> Because implementing it increased performance which made the numbers which captured market share.
More than the following big things, in both directions?
- A consistent fabrication advantage until very recently? That's said to have wiped out a generation of clever hardware architects, when Intel beat their best efforts with their next process node.
- Falling behind AMD with the Netburst "marchitecture", the front side bus memory bottleneck, and only supporting Itanium as a 64 bit architecture?
- Reversing the above by licencing AMD64, reverting to the same Pentium Pro style design AMD was using, and copying their ccNUMA multi-chip layout (each is directly attached to memory, with fast connections between them).
- AMD losing the plot after the K8 microarchitecture, including putting a huge amount of capital into buying ATI instead of pushing their CPU advantage? And then having to sell off their fabs, putting them at a permanent disadvantage until Intel's "10nm" failed? (And what happened to the K9??)
- Anticompetitive marketing and sales?
> Execution-time attacks and other sidechannel leakage have been well-known for years, and I can't imagine that at a place like Intel, nobody had heard of that.
The strange thing is that security researchers assumed for years that Intel was accounting for this, when it turned out not a single one of AMD, ARM, IBM POWER and mainframe/Z, Intel, MIPS, or SPARC did?
More than the following big things, in both directions?
- A consistent fabrication advantage until very recently? That's said to have wiped out a generation of clever hardware architects, when Intel beat their best efforts with their next process node.
- Falling behind AMD with the Netburst "marchitecture", the front side bus memory bottleneck, and only supporting Itanium as a 64 bit architecture?
- Reversing the above by licencing AMD64, reverting to the same Pentium Pro style design AMD was using, and copying their ccNUMA multi-chip layout (each is directly attached to memory, with fast connections between them).
- AMD losing the plot after the K8 microarchitecture, including putting a huge amount of capital into buying ATI instead of pushing their CPU advantage? And then having to sell off their fabs, putting them at a permanent disadvantage until Intel's "10nm" failed? (And what happened to the K9??)
- Anticompetitive marketing and sales?
> Execution-time attacks and other sidechannel leakage have been well-known for years, and I can't imagine that at a place like Intel, nobody had heard of that.
The strange thing is that security researchers assumed for years that Intel was accounting for this, when it turned out not a single one of AMD, ARM, IBM POWER and mainframe/Z, Intel, MIPS, or SPARC did?