64-bit P4 on 1st August!

i have lost hope in intel for some time now. i have the "i'll believe it when i see it" attitude with intel now. usually there is so much hype and so little to be impressed about.

i sure would like to see a 1066 FSB CPU with 2m l2 cache, but i'm not getting my hopes high. i'll prolly stick that in the system i'm building in a few months if its good.

</font color=red><b><font color=orange>THGCs girl repellent.

64bit!!! oh wait its currently worthless so who cares.

I agree with that there is no use for a 64 bit desktop right now neither in a mid term.

i need to change useur name.

It's worthless alright, but as of now, it is the most important marketing weapon there is!

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>

I doubt if they can produce enough 64-bit CPUs for the market. The P4 3.4E and 3.6E are still not enough. This kind of "paper launch" is useless to fight against the A64s.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by mind_rebuilding on 05/14/04 00:53 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

Well, at least Intel should be pretty strong in numbers. I mean, Intel has what AMD lacks, which is a network of fabs operating with great capacity. Just consider that they can now ship several million prescotts...

So what they truly need is to set up their fabs for the newer processors quickly and get them operational. In order to do that, they'd have to mature the 90nm process quickly. Once the technology is there and things are in place, Intel can probably churn out processors by the millions. Question is how much time they need for this... And they should set launch dates by the time they've got everything straightened out, BTW!!

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>

Depends on who needs it. I run a lot of big files for photoshop and 3dsmax & combustion. With a 64bit WinXP I could have more then 2 gigs of ram working properly couldn't I? Although not sure if the programs themselves would recognize the extra ram....

Yes, that's the point. It's not that it's worthless, it's that it's worthless right now. In the future, when there is a more wider selection of software that supports and improves on 64-bit extensions, then it will truly show what it's all about!

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>

It really isn't about physical memory. It is about chunks of available memory, bothe physical and virtual.
Windows tends to use memory in a rather helter scelter fashion. Once it's done loading bios here, msn there, and mirroring your video memory a couple of times, and a few hundred other things here, and there, it might get a little difficult for it to find a continuous chunk to put that really huge jpeg image into.

How many months ago Intel was in no hurry to go with 64 bit. Now they are bringing it out. In what Aug!!!!!

Looks like it will be awhile before I upgrade again. No hurry. Since I don't need 64 bit. Why because not enough software. When is Micro$ releasing 64 bit? With slowhorn.  

Even for AMD that a pure marketing decision.A64 pdf say not to use more that 2 GB or unstability can occur.

i need to change useur name.

The last half of the article seems to say, "not for desktop." Will these be server chips, on demand by oems only?

When is "the future"? For most of the end-users, the future is when 64-bit applications and OS'es are available in the market. For hardware engineers and software developers, the future is now or 8 months ago to be exact. If 64-bit hardware is available (as in since Sep 2003) and it represents a technological advancement (>4GB RAM, 64-bit bus, more registers, smooth migration), technology innovators/initiators will take advantage of it. Actually, it is how soon these innovators/initiators take advantage of 64-bit that dictates the readiness of the market for the majority of the end-users.

As to the question if we need 64-bit cpu's now, it depends on whether you're one of those who are waiting for those 64-bit drivers and applications, or one of those who do those 64-bit drivers and applications.

Ooo, nice rhetorical post there.

Actually, you said it all and summed it up pretty nicely. Nothing to add, except that the majority of PC users won't design software and has therefore no use for 64-bit now. Which... is what I had already said.

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>

I wonder if Amd 64 is worthless to Linux which runs 64? And you all have to understand it took about 10 years for 32bit to be setup of choice. It was out yes but Programers where too lazy to change over.

Nice, but I assume those are Prescott based which already is not a terrific thing, and more over, 3+ GHz prescotts are pretty much no where to be found today, so I wonder how much of a paper launch those 3.4/3.6 GHz chips will be.

>but still no indication of a 1066Mhz-FSB 64-bit enabled
>desktop processor.

I thought it was clear that chip was slated only for the end of the year, along with a 2MB L2 cache ?

>I mean, imagine if that 720 @ 3.73Ghz with 64-bit
>technology and 2MB L2 cache were to be paired with DDR2-533
>(or maybe even DDR533?). This system would probably be more
>than a match for AMD's offerings now

Still getting all worked up over DDR2, arent you  
Anyway, the system you describe afaik, will not be launched before Q4, by which time AMD might be selling >4000+ 90nm chips.

I think its safe to assume that either way, both companies paper top end offerings will be competitive with each other, but wether both will actually sell in any meaningfull quantities is an entirely different matter. We'll have to see how AMD's 90nm ramp goes, as well as if intel can finally produce high binning prescotts in any quantities.

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

No, I'm getting all worked up over an increase of 33% in bandwidth with synchronous operation. Hopefully with DDR533, but if not, then heck, a 1066Mhz FSB + DDR2-533 is prolly faster than 800Mhz + DDR400... Wouldn't you agree?

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>

NO, pc100 is faster than any ddr2 :tongue:

</font color=red><b><font color=orange>my sys:
mobo: Abit AN7 @ 442 FSB
CPU: AMPm 2600+ @ 4100+
ram: crosair xms @ 1:1 running 2.5-3-3-6
HDD: two raptors on raid 0
vid: 9800pro @ 467mhz GPU and 834mhz ram