Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel Patents 'Software Defined Supercore'

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–28 of 28 posts

Re: Intel Patents 'Software Defined Supercore'

#21

Post by dkiebd »

btrettel wrote: post #6

The headline is inaccurate. As far as I can tell, no patents have been granted yet. Intel filed patent applications . Failure to distinguish between applications and granted patents is far too common. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20250217157A1/en See the sidebar on the right? Look at "Application US18/401,460 events". Note that the status is "Pending" and not "Active" or "Expired". Google isn't always accurate…

Okay? This is not relevant. What matters here is that they have developed this technology. “Patents” in the title of the article is a way of saying that they have developed the technology.

Re: Intel Patents 'Software Defined Supercore'

#22

Post by BuildTheRobots »

hakfoo wrote: post #20
IsTom wrote: post #5

> On the software side, the system uses either a JIT compiler, static compiler, or binary instrumentation to split a single-threaded program into code segments to assign different blocks to different cores. It injects special instructions for flow control, register passing, and sync behavior, enabling the hardware to maintain execution integrity. Itanium is back again?

I always thought there was value in a simpler take on this. Especially in the commercial-software world, not everything is compiled for the exact foibles of your current CPU. Why aren't we running a JIT from x86 to "optimized subset of x86"? how much performance could it buy us?

They kinda do - microcode translates x86(_64) into micro-opts for actual execution. If you go back far enough to the P6 the actual execution core was essentially RISC [1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36380149

Re: Intel Patents 'Software Defined Supercore'

#23

Post by btrettel »

dkiebd wrote: post #21
btrettel wrote: post #6

The headline is inaccurate. As far as I can tell, no patents have been granted yet. Intel filed patent applications . Failure to distinguish between applications and granted patents is far too common. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20250217157A1/en See the sidebar on the right? Look at "Application US18/401,460 events". Note that the status is "Pending" and not "Active" or "Expired". Google isn't always accurate…

Okay? This is not relevant. What matters here is that they have developed this technology. “Patents” in the title of the article is a way of saying that they have developed the technology.

I don't agree. I think most people would think that "patents" implies that a patent office has granted a patent.

For what it's worth, confusing patents and patent applications is a pet peeve of mine as a former patent examiner. I've seen people criticize the USPTO for apparently granting a patent on some nonsense, but when I look at it, the USPTO rejected the application. The problem is that people can't tell the difference between a patent application and patent. I saw an opportunity to clarify this issue and I took it.

Re: Intel Patents 'Software Defined Supercore'

#25

Post by Doxin »

dkiebd wrote: post #21
btrettel wrote: post #6

The headline is inaccurate. As far as I can tell, no patents have been granted yet. Intel filed patent applications . Failure to distinguish between applications and granted patents is far too common. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20250217157A1/en See the sidebar on the right? Look at "Application US18/401,460 events". Note that the status is "Pending" and not "Active" or "Expired". Google isn't always accurate…

Okay? This is not relevant. What matters here is that they have developed this technology. “Patents” in the title of the article is a way of saying that they have developed the technology.

> What matters here is that they have developed this technology.

Having a pending patent, or even a granted patent, does not mean the technology described has been invented. There are many many patents on all sorts of infinite energy devices for example. It should go without saying that none of those work.

Re: Intel Patents 'Software Defined Supercore'

#26

Post by gnirre »

btrettel wrote: post #23
dkiebd wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay? This is not relevant. What matters here is that they have developed this technology. “Patents” in the title of the article is a way of saying that they have developed the technology.

I don't agree. I think most people would think that "patents" implies that a patent office has granted a patent. For what it's worth, confusing patents and patent applications is a pet peeve of mine as a former patent examiner. I've seen people criticize the USPTO for apparently granting a patent on some nonsense, but when I look at it, the USPTO rejected the application. The problem is that people can't tell the dif…

” The headline is inaccurate. As far as I can tell, no patents have been granted yet”

Thats not how you need to interpret ”patents” grammatically. You could read that as ”is in the process of patenting”

Is there a good verb for ”files patent applications for”?

You want to consider readability of the headline.

Re: Intel Patents 'Software Defined Supercore'

#27

Post by snickerbockers »

mhh__ wrote: post #12
snickerbockers wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt it, based on TFA it looks like it has more in common with multi-issue pipelining and ooe than speculative execution.

Isn't the whole point of OOE that the design is inherently speculative otherwise there's basically nothing to dispatch?

Not necessarily, there are still situations where the order can be optimized which don't involve branches.

Re: Intel Patents 'Software Defined Supercore'

#28

Post by snickerbockers »

jokoon wrote: post #14
snickerbockers wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt it, based on TFA it looks like it has more in common with multi-issue pipelining and ooe than speculative execution.

by TFA you mean the fucking article? why swear? not I have a problem with it

Technically you're the only one here who did that.
Post reply on HN