> AMD, at some point, started cloning x86. Intel would introduce an > instruction set extension and AMD would do their own implementation. > Or so AMD claimed. The two have spent a lot of time in and out of court > fighting over it.
Yup. I believe all their clean-room x86-compatible designs came after (and were largely the result of) Intel stopped licensing the designs for them to fab from the 386 onward. Of course, payback's a female dog, in that while Intel was busy trying to move the world to IA-64, AMD built x64, and Intel was ultimately forced to concede and follow suit... -sc > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ben Scott > Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 12:55 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] Nostalgia > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Steven M. Caesare > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The "(C)Intel" is a copyright notice. It was designed and made by > >> AMD, but AMD licensed some Intel intellectual property for it. :) > > > > You say Intel licensed "some" intellectual property... I believe AMD > > licensed the 80286 from Intel as a whole. > > OK, could be. My memory gets kind of fuzzy going that far back. :) > > > Certainly there are several levels of "design" (package, carrier, > > layout, etc...) but I think lots of folks think of "instruction set & > > processing architecture" when referring to designing a chip family, > > like the 286. > > AMD, at some point, started cloning x86. Intel would introduce an > instruction set extension and AMD would do their own implementation. > Or so AMD claimed. The two have spent a lot of time in and out of court > fighting over it. > > -- Ben >
