Re: What is Intel IA-32?

From: Beth (BethStone21_at_hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com)
Date: 01/09/05 

Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 21:58:45 GMT

Percival wrote:
> surrealtrauma wrote:
> > dear all, can you tell me what is Intel IA-32? What is it use for??
>
> IA-32 is the 32-bit versions of the 8086 processor.
>
> Meaning 386, 486, Pentium, Pentium MMX, Pentium II, Pentium III, Pentium
> IV, Celerons, AMD chips, and everything else that acts like a pentium.

Indeed, it's what Intel used to call "x86" but they changed to "Intel
Architecture" as the name for the processor family...simply, it's not
permitted by copyright laws and patents and such for them to protect
_numbers_...that is, when AMD and Cyrix and others started creating their
own "80486" chips, then Intel couldn't claim anything over "80486" because
it's just a number...numbers are "exempt" (well, it would be kind of silly
if it were permissible to "copyright" the number, say, 7 or whatever...that
people would have to "get permission" to do arithmetic that featured 7 in
any way because it's a "trademark" ;)...

Hence, the simple "trick" out of this was that Intel didn't call it "80586"
but called it "Pentium" instead (though you can see the "5" is still in
there with "Pent", meaning five :)...now, this was just some word they made
up, so they _could_ "trademark" that and protect it...AMD and others then
had to come up with their own names like "K6" or "Athlon" (or keeping with
586 and 686) or whatever...and I guess Intel's "Hope" was that by not
having the same name, "clueless newbies" wouldn't be sure if AMD's "Athlon"
really was "compatible" or not...also countering their competition with
those "Intel Inside" badges and CPUIDs with a touch of "bias" like
"GENUNINEINTEL" (implying the others are "fakes" somehow ;) was a way to
attack AMD and others back...an edge of "FUD" to it too...the implication
that if it wasn't a "genuine Intel" then it somehow wouldn't work or be any
good (when, really, for a while, AMD had the _real_ "edge" in cheaper,
faster CPUs that really it should have been "genuine AMD" and "Intel
instead" badges ;)...

Plus, the thing that I still can't believe is actually permissible - but
clearly it is because it happens and I doubt companies would go along with
it, if they could avoid it - is that little "Intel jiggle and logo" thing
whenever any company mentions "Intel Pentium" anywhere in their
adverts...oh, you know, Dell are selling their latest PCs and just mention
it's a Pentium IV and then, suddenly, the Dell advert is "suspended"...up
appears the Intel logo and jiggle in the middle of _someone else's_
advert...then it returns to being a Dell advert again...

I guess what's happening is that Intel have introduced a "you are allowed
to mention our trademarked Pentium name _IF_ you show our logo and play our
jingle somewhere in your advert" clause...and computers are a somewhat
"unique" kind of product where it is actually sold on its component parts
(I mean, you don't mention that Motorola makes the CPU running your video
recorder...it's not important...but with PCs, you kind of can't sell them
without mentioning the CPU specifications...it's that kind of product)...so
that this new "free advertising" strategy has emerged from Intel...because
I bet that Intel pays absolutely _nothing_ to get someone else to put up
their logo and jingle - which because it's in so many adverts from other
people as well as their own, is totally "recognisable" (annoyingly so) -
but get a nice 2 seconds or so of advertising time without doing anything
(except supplying them the "official logo and jingle" tape for others to
include ;) or paying anything...and prime time TV advertising space isn't
cheap that this "freeloading" from Intel on others is slightly "tacky" to
my mind...

Anyway, yes, "80x86" changed to "Intel Architecture" and they went to
"Pentium" from 80486...just to make them words rather than numbers, so that
they could apply these "protections" and get their "free advertising"
stuff...to add to the confusion, it becomes "Pentium II", not "Hextium"
("Sextium" would probably be avoided naturally for sounding like some kind
of pornographic thing)...worse, on top of that, the "Pentium III" isn't a
80786, as might be expected...just an "expanded" 80686...Pentium IV is the
'786...indeed, they also kind of didn't move the "architecture" forward
when expected and these new "Pentium" names can actually hide that from
view...

And, once "x86" changes to "Intel Architecture", they also started to use
"IA-32"...which just means "all the 32-bit CPUs of the Intel Architecture
range"...the CPU went "32-bit" with the 80386...and Intel do have a 64-bit
architecture ("IA-64") with the Itanium series but this is, in fact, a
completely different family of chips with a completely different
architecture...well, simply, the IA-64 is something different to the 80x86
range and the CPUs before the '386 are ancient and "obselete" (so who wants
to consider them anymore?)...hence, the "IA-32" is the "catch all" Intel
use...really, they just mean "Pentium chips" (and "Celeron" and "Xeon"
derivatives, which are actually also Pentiums too, really...the alternative
names just basically mean "cheap versions of Pentiums" and "mobile
low-power versions of Pentiums (for laptops and things)" ;)...the
designation does strictly include the '386 and '486 but these are
"obselete" as far as Intel are concern...

So, what "IA-32" basically means, in simple terms (ignoring the ancient
'386 and '486 exceptions), is just "the Pentium design"...if something is
"IA-32" then it's a CPU that's based on the x86 "Pentium" design...that's
roughly what it means in most contexts...so, if you want to get the
"manuals" for your Pentium chip to look at Intel's own documentation about
the assembly machine instructions, it's the "IA-32" manuals you're looking
for on their site...most programmers, mind you (especially those who're a
bit "long in the tooth" ;), tend to prefer the older "x86" name...not least
because that name also includes AMD chips, which Intel, of course, invented
this "IA" name to make it NOT be included (well, they are trying to sell
their own chips here, after all...so "not mentioning the competition", as
if they didn't exist at all, is to be expected...you know, like how the
"Pepsi challenge" was always against "another leading cola" and not just
saying "Coke" outright because that's clearly who they meant...don't give
the competition "free advertising" by mentioning their name all the
time...a "golden rule" in marketing...and also don't mention the
competition in a _negative way_ ("negative advertising") because this tends
to "rebound" back on you...makes you look "bitter"...only American
political adverts regularly disobey this rule and, indeed, do tend to be
looked on as unnecessarily "nasty" and perhaps a little "sour grapes"
attached...but I suppose the problem is simply that once one of them starts
slinging mud, they all start doing it...kind of like a big "food fight"
;)...

So, what they are used for is...well, they are the design that the
"Pentium" (and Pentium-like "alternatives" ;) all follow...it's just the
name for the particular design of these chips...they all essentially have
the same design but have "extras" added every "generation"...so you can
think of them as a "family" of chips and this is the name for that "family"
(and, yes, "family" is the official term for it too :)...just like "Smith"
is a family name...

It's perhaps a little confusing at first because it's all to do with the
"history" of how these processors developed...and, to make things worse,
Intel do, unfortunately, like to suddenly completely change all the names
for everything around (and their rivals - though creating completely
"compatible" processors - are forced to use different names for legal
reasons, even though, really, the AMD chips are "Pentium" too in
design...they just can't legally say that...Intel object to it...it's why
they changed their names too, in order to stop people like AMD and Cyrix
and others from using the "official names"...Hoping that the confusion
would guide a few "clueless newbies" into going along with their "Intel
inside" campaign, as if AMD chips "didn't work" or something...on the
contrary, they work brilliantly - I only have AMDs here myself - and were
_BETTER_ processors at the time Intel started this nonsense by being
slightly faster overall and much cheaper...Intel are "catching up", though
;)...

Also, this might be, unfortunately, a bad time to "joining on"...from the
perspective that AMD have now started adding "64-bit extensions" to their
otherwise 32-bit processors and Intel are "following suit" (the Pentium IV
apparently already has the support in there...but I've not looked into the
details)...this is going to cause a little havoc with Intel's "IA-32" and
"IA-64" names because those refer to "Pentium design" and "Itanium design"
(which are completely different designs)...now "IA-32" is going to become
64-bit but it's NOT "IA-64", which is something different...

Hence, we're probably on the verge of Intel _changing the name_ yet
again...some "IA-32/64" or something silly like that...or maybe they'll
just keep calling it "IA-32", even though it has "64-bit extensions"...I
don't know...time will tell...

All a little confusing, eh? Here are some web links to some "history" sites
that explain it better than I could in a newsgroup post:

http://www.tweak3d.net/articles/x86/
http://jriddell.org/programs/essays/x86-essay.html (someone's "homework"
here, it seems ;)
http://www.pcmech.com/show/processors/35/

Anyway, just picked these up as the first sites from a Google search on
"x86 history"...you can look around yourself for more details...

Beth :)

Loading