Yamhill official............2005

[eden]

<A HREF="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/32131.html" target="_new">http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/32131.html</A>
I don't know what Intel is doing, but if AMD is succesful selling AMD64 to the mass crowd minds, they're greatly wrong in delaying Yamhill.

Oh well, at least now we know it exists. But alas, if only IA-64 was pushed.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>The sexiest website ever, guaranteed XXX!!!</font color=blue></b></A>
PS: New sexy users' sites now added!

 

[Spitfire_x86]

I hope it's compatible with AMD's x86-64

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new"> My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new"> My Rig</A></b>

 

[lhgpoobaa]

compatible? hahahaha
Maybe with a 64bit windows iteration.

<b>Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b>

 

[pIII_Man]

Won't this be good for amd...because if the industry leader switches to 64bit then the software market should slowly start to switch over to 64 bit apps...

If i put my k6 in a Ferrari it would be faster than your your pentium 4 or Athlon XP :tongue:

 

[Jake_Barnes]

And I'll be dead by then - soooooooo wtf ...




<b><font color=red>I did NOT have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky ... - Bill "Cigar Man" Clinton</font color=red><b>

 

[HardWareBoss]

It's about time lets get 64 bit up an running. What the heck let's skip 64 bit PIII and bring out 128 Bit. That way we'll be the first ones with it. Think of all the $$$$$$ we can make. yahoo!!!!

 

[pIII_Man]

I am sorry to hear that jake...

What i am saying is that even now software programers have an incentive to use the extra registers of x86-64 bit processors...They know that it will be used in the near future buy the industry leader in cpus...and also can be used on amd machines too...

If i put my k6 in a Ferrari it would be faster than your your pentium 4 or Athlon XP :tongue:

 

[pIII_Man]

oh ya...maybe pIII's had 128bit functionality but it was dissabled from the factory? Hmm...i bet they also had hyperthreading 3.0 which would divide the cpu into 8 logical processors too....

yup those pIII's were ahead of their time...

If i put my k6 in a Ferrari it would be faster than your your pentium 4 or Athlon XP :tongue:

 

[HardWareBoss]

Want to see a sweet Mobo? That is Quad Pump Xeons MP?

 

[Dark_Archonis]

you're joking right?

The only "yamhill" or 64 bit instructions that Intel may possibly add would be some sort of IA-64 extensions. For Intel to add x86-64 support would directly conflict with IA-64, and Intel would never do that. AFAIK, Yamhill WAS cancelled (although it may exist in Prescott/Tejas). In 2005, which is when Nehalem is set to debut, they will most likely add some IA-64 extensions/support to start the transition to 64 bits, since Intel has stated that their desktop CPU's will be IA-64 in 2008/2009.

- - -
"... In the semiconductor industry, it's good to be paranoid ..." - [Andy Grove]</font color=green>

 

[slvr_phoenix]

It was a strange article, especially since I didn't really see anything that made Yamhill 'official'. **shrug**

That aside, <i>if</i>Intel releases some form of x86-64 it will be for only one reason: <i>to keep AMD in business</i>.

Yeah, sounds weird. I know. But Intel's sales will benefit a lot more from <i>not</i> supporting the hybredization of x86-64 because it will force AMD's A64s to flop because of a lack of software support. Since Intel doesn't want to gain so much market share that they become a litteral monopoly as defined by law, the only possible reasoning for Intel to release x86-64 would be to make x86-64 software more commonplace so that AMD's A64 doesn't flop for home use.

That aside, nothing in the article sounded even close to officially stated from Intel and 2005 is a long way away to even count as Yamhill. Yamhill is x86-64, and by 2005 we'll probably be looking at something much more interesting like a budget hybrid cross between IA32 and IA64, quite possibly done simply with two seperate processor cores in one die. (After all Intel has already devoted themselves to multi-cored Itaniums in the future. I doubt that an IA32/IA64 combo would be much more difficult to produce.)

Granted, I'm not sure how much sense it would really be to have a hybrid IA32/IA64 using two completely seperate cores in the same die. In theory there would be an awful lot of wasted processing power then as I doubt that both dies would be massed simultaneously. So some sort of a hybrid between the two would probably make more sense becahse even if it was theoretically less efficient at maximum, real world use would have greater efficiency than seperate IA32 and IA64 cores.

Anywho, I'm not sure that I even care either way. **ROFL** Whether Intel releases Yamhill in 2005, 2003, or even 2750, or they release some IA64 hybrid, or release nothing at all... Whether AMD's A64 succeeds or flops, no matter what happens, in the end I'll just be buying whatever best meets my needs that I can afford to run the software that I use. For all that I care HP could release a new Uber-Alpha that beats them all or VIA could release an Eden7+Pro that runs fanless <i>and</i> beats them all. I don't really care. **ROFL** I'm a player. I'll use whomever puts out. :O

"<i>Let's see what <b>Paragraph 84-B</b> has to say about it.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030724" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>

 

[Mephistopheles]

I think I read it somewhere that Yamhill might just be a very powerful IA32 emulation for a IA64 processor. So it might be remotely possible that IA64 architecture will replace IA32 entirely, while being capable of emulating it very easily. Sounds reasonable...

Then again, Yamhill could just be some sort of extension to IA32, of course.

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles