AMD and Intel General Discussion (not for getting help)

Page 39 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
did our comments get deleted? random's post and mine isn't here
??????????


Avro, Every CPU in the current market are NATIVE 32 bit processors, we have NO, NONE,NOTHING,NADA 64 bit CPUs here on the Earth that we live on, and the only native x64 processor was Itanium which didn't work, because it wasn't backwards compatible.

the intel link you posted was actually saying that they are 64 bit capable, as in for the OS, allowing the 64 bit OS to run properly on it

if we had NATIVE x64 processors then we would be WAYYYYY past todays speeds and WAYYYY past today's micro arch, we would probably have AI that had near human characteristics

look up Native x64 processors on google and you won't find any
 

Upendra, you better head back to Google yourself, because you are so wrong it's not even funny.

Itanium didn't work? I guess somebody better tell the Tokyo Stock Exchange: http://www.itaniumsolutions.org/news/the_linux_of_stock_markets

You might also want to Google "DEC Alpha" for a little bit of history.
 
really? Itanium worked? where are the Itanium 64 processors now? why aren't they used more than Xeons?

i don't think itanium has worked yet, it will take a few more years for that
 


Way past today's micro architecture? Are you nuts? The Itanium is still in production and 64-bit CPUs existed in Cray Supercomputers in the 70s! Jeez man, where do you get your info?



You're right, I had to do a LOT of searching to figure out what you were referring to. The "native" 64 you're talking about is yes, the Itanium and some Cray CPUs from the 70s. The x86-64 CPU in the way you're describing is not even 32-bit, it's 16-bit in "real mode". However, they've been updated to add the instruction sets so in what is known as "protected mode" they're 32-bit and in "long mode" they're 64-bit. At their core, they're 16-bit CPUs just like the 8086. That doesn't mean that they're not 64-bit now, it just means that they kept adding to a 16-bit design to make them 64-bit. They actually run in compatibility modes for 32-bit and 16-bit operations, not the other way around. Think about it, if they were 32-bit processors that were able do 64-bit operations without being 64-bit to begin with, 64-bit operating systems wouldn't be faster, they'd be MUCH SLOWER. It would be like trying to tow a dump truck with a Volkswagen. Now maybe you know why things got deleted but not my original posts. By your definition (and ONLY your definition), you were right that x86-x64 CPUs are not "native 64-bit" (a term ONLY applied to software btw...lol) but they're not 32-bit either, they're 16-bit. Anywayz, I'm done talking about this, it's like trying to explain how the sky is blue. :sol:
 
Pity the software just doesn't make good use of the hardware advances in the last few years.

A lot of awful code still runs in the background under many applications and OS's ... effectively leveling most machines.

Plus the I/O constraints further the problem.

 

This is true but it's a result of the CISC architecture instead of RISC like the Itanium. The market is where it is and to change it would be prohibitively expensive. The Itanium is a perfect example of this. :sol:
 
Bah, doesn't matter. This whole thing started because someone tried to tell me that the Core 2 architecture was 32-bit. It's dead.

In other news, any predictions on how the Phenom II X6 will perform? I'm getting restless waiting for it.... :sol:
 
i know, i was saying insufficient funds for AMD to develop micro arch and shrink their dies

besides AMD and Intel have to look away from silicon now, it is about to get too expensive and hard to make
 
it would probably be best not to involve elements in our procs, cuz then everyone of us could have a mini nuke running our computer, too much strain and you could have a nuclear fallout inside your case
 

Unm, you might want to check your facts.
Switching electrons is what a transistor does.
In fact without electron flow, we would have no electricity.
As for the next thing, I think we still have a few shrinks left, buy using new substratta, or perhaps even grown diamond wafers.
Carbon nanotubes are also interesting, but what I would like to see is transistors used the way they were designed . Transistors aren't just on or off, they can have a variable state of on.
 


First off, silicon has no valence electrons. The doped electrons are used to initiate current flow, but are too few to supply all the current flow.
In a transistor, current flow means one state, no flow another ( very simply ) Constant switching is what your computer does whenever it's on.
 
So what does everyone think about the Phenom II X6 that's coming out on the 26th of April? Apparently it's going to crush all the LGA 1156 CPUs despite only costing $199USD. There's even talk that it will outperform the i7-920 and 940. The price is a verified fact for the Phenom II X6 1055T 2.8GHz and it will drop in to all AM2+ and AM3 sockets with only a motherboard BIOS flash possibly required. If the performance is as good as they say (and a 6-core version of a 4-core CPU that runs neck and neck with an i5-750 should be), will the $199 price coupled with the low AMD motherboard prices cause AMD to outsell Intel for the first time?
http://www.techspot.com/news/38312-AMD-Phenom-II-X6-processors-specs-and-pricing-revealed.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom