to these issues, declaring AMD's right to use microcode 80386 illegal. The result was the signing of an agreement between both companies, which still allowed AMD to manufacture and sell processors containing microcode 80287, 80386 and 80486.
Other players in the x86 market, such as Cyrix, Texas Instruments and UMC, also sought to repeat Intel's success by releasing functional analogues of the 80486 chip. One way or another, they did not succeed. UMC dropped out of the race after an injunction against selling its Green CPU in the US. Cyrix failed to secure lucrative contracts with major assemblers, and there were litigations with Intel over the exploitation of proprietary technologies. Thus, only Intel and AMD remained the leaders of the x86 market.
Building up the pace
In an effort to win the championship, both Intel and AMD tried to achieve maximum performance and speed. Thus, AMD was the first in the world to break the 1 GHz bar with the release of its Athlon™ (37 million transistors, 130 nm) based on the Thunderbird core. At this point in the race, Intel was having LXNUMX cache instability issues with its Coppermine-based Pentium® III, which caused the product to be delayed.
An interesting fact is that the name Athlon comes from the ancient Greek language and can be translated as “competition” or “a place of battle, arena”.
The release of the dual-core Athlon ™ X2 processor (90 nm) became the same successful stages for AMD, and 2 years later the Quad-Core Opteron ™ (65 nm), where all 4 cores are grown on a single die, and do not represent an assembly of 2 dies 2 cores each. At the same time, Intel is releasing its famous Core™ 2 Duo and Core™ 2 Quad, made using 65nm process technology.
Along with the increase in clock frequencies and the increase in the number of cores, the issue of mastering new technological processes, as well as entering other markets, has become acute. AMD's largest deal was the purchase of ATI Technologies for $5,4 billion. Thus, AMD entered the graphics accelerator market and became Nvidia's main competitor. Intel, in turn, acquired one of the divisions of Texas Instruments, as well as Altera for $16,7 billion. The result was the entry into the market of programmable logic integrated circuits and SoCs for consumer electronics.
A notable fact is that since 2009, AMD has abandoned its own production, focusing exclusively on development. Modern AMD processors are produced at the production facilities of GlobalFoundries and TSMC. Intel, on the contrary, continues to develop its own production facilities for the production of semiconductor elements.
Since 2018, in addition to direct competition, both companies have also had joint projects. A prime example was the release of the 8th Gen Intel® Core™ processors with AMD Radeon™ RX Vega M integrated graphics, bringing together the strengths of both companies. This solution will reduce the size of laptops and mini-computers, while increasing performance and battery life.
Conclusion
Throughout the history of the existence of both companies, there have been many episodes of disagreements and mutual claims. The struggle for leadership was continuous and continues to this day. This year we saw a major update to the Intel® Xeon® Scalable Processors lineup, as we've already covered. , and now it's AMD's turn to take the stage.
Very soon, new AMD EPYC™ Rome processors will appear in our laboratory. about their arrival first.
Source: habr.com