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.
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 Google isn't always accurate here as their data could be out of date, but they're accurate enough for me to not look further. You can check the other countries as well to see all are pending.
rs186 · 30m ago
Just like articles that say "xx research group publishes new article discovering ..." when it is a preprint on arxiv (especially in "traditional" physical sciences). I mean, they kind of published it, but I would be very careful about reporting work that has not gone through peer review yet.
IsTom · 2h ago
> 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?
euLh7SM5HDFY · 2h ago
As bad as it worked out I don't think Itanium tried to break Amdahl's law. And that is how I understand this magic multicore execution of single-thread code.
jerf · 1h ago
I'm surprised they even pursued this line of research, though they may be considering it just as a basic territory claim that they don't have a high expectation of turning into anything. Research into "implicit parallelism" has been done a lot over the years and the consistent result has been that there is a lot less than people intuitively think, and I mean, a lot less. I wouldn't hold out much hope for this... but then again, in a world of nearly frozen clock speeds, it wouldn't take much to stand out.
IsTom · 2h ago
With Itanium they assumed that "smart compilers" would locally parallelize programs.
ch_123 · 56m ago
This feels like Intel's researchers explored an idea, and decided to patent it as a matter of routine. The limits of ILP in typical applications are well documented, and I can't imagine that issuing dozens of instructions at once is likely to be useful outside of some very specific benchmarks.
Perhaps one use is to compete with GPUs, but even a multi core CPU is not likely to compete with a GPU in terms of number of arithmetic/vector units.
arccy · 2h ago
how long until we get something like spectre for this...
snickerbockers · 2h ago
I doubt it, based on TFA it looks like it has more in common with multi-issue pipelining and ooe than speculative execution.
mhh__ · 1h ago
Isn't the whole point of OOE that the design is inherently speculative otherwise there's basically nothing to dispatch?
neuroelectron · 2h ago
There's a lot of processor state in each core which would be a great place to hide exploits when the microcode is assuming synced operation between cores.
jokoon · 32m ago
by TFA you mean the fucking article?
why swear? not I have a problem with it
Cthulhu_ · 29m ago
I don't get it either, seems to be a HN culture thing. I get it when people reply to people who haven't read the article (like in RTFM), but it's often used unsolicited and IMO unnecessary.
brnt · 2h ago
(Dynamic?) Software Bulldozer? What could possibly go wrong?
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 here as their data could be out of date, but they're accurate enough for me to not look further. You can check the other countries as well to see all are pending.
Itanium is back again?
Perhaps one use is to compete with GPUs, but even a multi core CPU is not likely to compete with a GPU in terms of number of arithmetic/vector units.
why swear? not I have a problem with it