"The total number of x86 instructions is well above one thousand " (!!)



" (!!) "CPU dispatching ... makes the code bigger, and it is so costly in terms of development time and maintenance costs that it is almost never done in a way that adequately optimizes for all brands of CPUs."

"the decoding of instructions can be a serious bottleneck, and it becomes worse the more complicated the instruction codes are"

The costs of supporting obsolete instructions is not negligible. You need large execution units to support a large number of instructions. This means more silicon space, longer data paths, more power consumption, and slower execution.

Summarized: Intel and AMD's proprietary x86 additions cost us all money. How much is hard to calculate, but our CPUs are consuming extra energy and underperform as decoders and execution units are unnecessary complicated. The software industry is wasting quite a bit of time and effort supporting different extensions.

Should 99% of market lose money and flexibility because 1% of the market might get a performance boost?

Not convinced, still thinking that this only concerns the HPC crowd? The virtualization platforms contain up to 8% more code just to support the incompatible virtualization instructions which are offering almost exactly the same features. Each VMM is 4% bigger because of this. So whether you are running Hyper-V, VMware ESX or Xen, you are wasting valuable RAM space. It is not dramatic of course, but it unnecessary waste. Much worse is that this unstandarized x86 extention mess has made it a lot harder for datacenters to make the step towards a really dynamic environment where you can load balance VMs and thus move applications from one server to another on the fly. It is impossible to move (vmotion, live migrate) a VM from Intel to AMD servers, from newer to (some) older ones, and you need to fiddle with CPU masks in some situations just to make it work (and read complex tech documents ).





The reason why Intel and AMD still continue with this is that some people inside feel that can create a "competitive edge". I believe this "competitive edge" is neglible: how many people have bought an Intel "Nehalem" CPU because it has the new SSE 4.2 instructions? How much software is supporting yet another x86 instruction addition?



Agner Fog, a Danish expert in software optimization is making a plea for an open and standarized procedure for x86 instruction set extensions. Af first sight, this may seem a discussion that does not concern most of us. After all, the poor souls that have to program the insanely complex x86 compilers will take care of the complete chaos called "the x86 ISA", right? Why should the average the developer, system administrator or hardware enthusiast care?Agner goes in great detail why the incompatible SSE-x.x additions and other ISA extensions were and are a pretty bad idea, but let me summarize it in a few quotes:So I fully support Agner Fog in his quest to a (slightly) less chaotic and more standarized x86 instruction set.