Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel's 64-bit X86 "on the way"

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 16, 2003 9:59:08 PM

<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13198" target="_new">Click to read</A>


----------------
<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 & 3DMark score</A></b>

More about : intel bit x86

December 17, 2003 2:39:35 AM

Read that thanks.
December 17, 2003 3:10:36 AM

Just a outsiders look here. But, Didn't Intel say in one form or another that they weren't worried about 64-bit for several years? do they feel that AMD has posed a threat? Is Intel back-peddling a bit?

Just one of those things that make you go hmm??
Related resources
December 17, 2003 3:20:40 AM

I don't think Intel is too worried...drivers and software still have a long way to go for 64-bit computing. However, Intel doesn't want to be caught off-guard or behind the times when the software and drivers do arrive, which might be why they are releasing their 64-bit chip soon.

Also, Intel's x86 64-bit process is supposedly not compatible with AMD's x86-64 (or x87). This means that two different Windows will have to be written, as well as two different __________s (name your software)...Intel wants to get their foot in the door and get recognized. As I said above, they don't want to be caught off-guard or the behind the times when the technology becomes more complete.

Or, they may have been developing it for some time now, found a breakthrough in one form or another and have the release date pushed way ahead of schedule...i.e., soon. Either way, it seems Intel will not let AMD just walk away with the crown for 64-bit computing (when it becomes a reality for consumers).

But, IMO, it's just good ol' competition and intimidation. Intel said nothing of 64-bit for the longest time, then when AMD start building some steam, they announce that their own 64-bit is coming soon.

Damn Rambus.
December 17, 2003 3:37:06 AM

^What are you talking about?

Intel doesnt have any x86-64 bit technology what-so-ever....or x86 64-bit as you put it.....

X86, is...x86..despite who makes it...so how can u say AMD's 86 is less OR more compatible than Intel's (non-existant) 64-bit processors for x86 ?

Intel's 64-bit market IS the IA-64.....Itanium and Itanium 2.....they are not x86 processors.....

Intel said way back when AMD told the world they were gonna make the next generation x86 cpus' to be 64-bit that Intel woudl not support x86 in 64-bit world.....MEANING....Intel was gonan leave the x86 market....There was speculation that Intel's Marketign "superiority" woudl put AMD out of business and there x86-64 wouldnt take off and the world wold shift over to Intel IA-64......

Now look whos comign to crawl back? Intel is now coming back to the x86 market and WILL make a 64-bit chip for x86 to compete with AMD....

CASE & POINT..... Intel Lies.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=13597" target="_new">-MeTaL RoCkEr</A>
December 17, 2003 5:27:23 AM

Quote:
Intel doesnt have any x86-64 bit technology what-so-ever...

Read the article...it's coming 'soon.'

Quote:
X86, is...x86..despite who makes it...so how can u say AMD's 86 is less OR more compatible than Intel's (non-existant) 64-bit processors for x86 ?

I didn't notice in the article that it says Intel plans to release an <b>x86-64</b> processor, I stand corrected. However, there were talks awhile back about Intel releasing a tertiary 64-bit processors (not IA-64, not x86-64) for desktop use, meant to take out the Athlon 64 (FX) in the future. It would have required a different Windows (and subsequently all other programs) to be recoded AGAIN, which is what I was talking about.

Quote:
Intel said way back when AMD told the world they were gonna make the next generation x86 cpus' to be 64-bit that Intel woudl not support x86 in 64-bit world.....MEANING....Intel was gonan leave the x86 market....There was speculation that Intel's Marketign "superiority" woudl put AMD out of business and there x86-64 wouldnt take off and the world wold shift over to Intel IA-64......

Exactly what I was talking about, minus the IA-64 bit at the end. They were talking about creating a tertiary 64-bit processor that was capable of emulating (or even natively running, like the Athlons) x86, but potentially natively ran in a derivative of IA-64. This processor, as you said, would be Intel's attempt to put AMD essentially out of business.

Quote:
Now look whos comign to crawl back? Intel is now coming back to the x86 market and WILL make a 64-bit chip for x86 to compete with AMD....

Yeah, what's wrong with them coming back (they actually never left--Itanium isn't for the people)? They never said they WOULDN'T, only that they would not be x86 in the future...tomorrow never will die! Frankly, I believe that their tertiary process is scrapped and temporarily replaced by x86-64. HOWEVER, I also feel (if and only if they continue to make money and dominate the PC market over the next 5+ years) that they will attempt to push AMD out of the market much later (2010, no sooner) by switching out of x86...if only they knew how much competition helped the consumer!

Damn Rambus.
December 17, 2003 1:39:22 PM

Intel said they would have 64 with Prescott. But it would not be enabled.
!