zlacker

>>fancy_+(OP)
Statements like

>I’ve directed our teams to define next-generation product families with clean and simple architectures

always make me skeptical. It's said as if teams were focusing on dirty & complicated architectures without a leader to push them in a different direction. It's a meaningless statement at the end of the day.

>>somehn+yt
But Intel got big on its dirty&complicated architecture, didn't they? There's a reason why their processors support more than 2000 different instructions. The only relatively "clean" parts of the architecture are the base 64-bit extensions, which came from AMD, and AES-NI, where the operations were already well-defined before Intel implemented them in hardware.

So for such a statement to be coming from the new Intel CEO could indicate a radical turnaround in Intel's approach to processor development. Or, alternatively, maybe he just hasn't met the company yet.