Predictions

[Guest]

A few months ago, I spent dozens of posts and countless hours on <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=155619#155619" target="_new">debating </A>the usefullness of 64 bit. I argued it was going to be useful soon -if not now- for a lot of people, and should definately be taken into consideration when buying a machine now when you expect it to last longer than 1 or 2 years. I also managed to <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=155858#155858" target="_new">convince </A> at least some regulars that it doesnt take 4 GB of RAM to require 64 bit addressing, and I <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=156023#156023" target="_new">predicted intel would not be able to ignore this for more than a year </A>, and would have no choice but to support it.

Well, few people believed me (any of it), precious few beleived intel would adopt the AMD standard, and lots of them continued arguing 64 bit was a non issue, and incorrectly relating it to >4 GB RAM (for those who still don't know, the real issue is 2 GB virtual memory per process, regardless of how little RAM you have).

This week, I linked to some very convincing rumours Intel was about to come clean on Yamhill, and would introduce 64 bit capable x86 cpu's. Again, most of the people that didnt believe me back then, would not believe it now, even if Otellini's words where really quite impossible to interprete any other way. A lot of them remained sceptical, some of them even now when every major newssite has reported this as a fact. Some other people are still unsure intel's Yamhill will be AMD64 compatible (it will).

Now I am going to make a few bold predictions, you may bookmark and throw it my face later if ever I'm proven wrong, but only if you took a position yourself in this thread. Its too easy to say 'you where wrong' when you didnt say a thing yourself. Here goes:

1) Intel will release 64 bit capable cpu's that are 100% compatible with AMD64. No new x86 extented ISA, no x86/IA64 hybrid.

2) These chips will not be available in the market until the very end of this year or more likely, somewhere in the first half of 2005. They may be announced this summer or so, but you won't be able to buy them before then, most likely when tejas ships, and not earlier. Even if windows for AMD64 ships much earlier. Intel is *not* waiting for windows like it will say, its desperately trying to fix their chips.

3) Intel fanboys that have been saying 'wait for prescott' since last summer, will soon start saying 'wait for the improved s775 prescott', and then, 'wait for tejas'. those same fanboys that ridiculed the 64 bit argument only a month ago, will very soon advice you to wait for 64 bit capable prescott or tejas chips, and if Intel adds some extra instructions to AMD64 (which is likely IMHO) use this as an argument against Athlon 64's (I hope you see the irony).

4) By the end of next year, 80-90% of us running 64 bit capable cpu's (intel or AMD) will run 64 bit windows (or Linux), and run/play several 64 bit games/apps. Those who just got a 32 bit only P4 will be slapping themselves, especially the one's that got themselves a >$1.000 P4EE.

5) But most of you will likely still not have more than 4 gigs of ram.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[juin]

Intel will release 64 bit capable cpu's that are 100% compatible with AMD64. No new x86 extented ISA, no x86/IA64 hybrid


Does it will be only for XEON or the full ligne from celeron to XEON MP.Yes XEON face a need for 64 bit computing.Itanium is still in heavy developement and there about the same number of itanium sold that opteron.2P-4P segment is not ready for itanium a tempory solution must be found.In a case there is a Xeon that support 64 bit mode it still can be emulate with Excution layer for itanium.Vanderpool technologie will be ready soon itanium will gain the most out of this.


To be AMD64 compatible AMD would have know it.A license is need as SSE2 and others been lincense by intel for AMD.They pay intel money for each CPU sold.So my point is AMD would have say that intel would back there technologie but no such thing have happen.


The pure need of 64 bit computing in desktop dont exist and wont improve performance SPEC cpu prove it the 64 bit mode is slower.So may bash SPEC but institution and enterprise will look at SPEC and respect it.Intel itself dont goes will on 64 bit computing even for there itanium.

I dont like french test

 

[Mephistopheles]

Hm... This is speculation land, but OK for a gedanken experiment.

precious few beleived intel would adopt the AMD standard

It is still unclear that intel will adopt x86-64 exactly in the same way as A64 will. It is much more likely that they will develop an extended version thereof and then say "this is our version of 64-bit extensions". There is nothing ironic in that, and there would be nothing wrong in recommending their approach to it if it turned out to be better or faster than AMD's equivalent. There's no "the original is better" in this game.

Therefore, Intel's 64-bit tech being compatible with AMD64 is a no brainer. But will it limit itself to that? Hell, noone here can know anything about that. Not even you, bob.

In any case, the two architectures (a64 and P4) are so different that, even if you were to implement the exact same x86-64 in P4s, it might bring some differences that I can't hope to predict. How will a high clock, low IPC architecture react, exactly? Will its high clock enable it to do lots of work (like with SSE2, for instance... it makes P4 quite strong), or will P4s basic low IPC structure cripple the 64-bit extensions?... Will optimising to x86-64 benefit A64 more than it will the future and eventual P4-64 (I know this is highly speculative, but we're at it, aren't we?)

But as for this one:

2) These chips will not be available in the market until the very end of this year or more likely, somewhere in the first half of 2005. They may be announced this summer or so, but you won't be able to buy them before then, most likely when tejas ships, and not earlier. Even if windows for AMD64 ships much earlier. Intel is *not* waiting for windows like it will say, its desperately trying to fix their chips.

This one I can relate to. The problem for Intel right now is that they have said they'd introduce Prescott now (meaning, within 48 hours...). So if Prescott doesn't have the 64-bit tech now, because Intel didn't manage to get it to work, then that would be bad... it would be hard for Intel from a marketing point of view to launch a processor right after Scotty that uses 64-bit tech, because Scotty would be rendered obsolete. So I'm thinking maybe Intel will hold its 64-bit tech until the 2nd half of 2004. But it's hard to really predict this.

Unfortunately, though, I can't agree that most people will be using 64-bit software extensively by the end of 2004 at all. This is highly unlikely; it would mean that in 2004, most people upgraded to A64 or p4-64 tech, because in 2003, A64 tech carried a heavy price tag. But only enthusiasts actually change/upgrade their computers in under 12 months of them being new! And even that's a wealthy enthusiast. I have this computer for some 3 years now. Besides, Windows with extensive AMD64 support will take a while, for whatever reason that made MS delay it.

So, while I can agree that many people will be using 64 bit software and hardware by the end of the year, I can only say this to your prediction (90%): Hah! :lol:

What I do predict is that Intel will not sit on their hands for the whole of 2004. The introduction of PCI-E and DDR-2 might signal that they're up to some sort of technology rush. Many other things are being "carried" by Intel: BTX standard, matrix-RAID functionality, new onboard graphics, new onboard sound... many new resources are being added to the Scotty lineup.

And my main prediction: <i>A new prescott will be launched with Alderwood and Grantsdale. It will probably be L775-based, and it will use 1066Mhz and clock at 13x266 = <b>3.46Ghz</b>. This will run synchronously with DDR2-533. You can hold me to this.</i>

Oh boy, it certainly will be interesting to visit this thread 6 months from now!

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Mephistopheles on 01/31/04 06:46 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[juin]

http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&PostNum=2021&Thread=1&entryID=26740&roomID=11

there is a discussion about IA32+

EX:



The success of Xeon in the server industry combined
with the lateness of IPF in gaining momentum just
about guaranteed that Intel would eventually extend
x86 to 64 bits to avoid leaving an opening in the
2-4P volume server segment. The timing of what is
widely expected to be an announcement of Intel's
x86-64 technology is a bit of a surprise IMO, its
about a year earlier than I expected.

But from all that I can discern Intel is not backing
away from IPF in the least. Far from an indictment
of IPF's market success to date, I think the timing
of the announcement indicates that Intel thinks its
IPF development plans, associated OEM/ISV support,
and market segment acceptance have all reached a
level at which news of the extension of Xeon to 64
bits will not undermine IPF. At least among people
and institutions that specify, purchase, and use
the classes of machines IPF currently targets. The
usual suspects and chicken littles will be noisy
for a while, as we are certainly seeing in the last
few days, but it should die down as it becomes
apparent that IPF product introduction plans and
growth in revenue and MSS accelerate unabated.

Intel's plan for the near to mid term is quite clear.
It wants to level the server platform cost playing
field between Xeon and IPF. In fact some indications
are that future 64 bit Xeon and IA-64 products will
share the *same* infrastructure. Intel also indicates
that it thinks the architectural based implementation
advantages arising from IA-64 processor simplicity
and compactness will allow twice as many IA-64 CPU
cores per device as x86 based cores.

All process technology trends clearly favour cache
transistors over logic transistors and the advantage
IA-64 holds in this area will only grow over time.
The new Prescott core ostensibly requires over 70m
transistors. A future version of the I2 core with its now
redundant x86 logic removed would likely need less
than 15m transistors. What new ideas the former ADT
is bringing to bear on IA-64 in the upcoming Tukwila
core we can only speculate about. IMO ongoing long
term research in compilers/translators, both static
and dynamic, will also increasingly work to EPIC's
advantage.

I think we are on the verge of a grand experiment
in computer architecture. Intel plans to eliminate
platform related variables between Xeon and IPF.
If it also brings process technology utilization into
chronological alignment between IA-64 and x86
we could see a unique competition between two
very different schools of thought in instruction set
architecture design. The results will be obvious
to all in terms of relative product performance,
cost, price/performance, power/performance etc.
May the race be fair and the best architecture win. ;-)


I dont like french test

 

[Mephistopheles]

Hey! You're right! Spec Scores for an Athlon FX-51 running Windows XP Professional are <b>higher</b> than for an Opteron 148 running SuSe Linux 9.0 (with 64-bit support)...
WTF? Is this representative?... Ouch.

To be AMD64 compatible AMD would have know it.A license is need as SSE2 and others been lincense by intel for AMD.They pay intel money for each CPU sold.So my point is AMD would have say that intel would back there technologie but no such thing have happen.

I was under the impression that their cross-licensing implied that they didn't need to ask each other for those technologies... Was I wrong? :frown:



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

 

[juin]

I was under the impression that their cross-licensing implied that they didn't need to ask each other for those technologies... Was I wrong

I dont know much either this deal was update 2 year ago and SSE2 was include and should be update soon in 1 or 2 year that might fit where intel wont to release a 64 bit pentium.It like RDRAM tale it cloudy all over and the same time rambus have more and more chance to win in court again infineon.

I dont like french test

 

[juin]

http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT111003013714&p=7

I got that on Vanderpool technologie.

I dont like french test

 

[sirak]

Its possible. I got tired of waiting last summer and bought my PIV 2.4c. I am glad I did. Everything might work out so that when I want a new system, 64bit will be an affordable reality...

----------------------
PIV 2.4c @ 2.89ghz
1gig PC3200 (512mbx2)
ASUS P4P800
GF3 Ti200 64mb (soon to be replaced)
WinXP Pro
3DMark2001SE: 6300
3DMark2003: 688

 

[Terracide]

I just wonder why the 64bit AMD dosn't smoke the 32bit P4EE?
Infact the are so close in preformance, that the idea to talk about a clear winner, is something only fanboys(on both sides)do...
Besides that is always "stupid" to but the top-of-the-line-CPU(moneywise) but then again it's peoples own money, so I guess it must be envy, over not self having suffcient funds to buy one, to ridicule these people?

Terra...

Don't pretend - BE!

 

[Guest]

>Does it will be only for XEON or the full ligne from
>celeron to XEON MP.

I think CT (64 bit support) will be implemented in the same range of chips, and rolled out the same way as Hyperthreading. Xeon first, followed by high end P4s (maybe called P5 by then), and slowly moved down until everything except Celeron has it. I don't think we'll see 64 bit Celerons anytime soon.

>To be AMD64 compatible AMD would have know it.A license is
>need as SSE2 and others been lincense by intel for AMD

Intel and AMD have cross licenced their extentions to the x86 ISA. AMD could use MMX, SSE, SSE2 without even asking, but intel is also free to implement AMD64 and was free to use 3DNow if they had wanted.

>The pure need of 64 bit computing in desktop dont exist

I've already discussed this extensively.. let me just say I disagree, and refer to the discussion I linked above.

>SPEC cpu prove it the 64 bit mode is slower

You are comparing SPEC scores in 32 bit using Intels SPECial ICC compiler, and in 64 bit mode using GCC. Not 32 bit versus 64 bit performance. No, I never claimed 64 bit would give you a huge performance increase either, but being able to run large apps in a flat address space will surely become usefull sooner than you think.

BTW, Juin, is it so hard to use [ quote ] or ">" when you are quoting ? your posts are hard to read, and not even using the ">" makes you seem lazy and doesnt entice me to really give you an appropriate answer.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[Guest]

>It is still unclear that intel will adopt x86-64 exactly in
>the same way as A64 will. It is much more likely that they
>will develop an extended version thereof and then say "this
>is our version of 64-bit extensions".

Quite likely, in fact that's what I wrote.

>In any case, the two architectures (a64 and P4) are so
>different that, even if you were to implement the exact
>same x86-64 in P4s, it might bring some differences that I
>can't hope to predict.

Differences will be minimal. x86-64 is so close to x86 that I really don't think it will give weird results on a P4.. Unless... intel decides not to implement true 64 bit ALUs, but uses 2 32 bits to perform 64 int math. In that case, 64 bit INT performance will be very much worse than on AMD, but then again, 64 integer code is a very, very uncommon thing (mostly only encryption stuff uses this). Overall, P4 using AMD64 wil perform pretty much like a P4 running x86, with a similar small boost as AMD. That is my guess anyway.

> it would be hard for Intel from a marketing point of view
>to launch a processor right after Scotty that uses 64-bit
>tech, because Scotty would be rendered obsolete

Oh, but intel has a history of launching obsolete processors. Think 200 Mhz Pentiums without MMX, Willamette's, 3 GHz P4's without HT, etc.. No, that wouldnt stop them.

>Unfortunately, though, I can't agree that most people will
>be using 64-bit software extensively by the end of 2004 at
>all.

You misread me. end of NEXT year, so end of 2005. And as for using 64 bit extensively.. mainly the OS, and one or two games/apps (like divx encoding apps, and UT or HL2). I'm not suggesting you'd be running 64 bit office, antivirus or instant messenger software.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[Guest]

>Hey! You're right! Spec Scores for an Athlon FX-51 running
>Windows XP Professional are higher than for an Opteron 148
>running SuSe Linux 9.0 (with 64-bit support)...
>WTF? Is this representative?... Ouch.

Too lazy to look it up, but I'm fairly sure the XP scores are obtained using the (much faster on SPEC) intel compiler, and Suse scores using GCC. That explains everything. Once intel releases its 64 bit compiler, rest assured it will perform (slightly) faster than in 32 bit mode.

BTW, the main advantage of 64 bit is not better performance, its more freedom for developpers.

>I was under the impression that their cross-licensing
>implied that they didn't need to ask each other for those
>technologies... Was I wrong?

No. Though their cross licence is limited to x86 extentions AFAIK. AMD is not allowed to use the P4 bus, intel can not just implement hypertransport either. But as I replied to June, intel CAN use AMD64, just like AMD could use SSEx.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[Guest]

>I just wonder why the 64bit AMD dosn't smoke the 32bit
>P4EE?

Because 64 bit isnt twice as fast as 32 bit (with the exception of 64 bit integer math like used in encryption). 64 bit is a few billion times the addressable memory of 32 bit though. That is the advantage.

A 32 bit cpu is practially limited to running 2 GB footprint apps, a 64 bit processor can allocate more terrabytes than you can image per app. And before you say: "who needs 2 gig ?", note that quite a few 2 or 3 year old games approach or exceed 1 gigabyte footprints (though they work fine with just 512 MB ram). I do expect next generation games to bump into those 32 bit limitations. "Out of virtual memory" error messages are upon us, and no ammount of RAM upgrades can solve it.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[Whisper]

1) Intel will release 64 bit capable cpu's that are 100% compatible with AMD64. No new x86 extented ISA, no x86/IA64 hybrid.

It's possible, but... Let's check history again:
- Intel brings us MMX.
- AMD brings us MMX, and adds 3DNow! At most 1% of people buy AMD for the 3DNow! capabilities. No sane developer actually uses it.
- Without much rumour, Intel brings us SSE. It's faster and has a superiour design. After a while developers start using it and many users benefit from it. AMD feels forced to adopt SSE support, but implements it badly.

I have studied AMD64's encoding format, and found it all to be a hack. A prefix byte here, extend some fields with some bits there and bingo: 64-bit support. Ok sure, it works, but that's where it ends. AMD seems to be incapable of totally reworking the core to improve the architecture, just like they failed with 3DNow!

Although I realize I could be totally wrong, this tells me Intel will do better than AMD once again. It might take an extra year, but that's a fair price for correcting AMD's mistakes.

AMD's core is still nearly the same as the Pentium Pro from '95. Even the 64-bit processor is little different. In the meantime, Intel designed the whole new Pentium 4 core, and the Itanium. AMD just doesn't have the R&D.

So here's my prediction:
- AMD thinks it's taking over the world but can't supply.
- Intel designs an entirely new architecture that makes AMD64 look silly.
- Microsoft uses Intel's design for Windows 64-bit versions.
- AMD adopts Intel's design but needs two years to get it right.
- In the meantime Intel uses 35 nm technology and runs dual-core quad-HT with integrated RAM.

Ok maybe not that last thing... Don't get me wrong, I wish AMD all the best. But I find it a bit hard to believe that the only thing Intel researchers have done in the past years is increasing FSB speed, enabling Hyper-Threading and adding a L3 cache for the P4EE.

5) But most of you will likely still not have more than 4 gigs of ram.

You probaly already know this, but may I remind you that even having 8 GB or RAM on a 32-bit CPU is no problem at all? Like you've said yourself, every -process- can address 4 GB of memory. But there isn't a single application today that demands that amount of memory. And even if it does exist, it's not Office 2004 or Doom 3. And if any such application is developed in the next year, there's only one thing to say about it: bad programming! Developers don't look at the amount of addressable memory, they look at the average amount of memory the consumer has, and that number is between 256 and 512 MB. And an intelligent developer even knows that exceeding that limit is very bad for performance. I'll let you do the math: A Pentium 4 has 6.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, with a game that we'd like to run at 64 FPS, this gives us ... GB we can process per frame, maximum.

Intel knows what it's doing. Period.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Whisper on 01/31/04 05:48 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[juin]

quote

Intel and AMD have cross licenced their extentions to the x86 ISA. AMD could use MMX, SSE, SSE2 without even asking, but intel is also free to implement AMD64 and was free to use 3DNow if they had wanted


ME

No for SIMD they must license the instruction set.True for the SPEC result but dont jump to fast to think intel will have there compiler and tool ready for helping amd.

I dont like french test

 

[juin]

I have studied AMD64's encoding format, and found it all to be a hack. A prefix byte here, extend some fields with some bits there and bingo: 64-bit support. Ok sure, it works, but that's where it ends. AMD seems to be incapable of totally reworking the core to improve the architecture, just like they failed with 3DNow!

you forgot the extra bit for register adressing.Reg must be adresse like ram so having more need more bit so more RC delay in the front-end.

I dont like french test

 

[Guest]

>Intel knows what it's doing. Period.

Hmmm. It seems to me this preconceived idea makes you think all the other things and is the basis of your arguments, instead of the other way around. Intel doesnt always seem to know what its doing, surely I don't need to remind you of all the RDRAM, 1.13 GHz and 820 fiasco's. People thought intel knew what it was doing when it ignored DDR too, but intel and people thought wrong. I wouldnt have blind faith in intel's judgements.

>AMD feels forced to adopt SSE support, but implements it
>badly.

There is nothing wrong with AMD's implementations of SSE or
SSE2. In fact, AMD's SSE2 is even slightly more capable
than intel's, but since AMD uses high IPC, low clock
designs rather than the other way around, SSE1/2
performance seems lower. Per clock, it is better (at least
SSE2).


>I have studied AMD64's encoding format, and found it all to
>be a hack. A prefix byte here, extend some fields with some
>bits there and bingo: 64-bit support.

LMAO. You just made a fool out of yourselve. Every (and I mean *every*) person that is knowledgeable in this field that I have heard, all agree: with AMD64, AMD did the best they could with the turtle the x86 ISA is. They fixed its biggest problems (introduced by Intel btw), and the extention to 64 bits is both as elegant and powerful as it gets without breaking compatibility. OTOH, I've heard very different opinions on IA64 even when intel had the unique opportunity to start from scratch..

>AMD's core is still nearly the same as the Pentium Pro from
>'95. Even the 64-bit processor is little different. In the
>meantime, Intel designed the whole new Pentium 4 core,

Another useless BS statement.

> Intel designs an entirely new architecture that makes
> AMD64 look silly

They tried that with IA64 and mostly managed to make themselves look silly. You think they are going to try that AGAIN ? Seriously ??

>- Microsoft uses Intel's design for Windows 64-bit
>versions.

Sure.. quite likely. they sold 15 copies of windows for IA64, now I assume they will ditch their nearly finished copy of windows for AMD64 and start all over again for the next intel fiasco. I think that is credible. Want to bet ? I'll take 50-1 odds.

>But I find it a bit hard to believe that the only thing
<Intel researchers have done in the past years is increasing
>FSB speed, enabling Hyper-Threading and adding a L3 cache
>for the P4EE.

WHy is it so hard ? its reality. You could imagine it, yet it is exactly what has happened ! Oh, they did make a nice chip based around that ancient old Pentium Pro core from '95 you so despise though.. IMHO the nicest chip on the market: the Pentium M.

>You probaly already know this, but may I remind you that
>even having 8 GB or RAM on a 32-bit CPU is no problem at
>all?

It may not be a problem now that 4 GB dimms have hit the market, but its not very usefull if you can't access that memory without ugly slow and complicated tricks a la PAE.

> Like you've said yourself, every -process- can address 4
>GB of memory. But there isn't a single application today
>that demands that amount of memory

2 Gigabyte. Every 32 bit OS reserves 2 GB for the kernel and VM, and 2 for the apps. With tweaks and hacks this can be turned into 3 GB in theory, 2.5 max in reality (requires recompiled apps though). If you think 2 GB is outrageous, I suggest you plot a line trough the datapoints of memory useage over the last ten years. Anyway, I discussed this so often, Im not gonna restart it. Lets just agree to disagree, and see who is right in 2 years.

= 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 01/31/04 06:25 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Guest]

>No for SIMD they must license the instruction set

Got any link ? I've read the opposite on so many places, I won't just take your word for it. They must respect each others copywrite (eg AMD can not claim the rights to the SSE name, and may have to add "SSE is a trademark of Intel Corp"), but they can implement it. VIA and transmeta have to licence it,just like transmeta had to licence AMD64 (and did). Not intel. This is the result from a lawsuit in which intel tried to revoke AMD's licence to build x86 chips. It got settled, and AMD has an eternal licence to x86 and its extentions (cross licence), but as a result of that settlement, lost the rights to use intel's sockets (hence their need to licence EV6 bus instead of using the P4 bus).

>True for the SPEC result but dont jump to fast to think
>intel will have there compiler and tool ready for helping
>amd

Well.. they may not *want* to help, but they are going to need a compiler for their own CT chips. the only way around this I see, is that CT would be some sort of "AMD64+" and ICC would only support this AMD64+, and not AMD's AMD64. Its possible, but not likely. So far, intel has always played it fair in this regard, and ICC does not penalize AMD's chips on purpose. The proof is AMD's SPEC scores. Since intel wants developpers to use ICC, I don't think this will change. If they do, its simple, ICC will rarely be used to compile 64 bit binaries, and that just isnt in intel best interest either.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[Whisper]

It seems to me this preconceived idea makes you think all the other things and is the basis of your arguments, instead of the other way around.

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. They have the R&D to make a better 64-bit design. I'm not blind or anything, AMD might be the big winner after all, but you seem to underestimate Intel's capabilities.

There is nothing wrong with AMD's implementations of SSE or
SSE2. In fact, AMD's SSE2 is even slightly more capable
than intel's, but since AMD uses high IPC, low clock
designs rather than the other way around, SSE1/2
performance seems lower. Per clock, it is better (at least
SSE2).

The Athlon had higher latencies on nearly all MMX/SSE instructions than the Pentium III. Their higher IPC compared to the Pentium 4 also isn't worth anything when multiplied by the clock frequency. In your metric the 486 was probably the best chip ever?

Every (and I mean *every*) person that is knowledgeable in this field that I have heard, all agree: with AMD64, AMD did the best they could with the turtle the x86 ISA is. They fixed its biggest problems (introduced by Intel btw), and the extention to 64 bits is both as elegant and powerful as it gets without breaking compatibility.

They did not do the best possible. They did the best possible with the least effort, that part is true. In the end it's all just a hack. 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?

Another useless BS statement.

Ah, the easy answer. Allow me to respond with the hard question: show me wrong.

They tried that with IA64 and mostly managed to make themselves look silly. You think they are going to try that AGAIN ? Seriously ??

IA64 is a fixed architecture always targetted at the server market, where it performs very well. Besides, I wasn't talking about a whole new architecture.

Want to bet ?

No. The smartest choises are not always the ones taken. I don't want to bet on somebody else's stupidity.

Oh, they did make a nice chip based around that ancient old Pentium Pro core from '95 you so despise though.. IMHO the nicest chip on the market: the Pentium M.

I don't despise the Pentium Pro. 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.

It may not be a problem now that 4 GB dimms have hit the market, but its not very usefull if you can't access that memory without ugly slow and complicated tricks a la PAE.

I was talking about multiprogramming. Workstations with 8 GB of RAM don't need it to run one program, they need it to run many. Even servers with 64 GB of RAM only need it because thousands of processes each take a little bit.

If you think 2 GB is outrageous, I suggest you plot a line trough the datapoints of memory useage over the last ten years.

I never said it's outrageous. It just isn't wise to use 2 GB of memory for a single application. And when I plot that line of memory usage I see Intel still has several years to perfect its 64-bit design. They just have to rush it now because of the AMD64 hype. Please give me an example of an application that would benefit immensely from 64-bit addressing, within the next twelve months. Even a game of 3 CDs would still fit entirely in 2 GB addressable memory.

But again, I have totally nothing against AMD. I'm just trying to advice everyone to wait for Intel's 64-bit design and then make a wise decision. If AMD happens to be the best, I'll buy AMD as well. Just don't count Intel out that fast...

 

[Mephistopheles]

Bob Baeyens, I appreciate your opinion, but I'm afraid I can certainly relate to Whisper's. I just want to remind you that while your suspicions are natural, it is also somewhat likely that the truth lies somewhere in between the two perspectives. If Intel really is as bad as your post wants to show it to be, then they'd be out of business. They make good processors, 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. This "Intel caused the big problems in x86", "Intel did this and that fiasco" attitude is exaggerated. One could find problems in AMD's processors and policies as well. Remember the old Palominos, with no thermal protection whatsoever?

But reminding us of those events is pointless. It suggests that Intel and AMD are perfectly integrated entities that follow basic guidelines... Well, be careful not to oversimplify things. It's possible to quote events from Intel that would suggest it's a respectable and good company, but the reverse is also true. Quoting good things will make you have faith in them (and there are good things), and quoting bad things will make you suspicious... But you can't choose your pick: we'd be talking about the same old Intel, in both cases.

Therefore, I wouldn't suggest blind faith in anything nor anyone, and I wouldn't suggest hard skepticism either... Just pay attention and don't lose perspective in predictions of the future... But hey, that's just me. Sorry, bbaeyens, I wasn't picking on you, I was just expressing my thoughts here...

BTW, you're right, I must have misread you on that 90% 64-bit software projection. If it's by the end of 2005, then I might agree with you. This sounds reasonable. It's still optimistic, I think, but quite reasonable.

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

 

[juin]

<There is nothing wrong with AMD's implementations of SSE <or
<SSE2. In fact, AMD's SSE2 is even slightly more capable
<than intel's, but since AMD uses high IPC, low clock
<designs rather than the other way around, SSE1/2
<performance seems lower. Per clock, it is better (at <least
<SSE2).

What you talking about SSE2 is SSE2 there no AMD or intel implemtation and i can guess that instruction lantency where fix so that a pure question of clock.Many benchmark show that.


<LMAO. You just made a fool out of yourselve. Every (and I <mean *every*) person that is knowledgeable in this field <that I have heard, all agree: with AMD64, AMD did the <best they could with the turtle the x86 ISA is. They <fixed its biggest problems (introduced by Intel btw), and <the extention to 64 bits is both as elegant and powerful <as it gets without breaking compatibility. OTOH, I've <heard very different opinions on IA64 even when intel had <the unique opportunity to start from scratch..

So explaime me this they change nothing they add 1 bit for reg and 1 bit for the long mode.


>AMD's core is still nearly the same as the Pentium Pro from
>'95. Even the 64-bit processor is little different. In the
>meantime, Intel designed the whole new Pentium 4 core,

>Another useless BS statement


K7 core was a over boost P6 architecture K8 have the same base the same load/store architecture same decoder same excution units same cache systeme are the same OoO are very similar to P6 and K7 if not identical.

I dont like french test<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by juin on 02/01/04 02:22 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[juin]

True intel are fair with ICC but that dont mean they will make it as there compiler is not use in overall software.

It got settle yeah right more the FTC as settle it for them as intel was in right they have made X86-32 bit and no i dont get a link i remember a article from the inquirer they were giving link to the settlement.They have to update cross license over time and new point got debate.
In any case that intel come to have 50% of the market share they can sue AMD for patent use.

I dont like french test

 

[endyen]

Only a fool would suggest that the pentium pro architecture is capable of 2.2 gig speed.
While the basic layout of the K8 is similar to that of the K7, the components bare less similarity than do the volkswagon and porshe engines. If you think intel can build there vehicle better by putting the wheels on top, think again. The placement of components on die is the reason that Amd has been able to reach the speeds they have with thier silicon. Do you think intel is happy with thier own chip layout?

 

[juin]

Sorry but i do not reply to this

I dont like french test<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by juin on 02/01/04 02:25 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[juin]

AS you make prediction and that risk.I made my on prescott long ago about prescott.I was saying that it will be 10 to 15% faster clock for clock compare to northwood i will see if i am still right.

I dont like french test