• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why doesn't IBM make x86 CPU?

AMDisTheBEST

AMDisTheBEST

Senior member
They have the x86 license and they are more than a match for Intel in size, with 3x the employees and roughly equal amount of assets and revenues. They certainly have the $$$ to invest in R&D for a x86 CPU if they wanted to.
 
No x86 license
Rival Architecture (POWER)
Put plenty of money into other things like software and server equipment development, while Intel is much more IC focused.

What kind of sucks for POWER is just the lack of consumer oriented machines to help mediate some of the costs of
developing it, kind of like Apple being a outlet for POWER CPUs until the switch to Intel.
 
Spot on what Blitzvogel said. They are into "big iron" systems with their Power CPU lines for servers. No need to move in x86 designs as their CPUs are amongst the most powerful.
 
It does surprise me that IBM still remains a force in server computing. A few years ago it seemed Intel was going to take over everything outright.
 
IBM is really only used for supercomputers and massive mainframes nowadays. Intel and x86-64 dominates the SMB world. I cant imagine any SMB going with a POWER line server over Intel or Sparc.
 
Last edited:
AMDisTheBEST said:
They have the x86 license and they are more than a match for Intel in size, with 3x the employees and roughly equal amount of assets and revenues. They certainly have the $$$ to invest in R&D for a x86 CPU if they wanted to.
Click to expand...
They did. I owned a 386SLC and 486SLC back in the day.
 
IBM doesn't seem to make any consumer class CPU's anymore. The POWER line is for Enterprise class servers and mainframes.
 
frowertr said:
IBM is really only used for supercomputers and massive mainframes nowadays. Intel and x86-64 dominates the SMB world. I cant imagine any SMB going with a POWER line server over Intel or Sparc.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't necessarily say that. All of our top-tier clients have a smattering of IBM POWER servers running AIX LPAR workloads. Certainly high end, but not IBM i or z/OS (though some of our clients have those too).

The IBM POWER market is small, but still carries heavy presence in certain industries.
 
Blitzvogel said:
No x86 license
Rival Architecture (POWER)
Put plenty of money into other things like software and server equipment development, while Intel is much more IC focused.

What kind of sucks for POWER is just the lack of consumer oriented machines to help mediate some of the costs of
developing it, kind of like Apple being a outlet for POWER CPUs until the switch to Intel.
Click to expand...
They do have license. It was from the early days when these companies were threatening to sue one another over patent infringement. IBM doesnt seem to have much use of the cross license clause they gained in the settlement at the moment because they dont make x86.
 
Last edited:
AMDisTheBEST said:
They do have license. It was from the early days when these companies were threatening to sue one another over patent infringement. IBM doesnt seem to have much use of the cross license clause they gained in the settlement at the moment because they dont make x86.
Click to expand...
A shame since they could give Intel a good run for their money.
 
thecoolnessrune said:
I wouldn't necessarily say that. All of our top-tier clients have a smattering of IBM POWER servers running AIX LPAR workloads. Certainly high end, but not IBM i or z/OS (though some of our clients have those too).

The IBM POWER market is small, but still carries heavy presence in certain industries.
Click to expand...

Top tier must be really large clients for with VERY specific usage requirements. AIX is definitely not mainstream (SMB mainstream I mean) and is usually used for monster mainframes.

Pretty cool though you get to work in those. Ive yet to see HP-UX in the wild...
 
Last edited:
frowertr said:
Top tier must be really large clients for with VERY specific usage requirements. AIX is definitely not mainstream (SMB mainstream I mean) and is usually used for monster mainframes.

Pretty cool though you get to work in those. Ive yet to see HP-UX in the wild...
Click to expand...

Enterprise UNIX and mainframes are different things. You periodically see the term "mainframe-class", but high-end Power is rarely or never called "mainframe."

Fujitsu GS21 and BusinessServer, Hitachi AP, Unisys Libra and Dorado (sort of), Bull GCOS (also sort of), IBM zSeries, and NEC ACOS are mainframes. HPE Superdome, Fujitsu M-class, and IBM E880 are not.
 
frowertr said:
Top tier must be really large clients for with VERY specific usage requirements. AIX is definitely not mainstream (SMB mainstream I mean) and is usually used for monster mainframes.

Pretty cool though you get to work in those. Ive yet to see HP-UX in the wild...
Click to expand...

Some of them are very large, but most are standard Enterprise. You're right though that IBM AIX is not really SMB Mainstream. There's the Power 710, but even that runs like 4 grand for a very stripped down system.

But AIX isn't really used for Mainframes. Even IBM i, which may be more what you're thinking of, is not really mainframe. The mainframe OS from IBM is z/OS, but IBM has a lot more AIX and IBM i customers than they have z/OS customers.

AIX is an incredibly stable, well-supported UNIX variant, so in enterprise it still has a lot of followers. AIX at this point supports memory compression, and clustering, not to mention big RAS features such as being able to patch the entire kernel without bringing the system down. In a way, it's become its own very competent UNIX Hypervisor with LPARs, which I think contributes to its sales
 
I guess Ive only really seen FreeBSD and Solaris as far as UNIX goes in my (limited) career work. But Im not a full time IT guy either so Im not exposed to it all like it sounds like you guys are.

What unreal is that these big iron systems were doing doing virtualization, measuring RAM in TBs, and using 64 bit CPUs with dozens of cores back in the 90s and just now Intel and AMD are catching on.
 
sirmo said:
Just finished that documentary (you can watch it on Amazon Video). Interesting that those guys still work on new designs. I guess we don't hear much about VIA, as they are mostly in embedded systems and China I think. Cool to know they are still alive and kicking.
Click to expand...
VIA is reviving in China unexpectedly, or better said thanks to the Chinese government (with the company Zhao Xin which made a joint venture) . And seems that Lenovo is being preparing VIA to make a true return when their 16 nm processors are ready, which is a major overhaul on their design if I am not wrong. There are already 1 laptop of that brand using the new VIA processor, which is known now as Zhao Xin.
https://translate.google.sk/translate?hl=sk&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/yajiuma/1048509.html

And no, is not trolling, @Tralalak has more information about that. BTW, Wikipedia must be updated because of that. VIA has a LOT of new information and needs to be known... seems that Intel must be careful now... they fears now of Zen and they should be careful in the lower tier too.

I guess that IBM x86 design is still alive inside VIA processors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top