Top Researchers Leave Intel To Build Startup With 'The Biggest, Baddest CPU' (oregonlive.com) 104
An anonymous reader quotes a report from OregonLive: Together, the four founders of Beaverton startup AheadComputing spent nearly a century at Intel. They were among Intel's top chip architects, working years in advance to develop new generations of microprocessors to power the computers of the future. Now they're on their own, flying without a net, building a new class of microprocessor on an entirely different architecture from Intel's. Founded a year ago, AheadComputing is trying to prove there's a better way to design computer chips.
"AheadComputing is doing the biggest, baddest CPU in the world," said Debbie Marr, the company's CEO. [...] AheadComputing is betting on an open architecture called RISC-V -- RISC stands for "reduced instruction set computer." The idea is to craft a streamlined microprocessor that works more efficiently by doing fewer things, and doing them better than conventional processors. For AheadComputing's founders and 80 employees, many of them also Intel alumni, it's a major break from the kind of work they've been doing all their careers. They've left a company with more than 100,000 workers to start a business with fewer than 100.
"Every person in this room," Marr said, looking across a conference table at her colleagues, "we could have stayed at Intel. We could have continued to do very exciting things at Intel." They decided they had a better chance at leading a revolution in semiconductor technology at a startup than at a big, established company like Intel. And AheadComputing could be at the forefront of renewal in Oregon's semiconductor ecosystem. "We see this opportunity, this light," Marr said. "We took our chances." It'll be years before AheadComputing's designs are on the market, but the company "envisions its chips will someday power PCs, laptops and data centers," reports OregonLive. "Possible clients could include Google, Amazon, Samsung or other large computing companies."
"AheadComputing is doing the biggest, baddest CPU in the world," said Debbie Marr, the company's CEO. [...] AheadComputing is betting on an open architecture called RISC-V -- RISC stands for "reduced instruction set computer." The idea is to craft a streamlined microprocessor that works more efficiently by doing fewer things, and doing them better than conventional processors. For AheadComputing's founders and 80 employees, many of them also Intel alumni, it's a major break from the kind of work they've been doing all their careers. They've left a company with more than 100,000 workers to start a business with fewer than 100.
"Every person in this room," Marr said, looking across a conference table at her colleagues, "we could have stayed at Intel. We could have continued to do very exciting things at Intel." They decided they had a better chance at leading a revolution in semiconductor technology at a startup than at a big, established company like Intel. And AheadComputing could be at the forefront of renewal in Oregon's semiconductor ecosystem. "We see this opportunity, this light," Marr said. "We took our chances." It'll be years before AheadComputing's designs are on the market, but the company "envisions its chips will someday power PCs, laptops and data centers," reports OregonLive. "Possible clients could include Google, Amazon, Samsung or other large computing companies."
Good luck (Score:1, Flamebait)
On the other hand maybe you will score a few patents and get a buyout.
With the absolute complete lack of antitrust law enforcement that's really all anyone can hope for anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
I can imagine there could be a shift of some venture capital going from AI to them.
What better opportunity to mold a new CPU architecture to have AI support from the ground up and leave obsolete cruft behind?
Re: (Score:1)
What better opportunity to mold a new CPU architecture to have AI support from the ground up and leave obsolete cruft behind?
Everyone thinks "I'm going to start over and eliminate all the old mistakes". And they just create all new mistakes that are just as bad as the old ones. The "obsolete cruft" has been tested and refined and it works. I hope they are successful, but history says otherwise.
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone thinks "I'm going to start over and eliminate all the old mistakes".
But they're not "starting over". They're using RISC-V, which is a mature instruction set with existing toolchains.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
DEC with Alpha?
Re: (Score:2)
When our best Intel server was a P-166 we also had an 550 mhz Alpha, which IIRC also had multiple pipelines.
Re: Good luck (Score:2)
If investors thought that had a real chance of happening, they wouldn't invest.
Besides, intel likely doesn't see this as any more of a threat than other architectures that had the same goals, like PowerPC.
No, the world still hasn't ended. Go back to your fidget spinner, I'll let you know when you can stop.
Re: Good luck (Score:5, Insightful)
Intel *do* have an interest in Risc-V - at one point they were investing in Horse Creek and exploring plans to acquire SiFive.
But given their 'core focus' announcements of the past few months, no side project on another architecture is going to pass muster, so it may well be that Intel management encouraged the spin off startup.
Going back to something akin to Horse Creek, what would be a likely scenario is if Ahead used their contacts within Intel to fab their designs on a compute-module form factor that could be plugged in as a daughter card to an otherwise Intel setup where the erstwhile parent company already provided assorted upstream Linux drivers for ethernet, wifi, and GPU.
Re: Good luck (Score:1)
Isn't this how half of Silicon Valley 1.0 started? Researchers/designers/scientists leave one company to start their own? Why is this so noteworthy?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Intel's founders included many of the Traitorous Eight [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because of the people involved, which makes them more likely to be successful than other startups.
Re: (Score:2)
prevent Intel from using their Monopoly to crush you.
What monopoly?
Lately, Intel has been a crushee, not a crusher.
Re: Good luck (Score:2)
I would like to see them not only succeed but also work a new gpu design
Wrong name, bad vibe (Score:4, Funny)
Big Beautiful Chip would have done it.
Cerebras laughs (Score:3)
I have never been very impressed with the level of hype in Cerebras's self-promotion, but their ridiculously large [cerebras.ai] chips currently hold the title for "biggest, baddest CPU" and will not be easy to displace.
Re: (Score:3)
With blackjack and hookers! (Score:3)
On second thought, forget the CPU.
RISC-V is going to win. (Score:2)
First, RISC-V being open source will result in widespread and extraordinary development. Much of it will be successful in enhancing performance, losing power consumption, and introducing new capabilities.
Second, this team might be thinking of the next big leap forward, something entirely new, leapfrogging RISC-V, maybe keeping the open source advantage.
But RISC-V will win, it will advance behind its only true competition, ARM, and leaving the other major legacy players behind.
Re: (Score:1)
2025 = Year of the RISC-V desktop!!! ... O wait that still hasn't happened for Linux so yea not going to happen.
Re: (Score:1)
Desktop is so 90s...
Re: RISC-V is going to win. (Score:2)
Desktop and server is where the performance is.
Laptops suffers from cooling issues that causes them to throttle after a few seconds.
Re: RISC-V is going to win. (Score:2)
My laptop suffers no such trouble with heavy workloads. But the majority of work today seems to be done in a browser. Other than Facebook gobbling up 1.8GB RAM after leafing through Marketplace, a Surface Laptop 4 is able to do plenty of work. A more current version no less. Other brands do just fine. As business apps more often become browser based raw performance is less of a concern. I don't have to work on big jobs in VSC etc, but when I do my laptop doesn't fail me at all. I didn't game like that, so I
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like it's fine, but when you then experience it simultaneously with a desktop with similar specs you'll discover that the laptop is lagging behind.
It's only at really heavy workloads you'll discover that the CPU is throttling but it won't tell you it is.
Re: RISC-V is going to win. (Score:2)
Obviously your workload demands a desktop machine. Mine I doubt will. Right tool for the right job.
Many of us just don't need as much.
Year of the Linux Desktop ... (Score:4)
2025 = Year of the RISC-V desktop!!! ... O wait that still hasn't happened for Linux so yea not going to happen.
We have already had the Year of the Linux Desktop. Surprisingly, it was the Year of Linux on the Windows Desktop. As Microsoft allowed Windows users to run various Graphical Linux distributions on the Windows Desktop using the Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL2). Linux Distros install by the Microsoft App Store.
However 2025 is The Year of the RISC-V microcontroller. $5 on the Raspberry Pi Pico 2 microcontroller. ARM and RISC-V cores.
https://www.raspberrypi.com/pr... [raspberrypi.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No we didn't. Permission != Adoption. 99% of computer users in the world don't know what Linux is, much less use it in Windows, in a VM, or natively.
Re: Year of the Linux Desktop ... (Score:2)
And meanwhile most computer users do use it, they just don't know it.
Re: (Score:2)
And meanwhile most computer users do use it, they just don't know it.
They use the Linux kernel. Not the Linux operating system. Two very different things.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to be that guy, but Linux is not an operating unto itself. What you're referring to is GNU/Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to be that guy, but Linux is not an operating unto itself. What you're referring to is GNU/Linux.
True, but hardly anyone refers to it that way. And the farther you get from the technically inclined the rarer it gets. As much as it upsets Stallman, "Linux" is essentially overloaded and could refer to kernel or OS. Context usually making the usage clear.
:-)
Say "GNU/Linux" to most and they'll thinks its some customized Ubuntu distro.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the reasons it upsets Stallman is that it leads to this kind of confusion and ambiguity. Android runs Linux just like my desktop does. The difference between Android and GNU/Linux is the rest of the environment around the kernel. I agree that we typically shorten GNU/Linux to just Linux when we're talking about desktop operating systems, but when the topic is broadened to talk about non-desktop OSes, it doesn't make sense to say that Android uses the Linux kernel but not the Linux operating system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what you mean by host, but I think you just explained my point about how both Android and GNU/Linux use the Linux kernel, but are different operating systems because of the rest of the environment.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what you mean by host, but I think you just explained my point about how both Android and GNU/Linux use the Linux kernel, but are different operating systems because of the rest of the environment.
Regarding hosting, does this help any: The Linux kernel is a behind the scenes host for Android, it loads and runs the core application (Android) and provides some run-time support (ex I/o drivers) to the application. Like many embedded projects, and various internet appliances. A router, a NAS box, a "smart" whatever, etc. Where the core application would be the router application, the NAS application, etc.
Under the Linux OS, if we replaced the Linux kernel with the BSD kernel, what would not break in u
Re: (Score:2)
Haha a litle bit more confusing :) Sounds like the Linux kernel is a behind the scenes kernel for Android :p I think we mostly agree, Linux is the kernel, the rest of the environment is something else and these things can be mixed and matched in some ways. Android could switch from a Linux kernel to BSD just like you can have GNU/BSD on the desktop if you want. There's currently a project to run GNU/Linux on phones and we recognize it as different than Android because of the environment in which software ru
Re: (Score:2)
The kernel loads and runs some piece of software, and provides run-time support. On *nix platforms that software is an individual application. A collection of these applications can be a *nix user land. On Android that software is a complete self contained operating system, Android itself.
Re: Year of the Linux Desktop ... (Score:2)
Android does not equal Linux
Hybrid Commercial / FOSS / *nix toolchain env (Score:2)
No we didn't. Permission != Adoption. 99% of computer users in the world don't know what Linux is, much less use it in Windows, in a VM, or natively.
Many Linux devs move from native Linux to macOS years ago. Since "Linux" apps and utils are rarely Linux specific, typically really targeting POSIX and run on nearly any *nix platform. Same for FOSS, rarely Linux required. So many devs for the ability to have simultaneous access to commercial and FOSS compelling.
And more recently we have been seeing the same with Windows. The ability to run full GUI Linux on the commercial desktop (*). Simultaneous access to commercial and FOSS being compelling again.
the ecosystem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: the ecosystem (Score:2)
ARM and/or its licensees already use these elements, they license or co-license them. The premium is paid for the CPU. Of course, in mobile, the whole ecosystem needs to be considered. That's almost the easy part, unless the legacy partners (ARM, Intel, Samsung, etc) choose to leverage their positions and refuse to sell into the RISC-V market...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm waiting for RISC-VII
or maybe RISC-VIII
(Of course RISC-IX would be taken out by the Butlerian Jihad)
Re: RISC-V is going to win. (Score:2)
Way to spice things up.
Re: RISC-V is going to win. (Score:2)
Sell (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I gambled on bit of their stock after their big drop last year, but if their senior technical folks are bailing, time to get out.
Any time you say "I see a signal so it's time to sell/buy", the actual time was weeks ago. Unless you are an electronic trader responding to freshly published information.
That's not saying you shouldn't sell. But this news could already be built into the price, and it could be time to buy. It's really hard to tell.
Re: Sell (Score:2)
"I gambled on bit of their stock after their big drop last year, but if their senior technical folks are bailing, time to get out."
Senior technical people have been leaving Intel for over a decade.
Other companies have been doing better technical work, come with less political infighting, cancel products less often, and pay significantly more.
Noncompete? (Score:2)
The article doesn't say if these people were bound by some kind of noncompete agreement. If they were, that could be a big hurdle for them.
Noncompete- trade secrets & customer relations (Score:3)
The article doesn't say if these people were bound by some kind of noncompete agreement. If they were, that could be a big hurdle for them.
In Oregon the noncompetes seem to be limited, focused on trade secrets and customer relationships. So general CPU architecture design and development experience is not prohibited. The timespan is also limited to 12-months, which of course does not end an obligation to protect a former employer's trade secrets.
Re: Noncompete? (Score:2)
Re: Noncompete? (Score:2)
Re: Noncompete? (Score:2)
Dade said it in 1995 (Score:2)
"Risc is good".
Please Intel... (Score:2)
Start focusing on clock speed and core count again. Stop trying to make chips that go faster by predicting the future in ways that are highly exploitable by malware.
Re:Please Intel... (Score:4)
Start focusing on clock speed and core count again. Stop trying to make chips that go faster by predicting the future in ways that are highly exploitable by malware.
They would if they could, but Physics has something to say about faster clock speeds. Intel has been telling devs for decades that future gains will mainly be through additional cores. I suppose you can add dedicated coprocessors too, like GPUs.
Re: (Score:2)
I think "dedicated coprocessors" are going to have longer traces, and thus be slower, unless, perhaps, you connect them with an optical link. (That, of course, has its own problems.)
Re: (Score:2)
I think "dedicated coprocessors" are going to have longer traces, and thus be slower, unless, perhaps, you connect them with an optical link. (That, of course, has its own problems.)
I'm thinking integrated into the package, like embedded GPUs, Neural Engines, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop trying to make chips that go faster by predicting the future in ways that are highly exploitable by malware.
That seems like short-term thinking. A better approach would be to figure out how to do the future-prediction optimizations in ways that malware cannot exploit, so we can reap the benefits of the optimizations.
Re: (Score:2)
In case you did not notice, Intel is dead. They ignored the writing on the wall for a decade or two too long, while their profits were still excellent. Same thing that has happened to Boeing and that will happen to Microsoft pretty soon.
FWIW, RISC-V available on Raspberry Pi Pico 2 - $5 (Score:5, Informative)
"The unique dual-core, dual-architecture capability of RP2350 allows users to choose between a pair of industry-standard Arm Cortex-M33 cores, and a pair of open-hardware Hazard3 cores, giving developers a chance to experiment with the RISCV architecture in a stable, well-supported environment."
https://www.raspberrypi.com/pr... [raspberrypi.com]
Re:FWIW, RISC-V available on Raspberry Pi Pico 2 - (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Newer ESP32s also.
Yes, the ESP32-C family. Although it's a pure RISC-V implementation, as opposed to their normal LX implementation. None of this fancy 2 architectures in one like the Pico 2.
and history repeats itself (Score:3)
"call me Zilog" . . .
perhaps they could call this processor the "Z80,000" :)
Nearly a century at Intel (Score:2)
which the use case makes them money? (Score:2)
These people sound very skilled and ambitious and may come up with an extra-snazzy RISC-V implementation, but there is already a lot of that out there. Maybe they can design devices that run Linux fast enough and cheap enough to sell as a commodity product. More power to them.
The real money at this point is in Nvidia-scale hardware and the associated software. As the article stated, the "professor who teaches microprocessor design and computer architecture" is "skeptical that it can prevail as the industry
Heard this tune before (Score:3)
I've heard this before: Transmeta, IDT, Cyrix, NexGen, Chips & Tech, TI, UMC, etc.. They all announced the next big CPU too but most either didn't live up to their claim or were bought out by the big usual suspects.
Re:Heard this tune before (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting name you put first. Transmeta's failure was one of timing. The thought of a processor focused on low thermal and power envelope was simply not understood and their product fobbed off as irrelevant. If they had started a decade later they may very well have become the ARM of today, a name I chose to write to demonstrate that yes it is actually possible for an outside company to enter the computing CPU market and in some cases even dominate (see Apple)
Re: (Score:2)
It is my understanding that the VLIW model hinged on the compiler doing the critical work, but no one ever managed to write such a compiler.
Re: (Score:2)
That was also an issue of timing. This is one problem that Intel found in its Itanium systems too. You need software compiled for it. Back in the early 2000s it was unthinkable. Heck it was unthinkable the first 3 times that Microsoft attempted to build ARM for Windows.
These days things are looking a bit different from a market perspective. We see more and more platform specific software available.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually gave Transmeta a try years ago. I purchased a Compaq TC1000 tablet PC and the product was very well thought out. The Transmeta CPU though was hugely under powered for the task. A coworker of mine purchased the TC1100 a year later that contained a Pentium M CPU and it made the tablet amazing. His battery life was right on par with mine as well even though the Transmeta CPU was supposed to be superior in this regard. I also used a few of those Cyrix upgrade CPUs back in the 386/486 days. They were
Low-power CPUs were a thing before Transmeta (Score:2)
The Transmeta Crusoe was introduced in 2000. Low-power CPUs for hand-held devices had already been a thing for years. The main competitors in that space in the '90s were Hitachi SuperH (SH-2 since 1992, SH-3 since 1994) and various ARM implementations (e.g. DEC StrongARM that powered the later Newton MessagePads only drew 1W at 233MHz). There were also things like Motorola ColdFire and the PowerPC 400 series.
The Transmeta Crusoe just didn't perform well. x86 hasn't done well in low-power applications fo
Re: (Score:2)
Low-power CPUs for hand-held devices had already been a thing for years.
Being a thing is not the same as being a market. I remember being the only kid at school with a laptop, and removing the CD drive to make space for a second battery so I could use it for a few hours. Power efficiency wasn't on anyone's radar because we had space. There was no expectation for thin small devices, and we could have decent sized heatsinks. Anything smaller than a bulky brick of a laptop back in that day didn't need the power of a desktop processor. Transmeta weren't targeting handheld gadgets t
Re: (Score:2)
Low power high-end computing is exactly what the PowerPC 400 series delivered. It ultimately ended up being used to implement the Blue Gene/P supercomputer, where the limiting factor was the number of cores you could fit in a cabinet without exceeding the power and cooling capacity.
Even the PowerPC 603 (1994) and its successors (including the PowerPC 750 line) were optimised for
Re: (Score:2)
You likely meant one or two decades earlier.
Also the focus was not power consumption, but on the fly transpiling of other CPUs opcodes.
Whatever they are doing TFA doesn't explain it (Score:2)
RISC hasn't been new for decades.
RISC V isn't new either. There are many players already.
Neither can be the foundation for a major new player unless the founders are idiots and I doubt they are.
So, whatever wrinkle will set them apart is something not disclosed in TFA or any other source I have found.
Re: Whatever they are doing TFA doesn't explain it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing sets them apart. They are merely trying to capitalize of "INTEL!" as long as the average dumb "investor" has not nioticed that Intel is essentially dead by suicide.
Ex-Beast Lake Engineers (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Plain old SMT does that, just not to a very large degree. It runs two threads, on shared resources where a resource can be "rented" by one thread or the other.
Re: (Score:2)
What, Intel had a Jim Keller design and killed it? How stupid can you get?
Steve Jobs quote (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be the same dumbass that thought homeopathy can cure cancer, right?
The article summary (Score:2)
reads like an 80s ad.... Risc is the future Risc is so much faster, we are going to build a risc design...
There has always been a better way (Score:2)
There has always been a better way, but stubborn fascination with x86 has held the chip industry back for decades. It is definitely time to move on and I'm glad someone has taken it up.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be unaware or ARM, MIPS, RISK-V, and some other architecture. No, these jokers will not contribute anything worthhile.
Re: (Score:1)
Apologies... when they said they planned on the "biggest, baddest CPU," I naturally assumed they were talking about x86 desktop and server processors, not lean, sensible, small-scale processors like ARM, MIPS, and RISC-V.
What's the niche? (Score:2)
Maybe there is still some room for more massively parallel processing for internet services with tiny cores or massive SMT? SPARC tried the latter but failed, but you never know.
Just making traditional CPUs, but with different ISA, for servers is unlikely to do much. Because of all the speculation the ISA is only an abstraction, which combined with the ocean of cache makes the ISA mostly irrelevant.
The rats are leaving the sinking ship (Score:2)
Obviously, these rats are part of the failure and the death of Intel (in progress). Why would anybody invest in anything they have to offer?
They do not get it, do they? (Score:2)
Yeh... No (Score:2)
Here's the problem. Like ARM, compiler quality is bad. Except for specific implementations, the compilers are poor. RISC-V code generators are just trash. RISC-V is such a painfully loose architecture that writing a code generator targeting it is a nightmare.
Assume 10 top implementations by 10 top teams. One team implements long pipelines. Another implements burst prefetch, another out-of-order execut
RISC-V's heritage is US and Swiss ... (Score:5, Informative)
RISC-V is open source, not based in the US, and has the potential to completely change the economics of the processor market. This is why the U.S. government considers the technology a threat to national security and may try to suppress its adoption.
Nope. RISC-V is an open standard, originating from taxpayer funded research at UC Berkeley. Currently overseen by a Swiss non-profit.
There is a lot of fear around China having a first class processor option to produce.
The fear is around "backdoors" in China-based implementations of RISC-V. These may very well be prohibited. However EU based implementations will likely be just fine, and of course there will be US based implementations as well.
Re: RISC-V and the future (Score:2)
Like China's Xiomei Xring 01 which claimed to be a brand new design? Turns out "part" of their SOC was designed in house. The rest was Arm Cortex x925.
They could have been honest but.....
RISC won over CISC ... x86 just an API (Score:5, Insightful)
All modern CISC CPUs are internally RISC-like architectures but have the added benefit of essentially instruction set compression...
I think that is better described as hardware based instruction set translation, each x86 instruction generating a series of RISC microops that will actually be scheduled and executed.
Also, given that CISC has been downgraded to a software front end - a software API for the RISC hardware - I'd say RISC won. It is this hardware translation to RISC that allowed the x86 API to persist. Successfully thwarting Alpha, PowerPC and MIPS. All CPU architectures that Microsoft had running on the retail version of Windows NT 4. Ready to go whichever way the public chose. Obviously the public chose compatibility and low cost, the x86 API.
Re: (Score:1)
I think that is better described as hardware based instruction set translation, each x86 instruction generating a series of RISC microops that will actually be scheduled and executed.
Also, given that CISC has been downgraded to a software front end - a software API for the RISC hardware - I'd say RISC won. It is this hardware translation to RISC that allowed the x86 API to persist. Successfully thwarting Alpha, PowerPC and MIPS. All CPU architectures that Microsoft had running on the retail version of Windows NT 4. Ready to go whichever way the public chose. Obviously the public chose compatibility and low cost, the x86 API.
Well, for the exact reason you are using to claim that RISC won I think are saying the opposite. X86 CISC is the actual ISA in use. No one is compiling directly to internal x86 microops...
Internally, yes, RISC is a much better architecture to optimize for in hardware--so in that sense it absolutely "wins", but the added benefit of an outward-facing CISC ISA which reduces instruction cache pressure and makes for much, much smaller binaries was a huge benefit in the early days. Most of the RISC architectures
Re: (Score:2)
Compaq and Microsoft had a Redmond lab which was porting Windows 2000 to the Alpha chip. Unfortunately Capellas was more interested in the upcoming merger with HP stopped production of the Alpha. At that time my company's fastest Intel server ran a P-166 while 64-bit Alpha chips that ran at 550 mhz were available.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but those Alpha chips sacrificed everything else for that clock speed. They used a lot of power, ran hot, had bad branch misprediction penalties, and had that weird split cache where you you needed to guard against a dependent read effectively being reordered earlier than the read it depends on. In my experience Alpha workstations were very unreliable. You could expect to always have a third of them waiting on some replacement part. It didn't take long for SPARC and POWER to overtake them. Alpha
Incumbent economies of scale won, not RISC or CISC (Score:4)
RISC killed it when a small team could crank out a more than competitive RISC processor on a gate array.
By the late 90's cpu chips had become much much larger in terms of gate count. This created enormous opportunities for microarchitecture optimisations but exploiting this opportunities required huge expensive teams and enough demand for the finished product to pay for it all. Only the PC market was big enough and that was owned by x86. Other architectures, RISC and CISC alike, starved. ARM survived by serving a market where big, power hungry, uncustomizable processors were not suitable.
Re: Incumbent economies of scale won, not RISC or (Score:2)
However the x86 instruction set suffers from a lot of backward compatibility issues that slows it down.
You can only polish a turd to a certain level. The x86 architecture was never designed for a multi-core and multi-processor hardware platform.