So... what exactly are you arguing about at this point? Because retaining software compatibility has been my entire argument this whole time. I'm aware emulation can be done with decent performance. Decent emulation is why I pointed out Rosetta (Apple's method of getting PPC programs to work on Intel Macs). So, what exactly is your point here? Or is it related to rdrand being emulated? Because that doesn't really have much of an impact on CPU load - the point of rdrand was to give "better" random numbers. Ivy Bridge is from 2012... 7 years is a LONG time for computers, even with Intel slowing R&D thanks to Bulldozer. rdrand in particular was added to compilers since at least December of 2012. So, it's definitely not new anymore. And that goes back to my original point: this is just one of dozens of instructions that nobody bothers to use. You can keep adding all the instructions you want, but performance won't improve until devs use them in their software. And yet, there are so many applications that could use AVX (just in general, not even 512) or other nice modern instructions like the SSE4 family, but they don't. Take a look at benchmarks of Clear Linux to see how much devs are slacking (that whole distro is optimized to take advantage of various instructions). The amount of untapped performance you can get in a modern Intel or AMD CPU is absolutely insane. But how do you get devs to take this stuff seriously? Until they do, any additional instructions added to CPUs is a wasted effort. Yes, maintaining it isn't that difficult. Preventing it from regressing without people noticing is. That's why x86 is heading toward a dead-end. There's no clear path to improve it: * You can't depend on devs to use new instructions * You can't make people's existing software run slower; modern optimizations can often cause this * You can't break software compatibility without pissing people off * We're near the limits of silicon transistors I don't understand why you keep pointing that out. It doesn't change the underlying point. Despite how drastically different the execution pipeline is between modern Intel and AMD CPUs, they still perform roughly the same. You could also say the same about Athlon II and Core2. Intel could revamp the entire pipeline, but because of trying to retain x86 software compatibility, it isn't going to get a lot faster. Makes sense.