IA64 is the standard 64-bit instruction set that the Itanium will be pioneering. I do not expect AMD to use IA64 until they have sufficiently explored x86-64. AMD is targetting x86-64 only at machines that require more memory. Their whole 64-bit platform is based on 64-bit meaning only more memory, while stating that most applications should not bother to be written to take advantage of a 64-bit CPU. In my opinion this is not 64-bit innovation, but 32-bit complacency similar to the old DOS extenders in the 16-bit days that gave you access to more than 1 megabyte (16 bit's limit) of memory.
AMD's strategy in going this route is twofold. First, it does not have the capital, nor the time, to do a complete optimized redesign for 64-bit. Intel started on this long ago, as was necessary for such a new design, and has a huge head start. They needed something simpler that they could finish much more quickly to attempt to be competitive. Second, they calculated that there would be a time after the introduction of the 64-bit CPU where it would not be a great performer on current software, most of which is still 32-bit. This was not a great discovery as it always happens with large paradigm shifts. It happened when we moved from 16 to 32 bits. It will happen when we move from 32 to 64 bits. They intend to take advantage of this 'twilight', if you will, before the dawn of massive amounts of 64-bit applications by pounding on Intel for having lackluster performance on 32-bit applications. Because during the transition there will still be more 32-bit applications available than 64-bit applications, this could have some kind of a marketing benefit for AMD.
Do not mistake any of these strategies as any kind of technological benefit. You did not want to be the owner of a 286 (16-bit CPU) when Windows 95 (requires a 32-bit CPU) was introduced. Even today we still have people claiming DOS is better than Windows. These are the leftovers of those who chose to stick with older hardware because it ran the applications they were using at the time (DOS apps) more quickly. It might have made a bit of sense at the time to stick with an older CPU, because 32-bit applications had not yet proliferated as they have today. That, however, would have completely left us out of the 'new technology' loop. What fun is it to always be the last person on the block who gets to play with the new toys? Not much fun at all. How profitable is it to be the last company to develop software for new technology? Not very profitable at all. Everyone else has already beaten you to the customers.
I do expect AMD to eventually go with an IA64 processor, but not until they have soaked Intel for all they can with the "Itanium is slow at 32-bit IA32 software" marketing line. The first 386 was slower at 16-bit code than the fastest 286. I don't know about all of you, but I'd rather have the 386.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram