Easy there...
http://www.theinquirer.net/03080105.htm
It's a rumor but it's still interesting nonetheless.
Taking the whole thing personally are you? Well that seems to be the problem with having chip related conversations on message boards.
The whole point is to eventually bring everyone to 64 bit whether or be server, desktop whatever. Intel will keep 64 bit CPUs at the server end and 32 bit CPUs for desktop for a few years. AMD's plan is to bring 64 bit to the desktop and server with Clawhammer and Sledgehammer (I think those are the right code names). With everyone having access to an affordable 64 bit solution it will give the opportunity for everyone to recompile their software and move us all there faster. It's really not that difficult to understand.
http://www.theinquirer.net/03080105.htm
It's a rumor but it's still interesting nonetheless.
Taking the whole thing personally are you? Well that seems to be the problem with having chip related conversations on message boards.
The whole point is to eventually bring everyone to 64 bit whether or be server, desktop whatever. Intel will keep 64 bit CPUs at the server end and 32 bit CPUs for desktop for a few years. AMD's plan is to bring 64 bit to the desktop and server with Clawhammer and Sledgehammer (I think those are the right code names). With everyone having access to an affordable 64 bit solution it will give the opportunity for everyone to recompile their software and move us all there faster. It's really not that difficult to understand.
mentioning of the dual cores/SMP on a chip
http://www.sysopt.com/articles/k8/
AMD roadmap shows a 2H 2002 release date
K8 is going to be .13 micron, yet no fab to produce .13 yet
AMD just switched to "hypertrasport" for Hammer, last week.
AMD dropped EV6
AMD dropped LDT
AMD purchased cross license for NUMA and then Hypertransport
I believe AMD will go with hypertransport BUS architecture, since its already working with G5 (Apples new 64bit CPU)
Question, without a BUS how can AMD test samples?
from your link: ""K8" is an alternative designation for AMD's upcoming "Hammer" family of 64-bit processors" alternative design? no its supposed to be the real deal. Not a very good source IMO.
I hope they are producing samples at .18 micron gearing up for reduction, they really need to get on the ball and show something substantial. AMD will announce when they have working samples.
http://www.sysopt.com/articles/k8/
AMD roadmap shows a 2H 2002 release date
K8 is going to be .13 micron, yet no fab to produce .13 yet
AMD just switched to "hypertrasport" for Hammer, last week.
AMD dropped EV6
AMD dropped LDT
AMD purchased cross license for NUMA and then Hypertransport
I believe AMD will go with hypertransport BUS architecture, since its already working with G5 (Apples new 64bit CPU)
Question, without a BUS how can AMD test samples?
from your link: ""K8" is an alternative designation for AMD's upcoming "Hammer" family of 64-bit processors" alternative design? no its supposed to be the real deal. Not a very good source IMO.
I hope they are producing samples at .18 micron gearing up for reduction, they really need to get on the ball and show something substantial. AMD will announce when they have working samples.
Well, as far as I know, the EV7 bus was originally planned to be on the K8, although that's from memory, so I could be mistaken. LDT became Hypertransport, AMD just renamed it(I think it sounded better before), so listing that as a drop is not fair.
Grizely1,
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/03/15/1844224.shtml
(read the last line)
http://ibuyer.sysopt.com/articles/k8/index5.html
(find the K8, hmm single chip and multi core...)
http://www4.tomshardware.com/column/00q3/000726/
(toms says "the Sledgehammer is effectively SMP on a chip")
Hammer has dual 32bit cores on chip aka SMP on a chip. Dont kill the messanger take it up with AMD the originators of "double pumped FSB" some people thought there bus was actually at 200Mhz, when it was actually 100x2. Go figure.
http://www-hydra.stanford.edu/
Accroding to AMD logic, hydra would be a 128bit CPU.
If the hammer was a true 64bit core then there would be no x86 in the x86-64.
If your still not convinced, do a search for "SMP on a chip" and notice almost everyone references the Hammer
Yes, I copied and pasted from my other post. Next time do some research before you shove large objects deep inside your...
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/03/15/1844224.shtml
(read the last line)
http://ibuyer.sysopt.com/articles/k8/index5.html
(find the K8, hmm single chip and multi core...)
http://www4.tomshardware.com/column/00q3/000726/
(toms says "the Sledgehammer is effectively SMP on a chip")
Hammer has dual 32bit cores on chip aka SMP on a chip. Dont kill the messanger take it up with AMD the originators of "double pumped FSB" some people thought there bus was actually at 200Mhz, when it was actually 100x2. Go figure.
http://www-hydra.stanford.edu/
Accroding to AMD logic, hydra would be a 128bit CPU.
If the hammer was a true 64bit core then there would be no x86 in the x86-64.
If your still not convinced, do a search for "SMP on a chip" and notice almost everyone references the Hammer
Yes, I copied and pasted from my other post. Next time do some research before you shove large objects deep inside your...
"If the hammer was a true 64bit core then there would be no x86 in the x86-64."
I'm going to have to disagree here. The 8086 was the first x86 processor. It had 16-bit registers (AX, etc). The 80386 was the first 32-bit processor. It had 32-bit registers (EAX, etc) which were extensions of the original 16-bit registers. The first 16-bits of the EAX register is the AX register. The 80386 has a true 32-bit core but is definately an x86 processor because it is entirely backward compatible in hardware.
However, the effort to maintain backward compatibility really killed much of the possible performance gains that could have been achieved. A couple decades is more than long enough for one architecture to be in use. The design is old and obsolete. We should not maintain it when moving to 64-bit architectures.
The 64-bit architectures are still premature for the desktop. I don't see many people using 4 gigabytes of memory at home and I definately don't see any home software that require this. The 640K/1MB memory limit of the 16-bit architecture was the main reason for the initial move to a 32-bit architecture. We simply needed access to more memory. Anyone around in those days of XMS/EMS/DOS extenders/DPMI/Overlay swapping/etc can attest to this. Using more than the available 1MB of memory was a pain in the a**. We have not yet reached this hardware limit in home PCs. If the 64-bit design is for more memory, then noone yet needs it at home. If the 64-bit design is for more performance, then everyone would love it if it were not extremely expensive.
AMD's 'hammer' line is a mere extension to 64-bits. This gives you access to more memory but no additional performance (barring the extra memory). At this point I must ask this question: Why? 4GB of memory is plenty for home PCs for the next few years. Why pay all that extra money now when all it does is increase your available memory to beyond 4GB. That's an awful lot of money to spend on something so very much unneeded right now.
Intel's IA64 architecture is a complete redesign with state of the art techniques. In addition to the access to more memory you also get much more performance due to the elimination of legacy design in the processor. Everyone can always use extra performance. Currently this technology is expensive, aimed at the high end server market. There are a plethora of 64-bit server applications, even a completely 64-bit (IA64) version of Windows XP, available to these high end servers so the use of 32-bit software is unneeded. As time goes by the price of IA64 CPUs will drop and more developers will target it for home applications. When this happens it might be time to move to a 64-bit CPU at home.
When that time comes I know which 64-bit architecture I'm going to opt for; the one that offers more performance in addition to access to more memory. I choose IA64.
-Raystonn
P.S. Everyone is welcome to respond. But please keep the flames away. Fire retardant suits are very uncomfortable.
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
I'm going to have to disagree here. The 8086 was the first x86 processor. It had 16-bit registers (AX, etc). The 80386 was the first 32-bit processor. It had 32-bit registers (EAX, etc) which were extensions of the original 16-bit registers. The first 16-bits of the EAX register is the AX register. The 80386 has a true 32-bit core but is definately an x86 processor because it is entirely backward compatible in hardware.
However, the effort to maintain backward compatibility really killed much of the possible performance gains that could have been achieved. A couple decades is more than long enough for one architecture to be in use. The design is old and obsolete. We should not maintain it when moving to 64-bit architectures.
The 64-bit architectures are still premature for the desktop. I don't see many people using 4 gigabytes of memory at home and I definately don't see any home software that require this. The 640K/1MB memory limit of the 16-bit architecture was the main reason for the initial move to a 32-bit architecture. We simply needed access to more memory. Anyone around in those days of XMS/EMS/DOS extenders/DPMI/Overlay swapping/etc can attest to this. Using more than the available 1MB of memory was a pain in the a**. We have not yet reached this hardware limit in home PCs. If the 64-bit design is for more memory, then noone yet needs it at home. If the 64-bit design is for more performance, then everyone would love it if it were not extremely expensive.
AMD's 'hammer' line is a mere extension to 64-bits. This gives you access to more memory but no additional performance (barring the extra memory). At this point I must ask this question: Why? 4GB of memory is plenty for home PCs for the next few years. Why pay all that extra money now when all it does is increase your available memory to beyond 4GB. That's an awful lot of money to spend on something so very much unneeded right now.
Intel's IA64 architecture is a complete redesign with state of the art techniques. In addition to the access to more memory you also get much more performance due to the elimination of legacy design in the processor. Everyone can always use extra performance. Currently this technology is expensive, aimed at the high end server market. There are a plethora of 64-bit server applications, even a completely 64-bit (IA64) version of Windows XP, available to these high end servers so the use of 32-bit software is unneeded. As time goes by the price of IA64 CPUs will drop and more developers will target it for home applications. When this happens it might be time to move to a 64-bit CPU at home.
When that time comes I know which 64-bit architecture I'm going to opt for; the one that offers more performance in addition to access to more memory. I choose IA64.
-Raystonn
P.S. Everyone is welcome to respond. But please keep the flames away. Fire retardant suits are very uncomfortable.
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
My point was the hammer is not a true 64bit processor. it was built on 32bit x86 technology. I was not trying to say x86 was 32bit only.
IAx86-64? I dont think so.
Its 2x 32bit cores on a single chip using software to feed 64bit word into it. as far as the 32bit code it is zero extended to fill 64bit register.
I just tried AMD.com and they seem to be down. I pinged them and no known host as if DNS entried were removed.
IAx86-64? I dont think so.
Its 2x 32bit cores on a single chip using software to feed 64bit word into it. as far as the 32bit code it is zero extended to fill 64bit register.
I just tried AMD.com and they seem to be down. I pinged them and no known host as if DNS entried were removed.
I don't know about the dual cores, but it looks to me that x86-64 is indeed 64 bit core according to the information readily available on the AMD web site. Here is one clip of that information:
AMD 64-bit technology includes the x86-64™ architecture, which is a 64-bit extension of the x86 architecture. The x86-64
architecture supports legacy 16-bit and 32-bit applications and operating systems without modification. It provides recompiled
64-bit applications and operating systems with these new features:
64-bit flat virtual addressing
8 new general-purpose registers (GPRs)
8 new registers for streaming SIMD extensions (SSE)
64-bit-wide GPRs and instruction pointer
The x86-64 architecture has a legacy mode in which it supports binary compatibility with existing operating systems and
applications, and a new mode in which it supports both the new features for recompiled code as well as binary compatibility with
existing applications. The architecture also adds a new instruction-pointer relative-addressing mode, uniform byte-register
addressing, and a fast interrupt-prioritizing mechanism.
Seems to me that it has a 32 bit compatibility mode, BUT it is still a 64 bit processor. Perhaps it has 2 64 bit processors in the core ?
When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
AMD 64-bit technology includes the x86-64™ architecture, which is a 64-bit extension of the x86 architecture. The x86-64
architecture supports legacy 16-bit and 32-bit applications and operating systems without modification. It provides recompiled
64-bit applications and operating systems with these new features:
64-bit flat virtual addressing
8 new general-purpose registers (GPRs)
8 new registers for streaming SIMD extensions (SSE)
64-bit-wide GPRs and instruction pointer
The x86-64 architecture has a legacy mode in which it supports binary compatibility with existing operating systems and
applications, and a new mode in which it supports both the new features for recompiled code as well as binary compatibility with
existing applications. The architecture also adds a new instruction-pointer relative-addressing mode, uniform byte-register
addressing, and a fast interrupt-prioritizing mechanism.
Seems to me that it has a 32 bit compatibility mode, BUT it is still a 64 bit processor. Perhaps it has 2 64 bit processors in the core ?
When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
Grizely1
Splendid
- Dec 31, 2007
- 7,764
- 0
- 30,780
Sorry, I didn't read your whole post... All I read was the first couple of lines. (the rest isn't worth reading).
I guess I was misinfornmed, I read that it had two cores, one for 32bit and one for 64bit. Woops.
--
It's Princess Leia, the yodel of my life. Give me my sweater back or I'll play the guitar.
I guess I was misinfornmed, I read that it had two cores, one for 32bit and one for 64bit. Woops.
--
It's Princess Leia, the yodel of my life. Give me my sweater back or I'll play the guitar.
But horrible 32-bit performance, which will make the desktop 32 to 64 conversion very painful for the average user.
Still waiting for someone to give an escuse on the part of Intel for this, or a way it will be taken care of.
And don't even think about saying "Doesn't matter, because Itanium is only for servers, who will only run 64-bit code"
That's part of what Raystonn was saying. Virtual. In other words, software.
-----------------------
Quarter pounder inside
NP griz, I should have posted links to start with.
There is no transition from 32 to 64, If your planning on buying a 64bit machine you already have a specific application/need for it. I highly doubt you will spend 10K+ on a machine to run 32bit apps. or buy one just for shits and grins. let alone the price on 64bit applications in mind numbingly high. Supercritical can run $150K +
http://www.cfdrc.com/
The average user will not buy a Itanium. Itanium has a specific purpose not some hypothetical situation you made up. so quit dreaming of having one at your desk and being bummed about 32bit apps.
Im sure you would buy a corvette to hual large rocks.
Intel builds for future technologies, not letting the constraints of existing software limitations hold it back. you gotta get over it and come to the realization that 64bit is still a ways off from being a consumer
product.http://www.sgi.com/newsroom/press_releases/2001/august/osc.html
First Itanium based cluster. This 146-processor system will allow Ohio researchers to study everything from quark-antiquark attraction and radiation transfer in astrophysical outflows to simulations of photosynthesis components and matter in the early universe.
This system is almost 1 teraflop at a fraction of the size and power consumption. system cost exceeds 17 million dollars.
We got the bid on DOI (department of the interior/land mapping from space) and NSA (National Security Administration/cryptology ~1024bit) clusters that exceeds 8 billion dollars.
There is no transition from 32 to 64, If your planning on buying a 64bit machine you already have a specific application/need for it. I highly doubt you will spend 10K+ on a machine to run 32bit apps. or buy one just for shits and grins. let alone the price on 64bit applications in mind numbingly high. Supercritical can run $150K +
http://www.cfdrc.com/
The average user will not buy a Itanium. Itanium has a specific purpose not some hypothetical situation you made up. so quit dreaming of having one at your desk and being bummed about 32bit apps.
Im sure you would buy a corvette to hual large rocks.
Intel builds for future technologies, not letting the constraints of existing software limitations hold it back. you gotta get over it and come to the realization that 64bit is still a ways off from being a consumer
product.http://www.sgi.com/newsroom/press_releases/2001/august/osc.html
First Itanium based cluster. This 146-processor system will allow Ohio researchers to study everything from quark-antiquark attraction and radiation transfer in astrophysical outflows to simulations of photosynthesis components and matter in the early universe.
This system is almost 1 teraflop at a fraction of the size and power consumption. system cost exceeds 17 million dollars.
We got the bid on DOI (department of the interior/land mapping from space) and NSA (National Security Administration/cryptology ~1024bit) clusters that exceeds 8 billion dollars.
"But horrible 32-bit performance, which will make the desktop 32 to 64 conversion very painful for the average user."
By the time home PCs need 64-bit CPUs, all software will be available as 64-bit. If it were up to me I wouldn't have bothered including the 32-bit emulation at all. It's unneeded. To produce an IA64 executable you simply click a radio dial in the compiler and rebuild the project. It's not very difficult.
If you want excellent 64-bit processing, get an IA64 CPU. If you want excellent 32-bit processing, get an IA32 CPU. If you'd like performance in both arenas grab one of each. The price of the 32-bit CPU will only add about 10% to the cost of your purchase. The Itanium is not the IA64 CPU that will be targetted for home PCs. It would have been pointless to add extra 32-bit capabilities to the server chip. They would have remained unused.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
By the time home PCs need 64-bit CPUs, all software will be available as 64-bit. If it were up to me I wouldn't have bothered including the 32-bit emulation at all. It's unneeded. To produce an IA64 executable you simply click a radio dial in the compiler and rebuild the project. It's not very difficult.
If you want excellent 64-bit processing, get an IA64 CPU. If you want excellent 32-bit processing, get an IA32 CPU. If you'd like performance in both arenas grab one of each. The price of the 32-bit CPU will only add about 10% to the cost of your purchase. The Itanium is not the IA64 CPU that will be targetted for home PCs. It would have been pointless to add extra 32-bit capabilities to the server chip. They would have remained unused.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
What a surprise. FUGGER gets lost as soon as someone starts talking, but Rayston actually bothers to figure out what I'm talking about 
Ok, I agree it's easy to recompile for 64-bit, but you have to be using a 64-bit processor to do that, right? I could be wrong, I'm not a programmer.
I disagree that all software will be available for 64-bit. Yes, the major stuff will be (Windows, Office, Adobe products, etc), but how many home users use only major products? Hardly any. What about the software my company makes, that holds the record for the biggest-selling Christian software ever? It'd probably be too much work to go through another version of the software, meaning that churches all over the world who use the software either find something else (which right now doesn't really exist), or stick with 32-bit CPUs. Not the best example, but you get my point.
You mention getting a 32-bit and a 64-bit CPU. What about dual processor boards, one of each? Is that possible? Interesting concept, I know what's not what you meant.
I remain convinced that the average home user will not want to suddenly transition their enitre computer AND all their software to 64-bit all at once. That's asking a lot of people, regardless of how readily available software is.
-----------------------
Quarter pounder inside
Ok, I agree it's easy to recompile for 64-bit, but you have to be using a 64-bit processor to do that, right? I could be wrong, I'm not a programmer.
I disagree that all software will be available for 64-bit. Yes, the major stuff will be (Windows, Office, Adobe products, etc), but how many home users use only major products? Hardly any. What about the software my company makes, that holds the record for the biggest-selling Christian software ever? It'd probably be too much work to go through another version of the software, meaning that churches all over the world who use the software either find something else (which right now doesn't really exist), or stick with 32-bit CPUs. Not the best example, but you get my point.
You mention getting a 32-bit and a 64-bit CPU. What about dual processor boards, one of each? Is that possible? Interesting concept, I know what's not what you meant.
I remain convinced that the average home user will not want to suddenly transition their enitre computer AND all their software to 64-bit all at once. That's asking a lot of people, regardless of how readily available software is.
Right, I know that, I'm not talking about Itanium but McKinley. So my question is, what's the difference between the two? McKinley isn't a huge amount different (as far as I know), so it would still run 32-bit slowly, making it a huge problem for the average home user.
-----------------------
Quarter pounder inside
"Ok, I agree it's easy to recompile for 64-bit, but you have to be using a 64-bit processor to do that, right?"
No. You can target IA64 (create an IA64 application) while running the compiler and developing on an IA32 processor. It requires no extra setup; just the click of the radio dial. Of course you'll need an IA64 processor to test it and make sure it works as desired.
"I disagree that all software will be available for 64-bit."
That's what they said about 32-bit software when we transitioned from DOS. But here we are with operating systems (Windows 2000 and XP) that no longer contain any 16-bit code. All of our modern applications are 32-bit and those 16-bit applications that people just "have to have" for some reason actually run much faster than they did on the old 16-bit CPUs simply because processors have increased in speed dramatically since 16-bit software development halted. The same thing will occur when we shift to 64-bit processors. The processors will be so fast that even when slowed down by the old legacy code they execute the application faster than the native 32-bit CPUs did when the application was first released. 16-bit applications run slower on our 32-bit CPUs. If you want the best performance you use a 32-bit application. 32-bit applications will run more slowly on our 64-bit CPUs. If you want the best performance you use a 64-bit application.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
No. You can target IA64 (create an IA64 application) while running the compiler and developing on an IA32 processor. It requires no extra setup; just the click of the radio dial. Of course you'll need an IA64 processor to test it and make sure it works as desired.
"I disagree that all software will be available for 64-bit."
That's what they said about 32-bit software when we transitioned from DOS. But here we are with operating systems (Windows 2000 and XP) that no longer contain any 16-bit code. All of our modern applications are 32-bit and those 16-bit applications that people just "have to have" for some reason actually run much faster than they did on the old 16-bit CPUs simply because processors have increased in speed dramatically since 16-bit software development halted. The same thing will occur when we shift to 64-bit processors. The processors will be so fast that even when slowed down by the old legacy code they execute the application faster than the native 32-bit CPUs did when the application was first released. 16-bit applications run slower on our 32-bit CPUs. If you want the best performance you use a 32-bit application. 32-bit applications will run more slowly on our 64-bit CPUs. If you want the best performance you use a 64-bit application.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Actually, Fugger you are incorrect in your assertion that Hammer is only in simulation mode and doesn't have any hardware sampling.
Indeed, X-Bit Labs has a brief article on it as does Vans (X-Bit links to Vans. Here is the URL:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/story.html?id=997230293
<a href="http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/story.html?id=997230293">
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/story.html?id=997230293</a>
As for the supposition that Hammer isn't a real 64 bit CPU...Since the 386, 486 and Pentium are all based on the 16 bit 8086/80286, I guess that means THEY aren't real 32 bit CPUs then, ehh?
Interesting logic there folks!
When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
Indeed, X-Bit Labs has a brief article on it as does Vans (X-Bit links to Vans. Here is the URL:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/story.html?id=997230293
<a href="http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/story.html?id=997230293">
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/story.html?id=997230293</a>
As for the supposition that Hammer isn't a real 64 bit CPU...Since the 386, 486 and Pentium are all based on the 16 bit 8086/80286, I guess that means THEY aren't real 32 bit CPUs then, ehh?
Interesting logic there folks!
When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
Kelledin
Distinguished
- Mar 1, 2001
- 2,183
- 0
- 19,780
Ja, but the 32-bit transition happened so fast because 32-bit offered so many benefits. By the time it came around, developers were already feeling constricted by the 16MB memory cap and the extra work required to emulate 32-bit registers for arithmetic ops. Except for extreme high-end apps, developers aren't feeling all that constricted with 32 bits.
Kelledin
"/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."
Kelledin
"/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."
Kelledin
Distinguished
- Mar 1, 2001
- 2,183
- 0
- 19,780
LoL :lol:What a surprise. FUGGER gets lost as soon as someone starts talking, but Rayston actually bothers to figure out what I'm talking about
Hey FUGGER, do you ever wonder why Raystonn gets respect, and you don't? Think about it.
Kelledin
"/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."
"developers were already feeling constricted by the 16MB memory cap"
(Just for clarification, a bit over 1MB cap for 8086/8088 and 16MB cap for the 80286.)
This is true. This is one reason why we don't really need 64-bit CPUs as of yet. We haven't gotten close to feeling the limits of the 32-bit addressing space. I will not be purchasing a 64-bit CPU for years to come. The only other reason to buy a 64-bit CPU would be the added performance of a new design. AMD's chip does not offer this. They just give you access to more memory. As we've already said, noone (at home) needs that right now.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
(Just for clarification, a bit over 1MB cap for 8086/8088 and 16MB cap for the 80286.)
This is true. This is one reason why we don't really need 64-bit CPUs as of yet. We haven't gotten close to feeling the limits of the 32-bit addressing space. I will not be purchasing a 64-bit CPU for years to come. The only other reason to buy a 64-bit CPU would be the added performance of a new design. AMD's chip does not offer this. They just give you access to more memory. As we've already said, noone (at home) needs that right now.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Actually, Raystonn, according to AMD, Hammer should run 32 bit apps faster than current 32 bit processors. It will be interesting to see how well the reality bears up to the theoretical *paper* specs. Chances are, Hammer will be transitioned to regular desktop PC's later in 2003. By then maybe 64 bit apps will be needed by more people. Now that it's out in sample quantities, hopefully actual real world specs and benchmarks will become available within a few months.
When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
Yes this is because by the time it's released, "current 32 bit processors" will be a couple years old (current means those CPUs out at the time of the writing of that article) and hammer will be at a higher clockspeed. Their actual design is nothing new for the 32-bit aspect of it. It's just the typical "faster CPUs are released as time goes on" line. This is true of all CPUs, not just the hammer. Take a look at the hammer's specs. There's no new technology in the 32-bit part of their processor.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
lhgpoobaa
Illustrious
- Dec 31, 2007
- 14,456
- 1
- 40,780
mmmm
which was the first 32bit processor? the 286? 386?
i cannot see the general computing community (software & hardware) going to 64bit anytime within at least 5 years.
mostly because a vast majority of pc's are still using windows 95/98/ME, which still contains a fair slug of 16bit code.
same applies for general acceptance of dual processor systems.
Quote from the Hamster: "Why is it that Morons are just smart enough to understand how to breed?"
which was the first 32bit processor? the 286? 386?
i cannot see the general computing community (software & hardware) going to 64bit anytime within at least 5 years.
mostly because a vast majority of pc's are still using windows 95/98/ME, which still contains a fair slug of 16bit code.
same applies for general acceptance of dual processor systems.
Quote from the Hamster: "Why is it that Morons are just smart enough to understand how to breed?"
From <A HREF="http://www1.amd.com/products/cpg/x8664bit/faq" target="_new">"Frequently Asked Questions about the AMD x86-64™ Technology"</A>.
"... Question:
Why is 64-bit technology important? What applications benefit from 64-bits?
Answer:
The need for 64-bit technology is driven by applications that address large amounts of physical and virtual memory, such as high performance servers, database management systems, and CAD tools. AMD’s evolutionary approach to 64-bit technology allows the gradual software transition from 32-bit to 64-bit. Only those applications that benefit from the features of 64-bit technology need to be ported. ..."
and
"... Question:
Will users running 32-bit applications benefit from the underlying 64-bit architecture or just from processor speed advances?
Answer:
No. 32-bit applications do not utilize 64-bit extensions. Processor speed advances will help both 32-bit and 64-bit applications and operating systems at the same time. ..."
Looks like Intel will cover the high-end server markets with the IA64, while AMD x86-64 target market is low-end servers and CAD workstations. The x86-64 trades performance (it's an extension of an existing architecture) for cost savings while still gaining the ability to run applications that requires a large amount of memory space.
"... Question:
Why is 64-bit technology important? What applications benefit from 64-bits?
Answer:
The need for 64-bit technology is driven by applications that address large amounts of physical and virtual memory, such as high performance servers, database management systems, and CAD tools. AMD’s evolutionary approach to 64-bit technology allows the gradual software transition from 32-bit to 64-bit. Only those applications that benefit from the features of 64-bit technology need to be ported. ..."
and
"... Question:
Will users running 32-bit applications benefit from the underlying 64-bit architecture or just from processor speed advances?
Answer:
No. 32-bit applications do not utilize 64-bit extensions. Processor speed advances will help both 32-bit and 64-bit applications and operating systems at the same time. ..."
Looks like Intel will cover the high-end server markets with the IA64, while AMD x86-64 target market is low-end servers and CAD workstations. The x86-64 trades performance (it's an extension of an existing architecture) for cost savings while still gaining the ability to run applications that requires a large amount of memory space.
Kelledin
Distinguished
- Mar 1, 2001
- 2,183
- 0
- 19,780
The 386 was the first 32-bit CPU. The 286 was able to address up to 16MB of memory by making segment register values an index into a segment descriptor table of 24-bit linear addresses, rather than just a linear address divided by 16. Basically 16-bit apps on a 286 had the same limitations accessing memory over 1MB as Pentiums have accessing memory over 4GB.
Kelledin
"/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."
Kelledin
"/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."
Going back in time a bit and I was programming 68000/68030 at this time but, 386 was first 32 bit core, newtered by 16 bit buses(SP) 486 was the first effective 32 bit cpu as it had 32bit buses.
--------------------------------
Look at the size of that thing!
--------------------------------
Look at the size of that thing!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question No POST on new AM5 build - - - and the CPU & DRAM lights are on ?
- Started by Uknownflowet
- Replies: 13
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram