>No it isn't. All I'm saying is that Intel has worked hard
>on Yamhill the last few years. So it seems really unlikely
>to me that Intel would suddenly copy all of AMD64
>specifications.
Its not unlikely if you factor in Microsoft. Intel started working on Yamhill well before AMD released their specs of AMD64. I simply don't believe MS will support two competing x86 extentions, because it is not in their interest to fragment the market; and since much to everyone's surprise, they embraced AMD's solution, I think there is no alternative for intel than either ignore AMD64 and bet on IA64, or go back to the drawing table.
>The introduction of new modes brings lots of possibilities
>to clean up the instruction set, but they didn't do that.
>And what are these "biggest problems" you're talking about?
Extending the register set, and dropping virtual 8086 mode to name the most important. BTW, there are not 300 ways to extend a ISA from 32 to 64 bit. What AMD did is completely in line with any other 64 bit ISA extention (with the exception of what I noted above) or even Intel extentin to IA32, and probaly intel's solution wouldnt have been all that different.
>Ah, the easy answer. Allow me to respond with the hard
>question: show me wrong.
Show you wrong about what ? You stated nothing usefull. AMD would still be "like the PPRo", while intel has this all new shiny P4 core. IMHO the P4 isnt nearly as new as the K8. It has a looooong pipeline; big deal. And a trace cache. Nice. But no integrated MC, no glueless SMP, no 64 bit extentions, etc, etc. In the end, with its "all new core", its still the inferior product, especially in SMP configurations.
>IA64 is a fixed architecture always targetted at the server
>market, where it performs very well.
Itanium performs rather well though x86 in all its uglyness is within armsreach (actually beats it on INT, and not all that far on FP), in spite of the fact it only has a fraction of the cache, a fraction of the die size and transistor count, a significantly smaller power consumption, and 15 years of legacy to be compatible with instead of being able to start with a clean sheet. Where exactly is this huge advantage of this *ISA* ? If you compare Itaniums with similar ammounts of cache and die size with x86 cores, it gets spanked. Not too mention the fact the ISA so overly complicated it is completely impossible for a human to understand and debug the compiled code. Time may prove me wrong, but for now, I see IA64 as two steps back from the ISA's it was supposed to replace, like Alpha.
>No. The smartest choises are not always the ones taken. I
>don't want to bet on somebody else's stupidity.
I'm not even suggesting intel is making stupid choices. They betted on Itanium, which wasnt a stupid idea at all. In fact, if it werent for AMD and Microsoft working together, they would probably have pulled it off, and in a few years we'd all be running IA64 boxes. It seems they just overestimated Itaniums succes, and underestimated AMD.
> I'm just saying newer architectures like the Pentium 4
>have a lot more future. The Pentium M is indeed a very nice
>chip but it isn't the fastest.
I think just the opposite. With its stellar clock, but less than stellar performance, power consumption goes through the roof and limits scaling. Prescott should give you a hint of this; I think Banias/Dothan has more future than Netburst. Its not for no reason that intel has gone a different route with with their new server chip (Itanium) and their latest mobile chip (banias/dothan). Both are low clock high IPC braniacs, and not speed demons like netburst. Coincidence ? perhaps, but I think not.
>Workstations with 8 GB of RAM don't need it to run one
>program
Hu ? Typical workstations are purchased to basically run just one app (that usually costs far more than hardware).
> Even servers with 64 GB of RAM only need it because
>thousands of processes each take a little bit
If that is true, why has every other server ISA migrated to 64 bit nearly a decade ago then ? Do you still see any 32 bit Power, SPARC, or PA Risc systems being sold ?
>Please give me an example of an application that would
>benefit immensely from 64-bit addressing
Any app that can use more than 2 GB addressing, wether that is a game, engineering tool, techincal simulation, database, sound engineering, video authoring, DTP orimage processing. While we are at it, can you give me one example of an app that "benefits immensily" from SSE or hyperthreading ? 64 bit isnt more expensive in transistor count or application development as those technologies.
> Even a game of 3 CDs would still fit entirely in 2 GB
>addressable memory.
LOL.. for one thing, we have DVD's these days, and secondly, its easy to write a 500Mb program that uses for more than 2 GB (in fact, I could do it in less than 500 Kb). At work I use OLAP tools to generate multidimensional datacubes. Starting with a ~100MB product/sales database, I end up with cubes that are roughly 20 GB. Fully processed and precalculated, they might be a terrabyte or more. Just giving an example, hope you get the point.
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
>on Yamhill the last few years. So it seems really unlikely
>to me that Intel would suddenly copy all of AMD64
>specifications.
Its not unlikely if you factor in Microsoft. Intel started working on Yamhill well before AMD released their specs of AMD64. I simply don't believe MS will support two competing x86 extentions, because it is not in their interest to fragment the market; and since much to everyone's surprise, they embraced AMD's solution, I think there is no alternative for intel than either ignore AMD64 and bet on IA64, or go back to the drawing table.
>The introduction of new modes brings lots of possibilities
>to clean up the instruction set, but they didn't do that.
>And what are these "biggest problems" you're talking about?
Extending the register set, and dropping virtual 8086 mode to name the most important. BTW, there are not 300 ways to extend a ISA from 32 to 64 bit. What AMD did is completely in line with any other 64 bit ISA extention (with the exception of what I noted above) or even Intel extentin to IA32, and probaly intel's solution wouldnt have been all that different.
>Ah, the easy answer. Allow me to respond with the hard
>question: show me wrong.
Show you wrong about what ? You stated nothing usefull. AMD would still be "like the PPRo", while intel has this all new shiny P4 core. IMHO the P4 isnt nearly as new as the K8. It has a looooong pipeline; big deal. And a trace cache. Nice. But no integrated MC, no glueless SMP, no 64 bit extentions, etc, etc. In the end, with its "all new core", its still the inferior product, especially in SMP configurations.
>IA64 is a fixed architecture always targetted at the server
>market, where it performs very well.
Itanium performs rather well though x86 in all its uglyness is within armsreach (actually beats it on INT, and not all that far on FP), in spite of the fact it only has a fraction of the cache, a fraction of the die size and transistor count, a significantly smaller power consumption, and 15 years of legacy to be compatible with instead of being able to start with a clean sheet. Where exactly is this huge advantage of this *ISA* ? If you compare Itaniums with similar ammounts of cache and die size with x86 cores, it gets spanked. Not too mention the fact the ISA so overly complicated it is completely impossible for a human to understand and debug the compiled code. Time may prove me wrong, but for now, I see IA64 as two steps back from the ISA's it was supposed to replace, like Alpha.
>No. The smartest choises are not always the ones taken. I
>don't want to bet on somebody else's stupidity.
I'm not even suggesting intel is making stupid choices. They betted on Itanium, which wasnt a stupid idea at all. In fact, if it werent for AMD and Microsoft working together, they would probably have pulled it off, and in a few years we'd all be running IA64 boxes. It seems they just overestimated Itaniums succes, and underestimated AMD.
> I'm just saying newer architectures like the Pentium 4
>have a lot more future. The Pentium M is indeed a very nice
>chip but it isn't the fastest.
I think just the opposite. With its stellar clock, but less than stellar performance, power consumption goes through the roof and limits scaling. Prescott should give you a hint of this; I think Banias/Dothan has more future than Netburst. Its not for no reason that intel has gone a different route with with their new server chip (Itanium) and their latest mobile chip (banias/dothan). Both are low clock high IPC braniacs, and not speed demons like netburst. Coincidence ? perhaps, but I think not.
>Workstations with 8 GB of RAM don't need it to run one
>program
Hu ? Typical workstations are purchased to basically run just one app (that usually costs far more than hardware).
> Even servers with 64 GB of RAM only need it because
>thousands of processes each take a little bit
If that is true, why has every other server ISA migrated to 64 bit nearly a decade ago then ? Do you still see any 32 bit Power, SPARC, or PA Risc systems being sold ?
>Please give me an example of an application that would
>benefit immensely from 64-bit addressing
Any app that can use more than 2 GB addressing, wether that is a game, engineering tool, techincal simulation, database, sound engineering, video authoring, DTP orimage processing. While we are at it, can you give me one example of an app that "benefits immensily" from SSE or hyperthreading ? 64 bit isnt more expensive in transistor count or application development as those technologies.
> Even a game of 3 CDs would still fit entirely in 2 GB
>addressable memory.
LOL.. for one thing, we have DVD's these days, and secondly, its easy to write a 500Mb program that uses for more than 2 GB (in fact, I could do it in less than 500 Kb). At work I use OLAP tools to generate multidimensional datacubes. Starting with a ~100MB product/sales database, I end up with cubes that are roughly 20 GB. Fully processed and precalculated, they might be a terrabyte or more. Just giving an example, hope you get the point.
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
Extending the register set, and dropping virtual 8086 mode to name the most important. BTW, there are not 300 ways to extend a ISA from 32 to 64 bit. What AMD did is completely in line with any other 64 bit ISA extention (with the exception of what I noted above) or even Intel extentin to IA32, and probaly intel's solution wouldnt have been all that different.
All OS (windows i am sure) boot in virtual 8086 mode.nb Reg have nothing to do with the ISA
I dont like french test
All OS (windows i am sure) boot in virtual 8086 mode.nb Reg have nothing to do with the ISA
I dont like french test
>If Intel really is as bad as your post wants to show it to
>be, then they'd be out of business.
LOL.. read carefully, I'm not saying "they are that bad". And I am *definately* not predicting they will go out of business, or even get into any sort of trouble financially any time soon. I'm just getting fed up with people that blindly take intel's word for granted, and thnk because intel does something in a certain way, then surely it is the right way. Well, wrong, intel can blunder just as well, and with the 64 bit migration they are about to fall flat on their face (killing Itanium chances at anything but HPC and high end server niches, and giving the x86 ISA out of hands to AMD). It will cost them a lot of money IMHO (like not being able to recover those billions invested in IA64), but a few years from here, everyone will have forgotten it, just like we forgot fiasco's like RDRAM.
>They make good processors,
Yes. Even some exceptionally good one's like Banias.
>but like any other company, their policies sometimes aren't
>the best. This is not to justify them, but rather to
>encourage a more balanced attitude.
No need to, I can see things in perspective.
>This "Intel caused the big problems in x86", "Intel did
>this and that fiasco" attitude is exaggerated.
No its not; not in the context where someone bashes AMD's effort to move the ISA to 64 bits. Obviously AMD64 isnt the greatest ISA ever conceived, but saying AMD can't design a proper iSA, while intel surely could come up with one that would ridiculise it, is, well.. not quite objective. All the flaws AMD had to work with or around, are indeed introduced by intel after all.
>One could find problems in AMD's processors and policies as
>well. Remember the old Palominos, with no thermal
>protection whatsoever?
Oh, sure, and plenty more ! Good grief, I'm not claiming everything AMD toches turns gold, but I do give them credit for making a few important and smart decissions lately.
With K8 they did pretty much everything right within their budget limits. Integrated MC, hypertransport, AMD64 and SOI. We've seen what performance the MC gives you, and wait for intel to do the same. Hypertransport is just beatiful, and really for the first time gives them a serious edge in the SMP market. Its the brightest idea i've seen in a long time. SOI is likely to start paying off as well, as intel seems to struggle to clock prescott higher without hitting a thermal brick wall (did you notice they couldnt decrease Vcore going from 130 nm to 90nm ? Did you notice Precott is getting near 100W/cm², 50% more than Northwood and 100% more than K8 ! ).And AMD64 is about to be embraced by intel, so it seems they did at least a few things damn well.
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by bbaeyens on 02/01/04 05:33 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
>be, then they'd be out of business.
LOL.. read carefully, I'm not saying "they are that bad". And I am *definately* not predicting they will go out of business, or even get into any sort of trouble financially any time soon. I'm just getting fed up with people that blindly take intel's word for granted, and thnk because intel does something in a certain way, then surely it is the right way. Well, wrong, intel can blunder just as well, and with the 64 bit migration they are about to fall flat on their face (killing Itanium chances at anything but HPC and high end server niches, and giving the x86 ISA out of hands to AMD). It will cost them a lot of money IMHO (like not being able to recover those billions invested in IA64), but a few years from here, everyone will have forgotten it, just like we forgot fiasco's like RDRAM.
>They make good processors,
Yes. Even some exceptionally good one's like Banias.
>but like any other company, their policies sometimes aren't
>the best. This is not to justify them, but rather to
>encourage a more balanced attitude.
No need to, I can see things in perspective.
>This "Intel caused the big problems in x86", "Intel did
>this and that fiasco" attitude is exaggerated.
No its not; not in the context where someone bashes AMD's effort to move the ISA to 64 bits. Obviously AMD64 isnt the greatest ISA ever conceived, but saying AMD can't design a proper iSA, while intel surely could come up with one that would ridiculise it, is, well.. not quite objective. All the flaws AMD had to work with or around, are indeed introduced by intel after all.
>One could find problems in AMD's processors and policies as
>well. Remember the old Palominos, with no thermal
>protection whatsoever?
Oh, sure, and plenty more ! Good grief, I'm not claiming everything AMD toches turns gold, but I do give them credit for making a few important and smart decissions lately.
With K8 they did pretty much everything right within their budget limits. Integrated MC, hypertransport, AMD64 and SOI. We've seen what performance the MC gives you, and wait for intel to do the same. Hypertransport is just beatiful, and really for the first time gives them a serious edge in the SMP market. Its the brightest idea i've seen in a long time. SOI is likely to start paying off as well, as intel seems to struggle to clock prescott higher without hitting a thermal brick wall (did you notice they couldnt decrease Vcore going from 130 nm to 90nm ? Did you notice Precott is getting near 100W/cm², 50% more than Northwood and 100% more than K8 ! ).And AMD64 is about to be embraced by intel, so it seems they did at least a few things damn well.
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by bbaeyens on 02/01/04 05:33 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
>All OS (windows i am sure) boot in virtual 8086 mode
No, BIOS perhaps boots the cpu in 8086 mode, not the OS. Once you put the K8 in long mode, there is no more virtual 8086 mode. Of course AMD still supports it in legacy mode, and you could perfectly run Dos 3.11 on it if you liked, but unlike in IA32 protected mode, AMD dropped V8086 support in long (64 bit) mode.
>Reg have nothing to do with the ISA
Excuse me ???? Register set is one of the corner stones of a ISA. ever seen assembler code ? its nothing *but* register names.
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
No, BIOS perhaps boots the cpu in 8086 mode, not the OS. Once you put the K8 in long mode, there is no more virtual 8086 mode. Of course AMD still supports it in legacy mode, and you could perfectly run Dos 3.11 on it if you liked, but unlike in IA32 protected mode, AMD dropped V8086 support in long (64 bit) mode.
>Reg have nothing to do with the ISA
Excuse me ???? Register set is one of the corner stones of a ISA. ever seen assembler code ? its nothing *but* register names.
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
Oh, and just one more argument in favour of AMD64 (courtesy of Brian Neal at aces):
video card memory is mapped in the upper 2 GB region (reserved for the OS), and in windows, is actually mapped twice. Image using a 512 MB videocard, it would aleady eat 1GB of your apps address space on its own, maybe limiting it to 1.5 GB or so. Now imagine using *two* such videocards (possible with latest AGP specs and PCI express). 256 MB cards are the norm in the high end today (actually, 512+ cards exist for CAD), ironically, 512 MB or more videocards may require a 64 bit cpu and OS.
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
video card memory is mapped in the upper 2 GB region (reserved for the OS), and in windows, is actually mapped twice. Image using a 512 MB videocard, it would aleady eat 1GB of your apps address space on its own, maybe limiting it to 1.5 GB or so. Now imagine using *two* such videocards (possible with latest AGP specs and PCI express). 256 MB cards are the norm in the high end today (actually, 512+ cards exist for CAD), ironically, 512 MB or more videocards may require a 64 bit cpu and OS.
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
By the end of 2005? Now *that* is a bold prediction. Even assuming Intel does release an x86-64 chip, even assuming Microsoft does get an x86-64 OS out before then, even assuming that Intel *heavily* pushes this, to gain 80-90% market penetration with a new chip line has....never happened before. A year after the P4's release, it was no where near 80-90% of the market penetration.
If you're only speaking of enthusiastes, how many of us run P4C's or better? I'll bet not 80-90%.
"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
Euh.. you misread me. I claimed 80-90% of those that have a 64 bit capable chip, would use its capabilities by running a 64 bit OS and apps.
I am not claiming anywhere near 90% of us would have one. Most optimistic estimate would put AMD's product offering at 80% 64 bit capabale by then, and intel maybe 50%, so not even near 80% of new computers would be 64 bit, let alone installed user base. My predictions arent *that* bold (or rather, insane)
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
I am not claiming anywhere near 90% of us would have one. Most optimistic estimate would put AMD's product offering at 80% 64 bit capabale by then, and intel maybe 50%, so not even near 80% of new computers would be 64 bit, let alone installed user base. My predictions arent *that* bold (or rather, insane)
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
ROFL
I didnt know bbaeyens was head master of the special olypics this year, man some stiff competition here this year. Do these people believe the crap you spew? You predicted nothing (like you are a prophet or something). I posted here 1 year and 6 months ago the fact that Intel holds the x86-64 bit card and AMD was holding their package. It still stands today. Microsoft made a deal with Intel not to release a x86-64 bit OS until Intel was ready. Not the other crap you been spewing with your fanboy savior angle you been spinning on it.
Go to microsoft.com
search for yamhill in the search box on that page
click the only link returned
search that page for yamhill
Now read, yes it requires some effort.
Bill Gates on the stand telling the grand jury what I just told you above. Not your poorly painted picture.
Now that we all know who hold the cards, you better pray that Intel makes a something compatable or AMD will have some reworking of the instruction set to match Intel.
I am going to need you to step off the soap box please.
<b>"You haven't proven anything that once 64-bit support comes out, it will perform even better." -EDEN</b>
I didnt know bbaeyens was head master of the special olypics this year, man some stiff competition here this year. Do these people believe the crap you spew? You predicted nothing (like you are a prophet or something). I posted here 1 year and 6 months ago the fact that Intel holds the x86-64 bit card and AMD was holding their package. It still stands today. Microsoft made a deal with Intel not to release a x86-64 bit OS until Intel was ready. Not the other crap you been spewing with your fanboy savior angle you been spinning on it.
Go to microsoft.com
search for yamhill in the search box on that page
click the only link returned
search that page for yamhill
Now read, yes it requires some effort.
Bill Gates on the stand telling the grand jury what I just told you above. Not your poorly painted picture.
Now that we all know who hold the cards, you better pray that Intel makes a something compatable or AMD will have some reworking of the instruction set to match Intel.
I am going to need you to step off the soap box please.
<b>"You haven't proven anything that once 64-bit support comes out, it will perform even better." -EDEN</b>
I won't buy A64 because I see no use of 64bit in Windows gaming at the moment. The only advantage is the built in memory controller, but unless you have an Athlon FX, you won't enjoy having a dual channel capability.
For most people, the choice of 2004 is either P4-2.6/P4-2.8 with 800FSB and Dual Chanel DDR or Athlon XP 2500+/2800+ with nforce400ultra mb O/Ced to whatever you can. (Or anything faster that dropped to the above price levels)
Anyway we average users have to thank the "pioneers" for testing out defects for us. Thanks!
A fine day!
For most people, the choice of 2004 is either P4-2.6/P4-2.8 with 800FSB and Dual Chanel DDR or Athlon XP 2500+/2800+ with nforce400ultra mb O/Ced to whatever you can. (Or anything faster that dropped to the above price levels)
Anyway we average users have to thank the "pioneers" for testing out defects for us. Thanks!
A fine day!
Doesn't that open your eyes that AMD64 is a quick hack and Yamhill is most likely superiour?
Why would Microsoft be interested only in the technology of AMD? Microsoft has very close connections with Intel and wouldn't just choose for AMD if they haven't looked at Intel's 64-bit design yet. If they release Windows for AMD64, only a marginal fraction of people will buy it. Microsoft has no profit in that. AMD can't supply the whole world anyway. So it's best to wait for Intel and if this means a recompilation they won't cry about it. The only one trying to fragment the market is AMD.
Extending the register set isn't suddenly revolutionizing x86. And why would virtual 8086 mode ever have been a problem?
Integrated memory controller is just cut-paste from the northbride. Glueless SMP is just adding more pins. And 64-bit is again just making the registers longer. Never did they truely change the core. And I'd really like to know what you mean with "etc, etc". NetBurst, Hyper-Threading and even the trace cache are bigger changes than AMD ever did for a whole generation.
It's a shame AMD gets in the way. I mean, AMD is very good at semiconductor engineering and should try to beat Intel at pure performance, not design. They simply can't take over the world with a few hacks. Once they beat Intel at performance for several years and have gained equal marketshare and enough fabs to supply, they can give it a try. All attempt now is just doomed for failure. AMD only recently started making some profit. Do you seriously thing Intel will just bend now?
This discussion isn't about Itanium but anyway: Performance still rises every few months thanks to compiler optimizations and software design that makes better use of the architecture's capabilities.
You can't increase performance of a high IPC chip much if it is limited in clock speed by a short pipeline. A low IPC chip on the other hand just needs more execution units and extended Hyper-Threading to increase it. Then the clock speed is all that matters. Besides, since AMD isn't capable of redesigning the core, all that has kept them alive for the past years is clock increases.
I wasn't talking about what you use a workstation for. They do get sold with 4, 8 and even 16 GB of RAM. Besides, even one application can consist of many processes.
That's mostly because they need 64-bit arithmetic, not 64-bit addressing. If you have a database of several terabyte the indexes (not necessarily pointers) could easily exceed 32-bit range. There would actually be little problem doing it on a 32-bit CPU. For desktops, neither 64-bit arithmetic or addressing is really critical yet. That's why AMD64 is just a hype and Intel has plenty of time to finish a brand new 64-bit design.
MP3 and DivX playback and processing both use MMX extensively. SSE is used in many scientific applications including Matlab. And both are also used by DirectX and graphics drivers. By the way what's your point with this question?
At work, indeed. We're still talking about desktop CPUs here. Besides, precalculating everything is often not the fastest solution since you have to go to disk so recomputing things is often faster, except when you have 20 GB of RAM but no desktop user has that. And I already showed that real-time applications should not process more than 100 MB per frame, because of bandwidth limitations. 64-bit processing really doesn't mean a lot for desktops right now. I'm still waiting for that example of yours where 64-bit addresses is almost a necessity...
Again, don't get me wrong. Eventually 64-bit will be needed. I just thing AMD rushed it -only- to gain market share with the hype.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Whisper on 02/01/04 08:12 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
Mephistopheles
Distinguished
- Feb 10, 2003
- 2,444
- 0
- 19,780
I can confirm that. I work with scientists, and they couldn't care less about their CPUs doing 64-bit integer work; what they want is 64-bit arithmetic (FP) work, and fast one at that. But... current 32-bit processors can use 80-bit FP... So this is not really an advantage anymore. And it was the biggest thing that made everyone go 64-bit... it was not the superior adressing capabilities at all. But there are still some people interested in those, mind you.
Anyway, I do think that once these 64-bit extensions become widely available, people will use them more, but it will take quite a while.
<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
Unolocogringo
Illustrious
- Dec 31, 2007
- 8,022
- 810
- 38,390
I was on the Windows Update site looking arround and found an Update for XP 64bit. Not AMD64XP or Intel64XP, but just plain XP64.
So it appears both will have 64bit processors and the Alpha or Beta version is already out to the testers.
I aint signing nothing!!!
So it appears both will have 64bit processors and the Alpha or Beta version is already out to the testers.
I aint signing nothing!!!
> You predicted nothing
Ahm.. I proved some clicky links for ya.
> I posted here 1 year and 6 months ago the fact that Intel
>holds the x86-64 bit card and AMD was holding their
package.
And what is that supposed to mean ?
>Microsoft made a deal with Intel not to release a x86-64
>bit OS until Intel was ready.
Well, if true (big if) what exactly would this mean according to you ?
>Now read, yes it requires some effort.
Thats a mighty long page, I have no interest in reading it. Just quote whetever you think is relevant. I see this, but fail to see what is your point:
This only seems to enhance my point that yamhill was supposed to be different from AMD64, while intel is now backpedalling to make it AMD64 compatible since MS chose to support it, and not Intel's standard (or rather, intel initially didnt want to release Yamhilla at all, betting on ITanium, hence MS went the AMD route).. Again, what is your point ?
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
Ahm.. I proved some clicky links for ya.
> I posted here 1 year and 6 months ago the fact that Intel
>holds the x86-64 bit card and AMD was holding their
package.
And what is that supposed to mean ?
>Microsoft made a deal with Intel not to release a x86-64
>bit OS until Intel was ready.
Well, if true (big if) what exactly would this mean according to you ?
>Now read, yes it requires some effort.
Thats a mighty long page, I have no interest in reading it. Just quote whetever you think is relevant. I see this, but fail to see what is your point:
This only seems to enhance my point that yamhill was supposed to be different from AMD64, while intel is now backpedalling to make it AMD64 compatible since MS chose to support it, and not Intel's standard (or rather, intel initially didnt want to release Yamhilla at all, betting on ITanium, hence MS went the AMD route).. Again, what is your point ?
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
>Doesn't that open your eyes that AMD64 is a quick hack and
>Yamhill is most likely superiour?
Ahem.. no. Did I guess when AMD started working on AMD64 ? Could have been 1980 for all I know. Of course you cant publish a spec until it is completely done. Think mate, think...
>Why would Microsoft be interested only in the technology of
>AMD?
Simple. Intel may have had Yamhill in its labs, but clearly didnt want to release it until Itanium sales took off.. or rather, not *at all* as not to jeopardize Itanium. Microsoft likely just hedged their bet with AMD64, in case Itanium didnt take off, and would never make it to the desktop. Nothing more, nothing less.
>Integrated memory controller is just cut-paste from the
>northbride.
Sure...
>Glueless SMP is just adding more pins.
Sure ! A few pins !! Well, S775 then surely has enough pins to support this, wouldnt you think ?
>And 64-bit is again just making the registers longer.
sort a.
> NetBurst, Hyper-Threading and even the trace cache are
>bigger changes than AMD ever did for a whole generation.
Using your level of technical genius, I'd say its just a few more transistors.. and a marketing name for a longer pipeline.
>You can't increase performance of a high IPC chip much if
>it is limited in clock speed by a short pipeline. A low IPC
>chip on the other hand just needs more execution units and
>extended Hyper-Threading to increase it. Then the clock
>speed is all that matters. Besides, since AMD isn't capable
>of redesigning the core, all that has kept them alive for
>the past years is clock increases.
Sheesh.. you should apply with Intel, maybe you can design their next generation chip ? This is so utterly nonsensical I will not even bother trying to correct you. In fact, I think this is where I end this CPU design discussion, it goes nowhere. I'll give you one hint though.. have a look at the architecture of the fastest cpu's available.. Alpha, Power, Itanium, Opteron.. all of them are braniacs. Coincindence ?
>I wasn't talking about what you use a workstation for. They
>do get sold with 4, 8 and even 16 GB of RAM. Besides, even
>one application can consist of many processes
Yeah, and 99% of these workstations (with more 4 gigs) are 64 bit machines (Sun, Power/RS6000, PA Risc, even Itanium..).
>That's mostly because they need 64-bit arithmetic, not
>64-bit addressing. If you have a database of several
>terabyte the indexes (not necessarily pointers) could
>easily exceed 32-bit range. There would actually be little
>problem doing it on a 32-bit CPU
I have no idea what you are trying to say here (and I doubt you have), but if you are claiming you could address more than 4 GB without 64 bit addressing, but with 64 bit ALU, you are desperatly wrong. And if you think more than 1% of desktop or server apps have any use for 64 bit integer math, you are even more wrong.
>By the way what's your point with this question?
No one doubted the usefullness of MMX or SSE, while everyone whines about 64 bit being unecessary, that is the point. MMX and SSE help speed up certain types of code, even though nothing a faster cpu couldnt do, while 64 bit support allows you to work with apps or datasets you simply will never be able to run/use on a 32 bit cpu. And in the case of AMD64, it speeds up certain types of code. Supporting 64 bit is easier than SSE (with the exception of the OS), and it hardly costs more to implement in silicon either. So what the f*ck is wrong with that ?
>At work, indeed. We're still talking about desktop CPUs
>here.
YOu really need me to give you a link so you can download a 100 meg game demo that eats up 500 Mb RAM when you run it ?
>And I already showed that real-time applications should not
>process more than 100 MB per frame, because of bandwidth
>limitations
You showed nothing of that sorts. Your calculation was pretty meaningless as you forgot the GPU is doing most of the rendering, and has its own fast memory to buffer geometry and textures.
>Again, don't get me wrong. Eventually 64-bit will be
>needed. I just thing AMD rushed it -only- to gain market
>share with the hype.
You need chips out in the market to get the software coming. If AMD and intel had waited until 2007 like would have according to their comments, it would take another 3 years, so until 2010 for apps to come on the market, and we'd be banging our heads against the wall with these tiny 2 GB address spaces while we'd have 16 GB Ram. It would EMS all over again. In fact it is already now. BTW, you do realize intel extended physical addressing of the Pentium Pro to 36 bits back in 1995 ? Almost TEN years ago ? Why do you think they did that, cause no one would ever need for another decade and a half ? 64 bit is overdue if anything, definately not premature.
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
>Yamhill is most likely superiour?
Ahem.. no. Did I guess when AMD started working on AMD64 ? Could have been 1980 for all I know. Of course you cant publish a spec until it is completely done. Think mate, think...
>Why would Microsoft be interested only in the technology of
>AMD?
Simple. Intel may have had Yamhill in its labs, but clearly didnt want to release it until Itanium sales took off.. or rather, not *at all* as not to jeopardize Itanium. Microsoft likely just hedged their bet with AMD64, in case Itanium didnt take off, and would never make it to the desktop. Nothing more, nothing less.
>Integrated memory controller is just cut-paste from the
>northbride.
Sure...
>Glueless SMP is just adding more pins.
Sure ! A few pins !! Well, S775 then surely has enough pins to support this, wouldnt you think ?
>And 64-bit is again just making the registers longer.
sort a.
> NetBurst, Hyper-Threading and even the trace cache are
>bigger changes than AMD ever did for a whole generation.
Using your level of technical genius, I'd say its just a few more transistors.. and a marketing name for a longer pipeline.
>You can't increase performance of a high IPC chip much if
>it is limited in clock speed by a short pipeline. A low IPC
>chip on the other hand just needs more execution units and
>extended Hyper-Threading to increase it. Then the clock
>speed is all that matters. Besides, since AMD isn't capable
>of redesigning the core, all that has kept them alive for
>the past years is clock increases.
Sheesh.. you should apply with Intel, maybe you can design their next generation chip ? This is so utterly nonsensical I will not even bother trying to correct you. In fact, I think this is where I end this CPU design discussion, it goes nowhere. I'll give you one hint though.. have a look at the architecture of the fastest cpu's available.. Alpha, Power, Itanium, Opteron.. all of them are braniacs. Coincindence ?
>I wasn't talking about what you use a workstation for. They
>do get sold with 4, 8 and even 16 GB of RAM. Besides, even
>one application can consist of many processes
Yeah, and 99% of these workstations (with more 4 gigs) are 64 bit machines (Sun, Power/RS6000, PA Risc, even Itanium..).
>That's mostly because they need 64-bit arithmetic, not
>64-bit addressing. If you have a database of several
>terabyte the indexes (not necessarily pointers) could
>easily exceed 32-bit range. There would actually be little
>problem doing it on a 32-bit CPU
I have no idea what you are trying to say here (and I doubt you have), but if you are claiming you could address more than 4 GB without 64 bit addressing, but with 64 bit ALU, you are desperatly wrong. And if you think more than 1% of desktop or server apps have any use for 64 bit integer math, you are even more wrong.
>By the way what's your point with this question?
No one doubted the usefullness of MMX or SSE, while everyone whines about 64 bit being unecessary, that is the point. MMX and SSE help speed up certain types of code, even though nothing a faster cpu couldnt do, while 64 bit support allows you to work with apps or datasets you simply will never be able to run/use on a 32 bit cpu. And in the case of AMD64, it speeds up certain types of code. Supporting 64 bit is easier than SSE (with the exception of the OS), and it hardly costs more to implement in silicon either. So what the f*ck is wrong with that ?
>At work, indeed. We're still talking about desktop CPUs
>here.
YOu really need me to give you a link so you can download a 100 meg game demo that eats up 500 Mb RAM when you run it ?
>And I already showed that real-time applications should not
>process more than 100 MB per frame, because of bandwidth
>limitations
You showed nothing of that sorts. Your calculation was pretty meaningless as you forgot the GPU is doing most of the rendering, and has its own fast memory to buffer geometry and textures.
>Again, don't get me wrong. Eventually 64-bit will be
>needed. I just thing AMD rushed it -only- to gain market
>share with the hype.
You need chips out in the market to get the software coming. If AMD and intel had waited until 2007 like would have according to their comments, it would take another 3 years, so until 2010 for apps to come on the market, and we'd be banging our heads against the wall with these tiny 2 GB address spaces while we'd have 16 GB Ram. It would EMS all over again. In fact it is already now. BTW, you do realize intel extended physical addressing of the Pentium Pro to 36 bits back in 1995 ? Almost TEN years ago ? Why do you think they did that, cause no one would ever need for another decade and a half ? 64 bit is overdue if anything, definately not premature.
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
CaptainNemo
Distinguished
- Jun 19, 2002
- 245
- 0
- 18,680
Exactly...
This is all very interesting, but it doesn't tell you if a dual Opteron system is significantly better value than a (cheaper) dual Xeon system.
If 64 bit versions of MAX, Maya, AutoCAD etc. are not going to be with us for XX months, then why should we be rushing out to buy 64 bit CPUs (which will be cheaper in XX months)?
"Some mice have two buttons. Macintosh has one. So it's extremely difficult to push the wrong button." - Apple ad. circa 1984.
This is all very interesting, but it doesn't tell you if a dual Opteron system is significantly better value than a (cheaper) dual Xeon system.
If 64 bit versions of MAX, Maya, AutoCAD etc. are not going to be with us for XX months, then why should we be rushing out to buy 64 bit CPUs (which will be cheaper in XX months)?
"Some mice have two buttons. Macintosh has one. So it's extremely difficult to push the wrong button." - Apple ad. circa 1984.
Mephistopheles
Distinguished
- Feb 10, 2003
- 2,444
- 0
- 19,780
Why should we indeed? I know I'm not. Clever thinking of yours. I do not need 64 bit in my desktop <i>right now</i>, nor do I have money lying around for an upgrade.
<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistophelesCarefull there, if I'm not mistaken "XP 64 bit" is actually the Itanium version. The AMD64 version is called 'for extended systems' or something. But sure, there will be only one 64 bit x86 OS from microsoft, only a fool would believe otherwise. And it is in beta btw, due to be released second half of this year. No secrets there.
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
>his is all very interesting, but it doesn't tell you if a
>dual Opteron system is significantly better value than a
>(cheaper) dual Xeon system.
The benchmarks are all over the web; just pick the app you will be using, and buy whatever suits you.
>If 64 bit versions of MAX, Maya, AutoCAD etc. are not going
>to be with us for XX months, then why should we be rushing
<out to buy 64 bit CPUs (which will be cheaper in XX months)
You shouldnt. And I compeletely agree with anyone buying cheap 2500+ or P4 2.4C systems. But if you are going to chose between a >$500 32 bit chip and a >$500 64 bit chip that perform roughly on par on 32 bit code, I'd know what to chose.
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
>dual Opteron system is significantly better value than a
>(cheaper) dual Xeon system.
The benchmarks are all over the web; just pick the app you will be using, and buy whatever suits you.
>If 64 bit versions of MAX, Maya, AutoCAD etc. are not going
>to be with us for XX months, then why should we be rushing
<out to buy 64 bit CPUs (which will be cheaper in XX months)
You shouldnt. And I compeletely agree with anyone buying cheap 2500+ or P4 2.4C systems. But if you are going to chose between a >$500 32 bit chip and a >$500 64 bit chip that perform roughly on par on 32 bit code, I'd know what to chose.
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
Mephistopheles
Distinguished
- Feb 10, 2003
- 2,444
- 0
- 19,780
You're right, they will only sell one Windows XP with 64 bit extensions. However, like with HT, the installer will determine exactly what kernel you will use - HT-enabled computers will typically require a slightly different install.
In that sense, MS could sell XP64 for Intel and AMD both... If they've got two different kernels for each. Both of these kernels would be in the installation CD...
Just a suggestion.
<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
In that sense, MS could sell XP64 for Intel and AMD both... If they've got two different kernels for each. Both of these kernels would be in the installation CD...
Just a suggestion.
<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
Mephistopheles
Distinguished
- Feb 10, 2003
- 2,444
- 0
- 19,780
>$500 on a processor? Who the hell has this kind of money?... 😱
Not me, for sure. :frown:
<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
Not me, for sure. :frown:
<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistophelesIm not sure I make 5k a month. F@ck I dont know if Ill be able to buy one. Better start bringing in my beer bottles.
-taitertot
If this post has attitude, seems to be overly aggressive, rude, distasteful to 99% of the users here, and shows a zealous defense of Intel... It’s probably Spud.
-taitertot
If this post has attitude, seems to be overly aggressive, rude, distasteful to 99% of the users here, and shows a zealous defense of Intel... It’s probably Spud.
I guess I can't rule that out completely, but they would have to be binary compatible on the application level, which qualifies as "compatible" in my book.
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
Kelledin
Distinguished
- Mar 1, 2001
- 2,183
- 0
- 19,780
Trouble with your logic is that you neglect the political forces at work within Intel. Remember, the IA64 and Yamhill teams got separated, and Yamhill shuffled off into obscurity, so that Intel could devote most of its resources to IA64.
Then IA64 laid an egg.
Now Intel has to pull out Yamhill, dust it off, <i>and</i> rework it to make it AMD64-compatible (per MSFT's ultimatum).
That may help you understand why Yamhill took (or is taking) so long. It's not because Intel "took the time and did it right," it's because Intel wasn't planning on ever doing it at all.
As for AMD64 being a hack, remember that the x86 ISA has been a hack since its inception. Intel threw the crappy thing (8086) together in three weeks after their first proposal got shot down. Then Intel had to strip the turd down to half-bandwidth (a la 8088) to make it cheap enough to achieve market penetration. The rest is history.
Now we're kind of stuck with it, and thrice-extending it isn't really meant to make it cleaner, no matter who does it.
AMD64 does add a few critical features. 64-bit addressing is critical for databases and massive thirty-levels-deep calculation apps. Extra GPRs are something x86 has sorely needed since the beginning. Execute permissions on memory are something vastly more critical than you might think. Most of the other messiness of x86 is so out-of-sight anyways that practical-minded people largely just don't care.
Remember, Microsoft DID look at Intel's 64-bit design. Intel's 64-bit design was IA64. IA64 laid an egg. MSFT got dreadfully insufficient ROI on Windows-IA64 and was understandably annoyed.
It's meant to be evolutionary, not revolutionary. It's just that the jump from 32 bits to 64 bits is a big deal for a lot of professionals. Being able to make the jump without paying more than your basic x86 price or making a huge ISA transition--now that's what kicks ass.
What part of the core really needed changing? K7 was a pretty good core architecture to begin with. All that was really needed was to iron out its major weak spots, which AMD did.
There's something to be said, though, when all that extra work isn't quite enough to keep the P4 in a performance-leading position. That something is "Keep it simple, stupid!"
<i><Lionel Hutz> I'll be defending...The SCO Group!!!??? Even if I lose, I'll be famous!</i>
No, BIOS perhaps boots the cpu in 8086 mode, not the OS. Once you put the K8 in long mode, there is no more virtual 8086 mode. Of course AMD still supports it in legacy mode, and you could perfectly run Dos 3.11 on it if you liked, but unlike in IA32 protected mode, AMD dropped V8086 support in long (64 bit) mode.
No OS boot in virtuakl 8086 and swith to 32 bit mode at the start but.Anyway there 8086 mode and vitual 8086 mode is not the same thing by the way.
I dont like french test
No OS boot in virtuakl 8086 and swith to 32 bit mode at the start but.Anyway there 8086 mode and vitual 8086 mode is not the same thing by the way.
I dont like french test
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram