>"As cores get bigger the extra effort involved in handling the x86 ISA gets proportionally smaller."

Can you elaborate on what you mean here? Do you mean as the number of cores gets bigger? Surely the size of the cores has been shrinking no?

>"Of course Intel has traditionally always used their volume to be ahead in process technology"

What's the correlation between larger volumes and quicker advances in process technology? Is it simply more cash to put back into R and D?

When RISC was first introduced its big advantage was that by reducing the number of instructions it could handle the whole processor could be fit onto a single chip whereas CISC chips took multiple chips. In the modern day it takes a lot more transistors and power to decode 4 x86 instructions in one cycle than 4 RISC instructions because you know the RISC instruction are going to start on bytes 0, 4, 8, and 12 whereas the x86 instructions could be starting on any bytes in the window. So you have to look at most of the bytes as if they could be an instruction start until later in the cycle you figure out if they were or not. And any given bit in the instruction might be put to more possible uses increasing the logical depth of the decoder.

But that complexity only goes up linearly with pipeline depth in constrast to structures like the ROB that grow as the square of the depth. So it's not really a big deal. An ARM server is more likely to just slap on 6 decoders to the front end because "why not?" whereas x86 processors will tend to limit themselves to 4 but that very rarely makes any sort of difference in normal code. The decode stage is just a small proportion of the overall transistor and power cost of a deeply pipelined out of order chip.

In, say, dual-issue in-order processors like an A53 the decode tax of an x86 is actually an issue and that's part of why you don't see BIG.little approaches in x86 land and why atom did so poorly in the phone market.

For your second question, yes, spending more money means you can pursue more R&D and tend to bring up new process nodes more quickly. Being ahead means that your competitors can see which approaches worked out and which didn't and so re-direct their research more profitably for a rubber band effect, plus you're all reliant on the same suppliers for input equipment so a given advantage in expenditure tends to lead to finite rather than ever-increasing lead.

Thanks for the thorough detailed reply, I really appreciate it. I failed to grasp one thing you mentioned which is:

>"is actually an issue and that's part of why you don't see BIG.little approaches in x86 land and why atom did so poorly in the phone market."

Is BIG an acronym here? I had trouble understanding that sentence. Cheers.

I was reproducing an ARM marketing term incorrectly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_big.LITTLE

Basically, the idea is that you have a number of small, low power cores together with a few larger, faster, but less efficient cores. Intel hasn't made anything doing that. Intel also tried to get x86 chips into phones but it didn't work out for them.

Thanks, this is actually a good read and clever bit of marketing. Cheers.