IBM and Intel are stronger in terms of processors

This one. IBM seems to only do RISC and embedded CPUs at the moment, while Intel does everything.

Who do you say, strong. In addition, Intel's CPU and chipset business is the main profit**, while IBM's profit** is mainly in technology research and services.

The relationship between IBM, Microsoft, and Intel when they coexisted was: Microsoft, Intel relied on IBM to survive, and without IBM, there would be no Microsoft and Intel now; Microsoft and Intel are also for IBM. Microsoft installs the system for IBM, and Intel makes CPUs for IBM; IBM is the foundation for the development of Microsoft and Intel.

First of all, although the X86 instruction set is less efficient than the RISC instruction set, the two are not on the same platform at all, just like the world's largest supercomputer cannot run Windows 95, and the compatibility between the two is problematic. Moreover, the X86 architecture is not impossible to increase the frequency, and Intel's P4 processor has the ability to break through 4GHz in the 65nm architecture, and if it comes to today's 32nm architecture, it is not difficult to break through 6G, so this cannot be compared at all. Moreover, the market profit of x86 architecture processors is not small at all, how much did the Core i7 processor cost when it was first launched?

The profit is at least 100% profit, and how much profit can IBM's own Z processor have? So these are not the essence of the problem at all.

In fact, the fundamental reason why IBM abandoned the x86 architecture was because it took the wrong development path. At that time, IBM wanted to expand the PC business, so it aimed at the OS 2 system, trying to abandon Microsoft's DOS and Windows systems, and the OS 2 system was developed for the RISC instruction set processor, which was extremely incompatible with the original X86 architecture, which directly led to IBM's machine slowly being unretained, and even the operating system was slowly out of touch with the times. By the time IBM discovered this problem later, Intel had monopolized the X86 patent, and IBM couldn't get a piece of the pie.

And now the x86 architecture Intel has applied for a patent, AMD was originally only Intel's compatible foundry, and in the 586 era, Intel took AMD to court in order to recover the x86 architecture, which directly led to AMD's K5 series processors sinking into the sand, but later AMD won the lawsuit, so it also obtained the right to continue to develop processors on the x86 architecture. There is also a similar experience with VIA's C3 processor (originally a processor from Cyrix Corporation, which also had a lawsuit with Intel back then).

Nowadays, the x86 processor must be the mainstream of the indisputable, and even a large company like Apple has replaced the processor with Intel's Core Duo series, which shows that the influence of the x86 processor is still very large. Of course, if the RISC architecture processor recommended by IBM was a little bit more compatible back then, then now who is dead, I'm afraid I have to do it again, I hope my answer can help you, hehe.

The market profit of x86 in the current market is very small, and IBM pays more attention to the core application market of enterprises, and the profit in this market will be very high.

Why does Intel have Itanium processors, because he also wants to enter this market, and the performance and reliability of servers using Itanium processors have not been satisfactory.

Why did IBM abandon the PC division? It is because a lot of manpower and material resources have been spent, but the profits and prospects of this market are not very good.

IBM has had a 5GHz processor for a long time, and the Power6 processor in '08 has it.

IBM's small computer processor performance is not enough because of the high frequency, when bidding, IBM's small computer processor number is generally one when three or even one when four Intel Itanium processors. And the Itanium processor is not a good one, and it can still be several times higher than the Xeon processor.

The processors used in the Z big computer are even more different from the x86 architecture, the world's fastest server is the minicomputer, and the most parallel data processing is the mainframe or giant machine. This is like Ferrari and buses, in terms of speed, Ferrari must be fast, but in terms of transportation capacity, it must be strong buses.

The purpose of saying all this is to show that IBM has given up the personal computer market because of small profits, and because the enterprise as a whole should develop towards higher profits and higher technical content.

And that's exactly what happened.

The current small computer market is IBM small machine has the final say, and it is also the largest share of IBM small computer.

In the general-purpose large machine market, only IBM has such equipment, in fact, manufacturers do not have such the ability to produce (except for one country).

The landlord you said that point is exactly why it can't be the reason for the x86 architecture, it is quite difficult to achieve high frequency on x86, and the power consumption will rise rapidly, the heat will increase accordingly, it is unrealistic to use it on personal computers, and IBM focuses on server processors, the server needs parallel computing power, x86 is very weak in this, and IBM has no technical advantages and patents in the x86 architecture, and its own power architecture is in full swing, There's no need to switch to x86 architecture.

The x86 instruction set limits the further improvement of CPU performance.

IBM and Microsoft are not the same company.

Founded in 1968, Intel Corporation, the world's largest semiconductor chip manufacturer, has a 35-year history of product innovation and market leadership. In 1971, Intel introduced the world's first microprocessor.

MS-DOS, the operating system software developed by Microsoft for IBM PCs in 1981, has been used in hundreds of millions of IBM-PCs and their compatible computers. But as Microsoft has grown, Microsoft and IBM have become competitors in many ways. In 1991, IBM and Apple dissolved their partnership with Microsoft, but IBM's partnership with Microsoft has never stopped, and the two companies have maintained a complex relationship that is both competitive and cooperative.

Dear users, I hope the above reply will be helpful to you.