Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

"Pentium 4" Dead; dual-core not equipped with HT

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 20, 2004 3:25:22 PM

According to <A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19187" target="_new">an article</A> from the inquirer, the Pentium 4 name is dead.

They're going to change its name by the time the dual 2.8, 3.0 and 3.2Ghz processors are introduced. These are said to be netburst-based smithfields, but they will not have HT enabled. I think this is a little strange... as far as I know, HT doesn't quite add a lot of heat!

I wonder if this is not a netburst core? I think it would be great if the next main desktop processor NOT called P4 were something smarter than netburst. 3Ghz is a little too much for a dothan core, however. (if it's not, and it is indeed a dual dothan @ 3Ghz, well, then Intel has a true trump card left... but that is VERY unlikely, even considering that they still have 9-12 months to develop these dual-core processors...)

Besides, the X20, X30 and X40 processors will probably be less crappy than the 6xx series. The 6xx series will probably have EM64T support, but a crappy one at best... and there will most likely be no reason to get a 6xx. Maybe x?? will be more respectable...
October 20, 2004 3:32:58 PM

Who needs virtual processors when we have two physical ones (i mean 2 cores). But if they implement HT in those, we get 4 processors overall. There werent many apps that took full advantage of HT when it was launched. Will there be any taking advantage of Dual cores by 2005 ? Heres a line from Anandtech

<b><i>"We expected Intel to launch Hyper Threading with killer applications and benchmarks that would truly show its necessity on the desktop, but we were rather surprised to see that the best we got two years ago were some scripts that simulated isolated situations. Our fears are that 2005 will hold a repeat of Intel's HT launch on the desktop; while no one is arguing that dual core won't have a future, we're wondering if it may come a bit too soon to actually do anything."</b></i>

:tongue: <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/priyajeet/fing.jpg" target="_new"><i><font color=red>Very funny, Scotty.</font color=red><font color=blue> Now beam down my clothes.</font color=blue></i></A> :tongue:
October 20, 2004 3:40:50 PM

Ah yes, I read that too and I found that to be a very appropriate concern.

But still, I find it interesting that Intel would ditch HT, which is a highly hyped term still nowadays, when going to the next generation of processors - the X?? whatevers... I wonder what reason they had to do that? I remember many people saying that intel dual core solutions would have HT... how come they suddenly don't? Plus, remember that Yonah (dual-core dothan) has already taped out some time ago...

Maybe they'll be smart and not go the netburst way...
Related resources
October 20, 2004 4:04:28 PM

Consider this...
Typical TDP for a 90nm P4 @ 3.2Ghz: <b>103W!</b>
(from <A HREF="http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm" target="_new">this link</A>)

Now would they really try to put two of those cores on one die? I mean, 200+W processors? No, they have stated that they won't ship 200W processors! They said it themselves.

Unless "smithfield" would actually be a dual-northwood shrink... or something else, yonah-like... too strange. X?? whatever processors will still be 90nm.... so what the hell?

<i>Edit: TDP for a 3.2Ghz running on LGA775 appears to be 84W, which is a more reasonable figure. However, that's still a good way to make a 150+W processor, so my argument still stands.</i><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Mephistopheles on 10/20/04 03:28 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
October 20, 2004 8:07:37 PM

Maybe what I am about to say is really stupid but, are we really sure that they are talking about two cores @ 3GHz? Or maybe is it possible that they are talking about two cores @ 1.5GHz each, which makes a total of 3GHz?
October 20, 2004 9:34:05 PM

With the way marketing is, it wouldn't surprise me. However, we all know that 2 processors don't double your performance... so it would be very dubious to claim that 2 cores running at 1.5GHz = 3GHz performance.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
October 20, 2004 9:59:34 PM

No, I doubt it. That would make them <i>completely and utterly</i> underperforming by that time. Just imagine two 1.5Ghz P4 cores against two 2.0Ghz A64 cores.

The 3.4 and 3.6Ghz P4 cores that are available NOW would kick a 2x1.5Ghz anytime. Doesn't make any sense.

Can't be. They might be stubborn, but they cannot possibly be that dumb!
October 21, 2004 12:23:39 AM

About the HT and heat- when scotties first came out, they would throttle almost instantaniously if HT was enabled, but would be fine with HT turned off, so HT does create a bit of heat. This would be far more critical if X2.
As far as what it would take to outdo a dual core @ 1.5ghz, The 2.8c would put it to shame, even in HT enabled SMP progs.
October 21, 2004 3:04:10 AM

Yes, exactly, they are. (it's actually been too long, I think)....

Maybe they'll come up with a more interesting name... Who knows?
October 21, 2004 3:08:55 AM

Octanium. I better go out and trademark that really fast...

<i>Nemo me impune lacesset</i>
October 21, 2004 3:11:53 AM

No good. O comes before P. What you mean is Quicktanium.
October 21, 2004 3:14:51 AM

Weeell, if they don't match AMD by then, you might as well call it... valium.
October 21, 2004 3:17:33 AM

I'll take some of that.
October 21, 2004 4:40:40 AM

PlexTaniumXX for the dual core
QuadTaniom?? mainstream
QuaintTaniom ss
<pre> u </pre><p>

_____________________________________________
<font color=red> And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign </font color=red>
October 21, 2004 4:42:36 AM

flu shot...
October 21, 2004 4:44:01 AM

PlexTaniumXX for the dual core

QuadTaniom?? mainstream
<pre> ` u </pre><p>QuaintTaniom s X for low end

_____________________________________________
<font color=red> And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign </font color=red>
October 21, 2004 5:45:13 AM

The XX at the end of Plextanium inspired me...

Sextanium, comes in X for single core, XX for dual core, XXX for triple core(which will be nicknamed "hard core").

I look forward to calling dell and placing an order with the nice lady on the other end for a hard core sextanium.

<i>Nemo me impune lacesset</i>
October 21, 2004 8:34:22 AM

They will probably call it the Intelium. That shows as much foresight as thier chips have lately.
October 21, 2004 1:22:33 PM

If they change the Pentium name that means Intel has no need of X86 any longer either. The two have been attached at the hips for quite some time I think spring sometime of 1993.

Be nice to see IA64 come over to the desktop if this is true.

Xeon

<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>
October 21, 2004 1:46:46 PM

The only possible way they could get acceptance for IA64 would be making an engineering trick. Like implanting a small IA64 execution core - and they're not too big, if you put a reasonable amount of cache... But I don't see that happening... Many would still deem the IA64 core as useless and buy the 32-bit extended to 64-bit core alone.

Who knows, maybe IA64 will take a giant leap in performance with Montecito... some people are expecting that... But even so, it would be hard on Itanium. They might as well rename Itanium as well. Oh, and there's also the very unusual socket compatibility issue... Which makes things that much unpredictable. Can you imagine a gargantuan ~2.2-2.5Ghz Montecito with 24MB of cache (1.7 <i>billion</i> transistors) on LGA775 with dual DDR2-800 by 2006? Although... I think it will take longer... But it almost makes no sense!! Special OSs would be required... hardware is very different...

I wonder how that setup would play Doom 3-based games?...
October 21, 2004 2:09:46 PM

And going to dothan: over 50% of all mobile parts sold by Intel are now dothan-based. Intel has lowered prices agressively (-35% or so) and launched the 2.1Ghz Dothan, which <i>still</i> only consumes 21W TDP! Gotta love these processors. Why don't we see them on the desktop?

Remember, x86-secret actually managed to OC one of the initial Dothan processors to 2.4 easily!! And the processor's maximum temperature did not exceed 30C! You don't even <i>need</i> cool'n'quiet with those processors! Come on, Intel... what are you waiting for? Netburst is dead in the water. Yonah, a dual core dothan actually running on 65nm, has already taped out a while ago, and we have not heard about anything netburst-based and dual-core having taped out. Isn't it conceivable that a yonah on 65nm could run at speeds of 3Ghz?... Maybe that's what x?? is actually about... yonah still doesn't have hyperthreading, Intel <b>is</b> pushing 65nm still for 2005.....

Why not? It would justify a new name. Dual-core netburst wouldn't deserve another name. If by end 2005 they can come up with a 3ghz yonah for desktops, that would be one hell of a change. A dual-core 3Ghz PM-like processor would kick some serious *ss.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Mephistopheles on 10/21/04 01:17 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
October 21, 2004 3:32:46 PM

Umm, Pentium was named based on the 80586 being the next generation of the x86 processors... Pent=5. So, the next logical processor name using the similar convention is...
.
.
.
.
ready?
.
.
.
.
.
wait for it...
.
.
.
.
I'll get there after there's enough suspense...
.
.
.
Sexium.


<and everyone groans> :)  <evil grin>

Mike.
October 21, 2004 5:00:28 PM

Using the same logic, it could be argued that the PPro is Sex, P2 is Hept, P3 is Oct, first P4 is (ran out of knowledge for -iums), Willy is Decium, Woody is next (whatever 11 is), and prescott is 12.

Reasoning being that 80286 added capabilities and clock peed, 386 did same, 486 was primarily a core restructure to allow more clock speed. So it could be argued that each generation of Pentium core restructuring that allowed new clock speeds OR capabilities could be called a new generation of x86 chips.

Sounds like a large argument... :)  I'll stay out of it from here.

Mike.
October 22, 2004 1:01:01 AM

Quote:
Mircrosoft won't make IA64 OS again.

When did MS say this cause it's sure the hell news to me.

Quote:
but how many apps got ported to IA64?

Don't know I dont spin code for IA64, also remeber that Itanium users are HPC users they spin their own code anyways.

Quote:
IA64 is dead. Intel's official declarataion is only matter of time.

How is that? Last I checked the Itanium isn't looking like its out of scaleing room, 2.5Ghz within a year. As well it doesnt suffer from the pitfalls that make x86 the poorest designed IA in the history of the industry.

Also the performance numbers of the Itanium series is something that x86 based CPU's can only dream about.

Xeon

<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>
October 22, 2004 3:19:43 AM

no matter what performance itanium offers, thats for a completely different market then desktops, and oyu know that.

any numbers set now, dont apply is itanium is moved to a desktop or even workstation at this point. no matter how much you may love itanium, its current form is no winner for the desktop market. id say thats at least a couple years away if ever.

what is more likely to happen is that dothan takes over desktops and eventually workstations as it matures and expands. itanium will remain at the very high end of servers, etc. until some major advancement comes through.
x86 is going to be around for some time yet.
October 22, 2004 1:07:25 PM

Quote:
no matter what performance itanium offers, thats for a completely different market then desktops, and oyu know that.

I didn’t say bring the Itanium over to desktops, I said IA64.

Quote:
no matter how much you may love itanium

No love for silicon, in fact I enjoy and would like to see IA64 move to desktop silicon.

Quote:
x86 is going to be around for some time yet.

I wonder sometimes if it will or not, I know AMD will ride that wave till Jesus Christ wonders back to his cave. But Intel seems quite keen on moving the entire IC line over to an IA64 based architectures.

Also there really isn’t anything stopping Intel from moving over to IA64. There is a version of windows available it’s a well known fact that emulation of x86 at least on the current models is slow. That could very well change in the next core revision. It would simply be a smart move for Intel to build an IA64 base CPU with ok/great x86 emulation. But if the 64bit move gets accelerated by MS there may not be need of emulation either.

Remember most of you guys seem to think in the next 2-3 years well be seeing a influx of 64bit apps and products. Rather try a clean slate than deal with hybrid technologies, and no one sane can deny the clean slate idea is a good idea. Even if you don’t like the Itanium or IA64 can’t argue with good practice.

Xeon

<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>
October 22, 2004 5:48:58 PM

Actually, I'd be more specific. IA64 may have a future in desktops if these processors could run x86-64 software faster than anything AMD has. I think that's pretty much a given, and that much is obvious.

Unfortunately, I do not know nearly enough about IA64 to say if x86-64 could be mapped to a set of fast-executing native IA64 code. If so, Itanium could become quite interesting. I find it unlikely, but it would be great nonetheless.
October 23, 2004 8:07:44 PM

There is some binary compatibility with x86-64 extensions and IA64's general registers. I do believe it’s a pretty simple compiler run and very little debugging afterwards. Web cast or Linux newsgroups mentioned that.

X86 is and will always be crap why it lived so long is a mystery left up to the next first born of whatever god you believe in. But the fact of the matter all it is is a set of hacks from 8-16-32 and now 64bit. It's a mess and anyone that knows how to program and seen the compilers spit out stop errors upon stop errors knows exactly why it should go, plus debugging sucks my left nut.

On the Rambus deal I don’t even know what you’re trying to get at Spitty. Rambus was crazy Intel didn’t know that till it was too late. They got burnt on the deal and Intel picked up on the tab what more do you want from them a written apology to the fore fathers of all our nations?

Xeon

<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>
October 23, 2004 8:41:34 PM

Rambus promised lot of good things over SDRAM/DDR SDRAM. But what happened later? The consumers went for the practical solution.

Same thing with IA64. No matter how great it is compared to x86, it has long way to go before it becomes a practical solution for desktop. Where is DEC Alpha now? They had lot of advantage over x86 chips, but which one is still alive?

------------
<A HREF="http://www.foood.net" target="_new">FOOOD's Icons</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>
October 23, 2004 9:14:00 PM

Quote:

There is some binary compatibility with x86-64 extensions and IA64's general registers. I do believe it’s a pretty simple compiler run and very little debugging afterwards. Web cast or Linux newsgroups mentioned that.

Really? That is very good for Itanium. If the IA64 architecture could be made to execute x86-64 code at a close-to-native IA64 code speed, it would blaze past any competition from AMD. And then there's Montecito next year - a smart, thoughtfully developed dual core montecito with impressive architecture, dedicated busses (a.k.a. point-to-point busses, <i>much</i> more sophisticated than P4's and Xeon's FSB)...

I guess we'll be learning about just how well IA64 executes x86-64 still in 2005...
October 23, 2004 9:32:20 PM

I don’t care what Rambus did I don't even know a person that works there. The consumer went with that which is cheaper and SD and DDR had that on RD. The densities of RD kept the prices high and legal disputes hindered its growth.

From a technological point of view RD was a fresh start, from a practical point of view costs, temps, manufacturing issues, and legal issues negated anything it was worth.

DEC got sold by HP maybe you should write them a detailed email saying how it emotionally damaged you and your nations self esteem or something.

Seems with some folks here there always has to be a drama waiting to unfold. Watch a soap opera there is no drama in this business just up's down's lies truths poor and rich.

Xeon

<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>
October 23, 2004 9:59:29 PM

Well, in theory, lots of what made alpha great is in IA64. The alpha development team has been... erm... for lack of a better word, <i>assimilated</i> by Intel.

So <i>in theory</i>, we'll be seeing more impressive things in Montecito and IA64... And maybe those alpha guys could help Intel develop a serial bus that is more advanced than their current FSB... and maybe, just maybe, better than HT.
October 23, 2004 10:06:42 PM

It won’t be a maybe it will be an absolute. Alpha development was 3-7 years ahead of any and I mean any other IC manufacturer. With regards to that thought it is a safe bet that possibly some of the best engineering minds out there.

That’s something I could be quoted on; with no uncertainty I respect and admire those engineers and their products more than any other manufacturer out there.

They are the Carmack to the IC industry without a doubt.

Xeon

<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>
October 24, 2004 8:03:35 AM

Quote:
Remember most of you guys seem to think in the next 2-3 years well be seeing a influx of 64bit apps and products. Rather try a clean slate than deal with hybrid technologies, and no one sane can deny the clean slate idea is a good idea. Even if you don’t like the Itanium or IA64 can’t argue with good practice.

This is funny as hell. I suspect you're a political science major.

What you've done here is argued that a percieved ideal is better than reality. That's pretty much how all ideals are. But worse, you've completely ignored the complexities and huge amounts of cost associated with the clean slate you speak of.

The reality is, EPIC requires a huge amount of retraining for low level developers to write native code for it. Yeah, there is an OLDER version of Windows that supported it, with no new one that I'm aware of in sight. Because of that, it is not sane to develop desktop applications for a platform that doesn't have any real promise of ongoing mainstream desktop OS support, nor shows any signs of demand for it's much higher cost. As it stands now, it would be far more sane to simply marginalize yourself and write for the Mac if you're so sick of x86. The Mac has a wealth of users, a solid and current OS, and is based on an advanced processor design.

64 bit apps are already out for the x86 64 and it has recieved widespread adoption and is growing daily. Nothing is going to change that at this point, save for Intel slashing the hell out of the price of Itanium, introducing fast x86 execution capability, and lining up developers to write code people want for it. You might as well stay up christmas eve and wait for santa to climb down your chimney.

<i>Nemo me impune lacesset</i>
October 24, 2004 2:30:24 PM

Quote:
Nothing is going to change that at this point, save for Intel slashing the hell out of the price of Itanium, introducing fast x86 execution capability, and lining up developers to write code people want for it.

Well, if they can make it run x86 code in good clock speed equivalent P4 speeds, like a 2.5Ghz Montecito (which will be around that at launch) running like a 2.5-3.0Ghz P4C, and then make the beast run x86-64 so fast AMD can't catch up, then we'll be talking about Itaniums.

But, like you said in you hilarious comment:
Quote:
You might as well stay up christmas eve and wait for santa to climb down your chimney.

October 24, 2004 2:58:35 PM

the new successor to Pentium4 should be called Itanium. this would be perfect because it would bring Itanium name to desktop, which was Intel's goal for years. either that or the Xeon.
Octanium is not very pleasing word to hear, because of its strange meaning. People will have major problems associating Octanium with Intel family of processors, its just too weird.

Yes , either Xeon or Itanium will be the new name badge for Intel dual core processors.

------
A64 3400+ Newcastle
1GB PC 4000 Kingston HyperX
Asus K8V basic Bios 1004
PNY Geforce 6800 GT 256MB DDR3
73,225 Aquamarks
October 24, 2004 3:08:51 PM

I honestly and sincerely think you're wrong. I don't know how they will be called, but calling them Xeon is too much of a change and it won't be called Itanium if it's not IA64-based.

So, I'm afraid you're probably not right.
October 24, 2004 3:23:02 PM

yea, but does it really need to be IA-64 to be called itanium? x86-64 is already used in Xeons. People can already relate to these names, it would be easier for intel imho.

Maybe Pentium-M maybe or Pentium-M 755. I almost forgot the number schemes.

------
A64 3400+ Newcastle
1GB PC 4000 Kingston HyperX
Asus K8V basic Bios 1004
PNY Geforce 6800 GT 256MB DDR3
73,225 Aquamarks
October 24, 2004 8:12:49 PM

Coming from you that makes me smile good buddy. Fact of the matter is x86-64 is still stagnant as well. I have seen jack swat for x86-64 designed apps other than that game from Atari where AMD made it look like x86-64 would make the game significantly better than its x86 counter part.

If you call that some sort of progress then by all means that’s some progress.

As for IA64 apps, if the users that were running them were anything but HPC users there might be something to talk about. They spin their own code, which seems to be something that everyone tends to forget when they start spouting their pro x86-64 rhetoric like its some badge of honor or something gay like that.

They don’t sell the software they make; they don’t market it or even talk about it. That’s how HPC users work and will always work. Until Intel does some very nice things with x86 emulation or they drop a IA64 based core on a dual core chip, we will not be seeing any penetration into the desktop market with IA64.

Get that threw your thick skull its not Intel hasn’t made a great product and they can’t to bring it to desktop. It's the technological hurtles that are stopping them; Cost, size, power consumption, availability, compilers, the whole nine yards.

Xeon

<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>
October 24, 2004 9:23:51 PM

Quote:
Coming from you that makes me smile good buddy. Fact of the matter is x86-64 is still stagnant as well. I have seen jack swat for x86-64 designed apps other than that game from Atari where AMD made it look like x86-64 would make the game significantly better than its x86 counter part.

Maybe if you paid attention to something other than the windows desktop, you might know what I'm talking about.

Quote:

As for IA64 apps, if the users that were running them were anything but HPC users there might be something to talk about. They spin their own code, which seems to be something that everyone tends to forget when they start spouting their pro x86-64 rhetoric like its some badge of honor or something gay like that.

Someone [-peep-] in your wheaties this morning? Yes, we all know they spin their own code. Care to explain what I said that was rhetoric?

Quote:
Until Intel does some very nice things with x86 emulation or they drop a IA64 based core on a dual core chip, we will not be seeing any penetration into the desktop market with IA64.

Gee, didn't I say that about the emulation? Also, they are dropping IA64 based core on a dual core chip, it's called montecito, and it isn't going anywhere on the desktop. You mean dropping it on a different chip? How is that going to make a difference?

Quote:
Get that threw your thick skull its not Intel hasn’t made a great product and they can’t to bring it to desktop. It's the technological hurtles that are stopping them; Cost, size, power consumption, availability, compilers, the whole nine yards.

So basically you agree then, that IA64 has as much chance of getting on the desktop in the near future as Santa coming down your chimney. I'm glad you agree. Because previously you said this:
<i>Also there really isn’t anything stopping Intel from moving over to IA64.</i>

So I guess what you meant to say was, There really isn't anything stopping Intel from moving over to IA64, except for Cost, size, power consumption, availability, compilers, the whole nine yards.

<i>Nemo me impune lacesset</i>
October 24, 2004 10:53:53 PM

Quote:
Maybe if you paid attention to something other than the windows desktop, you might know what I'm talking about.

What Linux supports it now; they support HT now on the latest distro. Oh CS server’s maybe or the non existent x86-64 UT 2004 builds? Need to give me more information on your apparent argument because I seem to be missing your point.

Quote:
Someone [-peep-] in your wheaties this morning? Yes, we all know they spin their own code. Care to explain what I said that was rhetoric?

Spell check chose the wrong word, well so did I. As I read it over again I am not sure what word I meant must have changed my train of thought for a moment thank you for pointing that out for me.

Wheaties taste like [-peep-] to begin with though my good man no need to have someone [-peep-] in them for me.

Quote:
Also, they are dropping IA64 based core on a dual core chip, it's called montecito, and it isn't going anywhere on the desktop. You mean dropping it on a different chip? How is that going to make a difference?

Wow glad you pointed out the obvious. The statement was meant to theorize the only real way for IA64 to get itself into the desktop market would be;
1. Super good emulation of x86 instructions on a full fledged IA64 derived core.
2. Replace one of the x86 cores with an IA64 derived core.

Realistically this will be a few years off, unless x86-64 is more binary compatible with IA64 than suspected. With Intel's compiler team I don’t see that not being feasible in the long run.

Quote:
Also there really isn’t anything stopping Intel from moving over to IA64.

The statement still holds merit, it is unknown to any of us how good the next IA64 core will be in x86 emulation, speed, or power. They could very well have devised a new OOO core from IA64 architecture.

As for wishful thinking I don’t believe a company that large with the man power and resources like that wouldn’t try to do something to take back performance. It's like thinking AMD should have given up many a years ago. Now look at them they seem to be sticking it so far up Intel’s ass right now that Intel is choking.

Xeon

<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>
October 24, 2004 11:28:37 PM

"I have seen jack swat for x86-64 designed apps other than that game from Atari where AMD made it look like x86-64 would make the game significantly better than its x86 counter part."

AMD was not responible for that. AMD itself stated that they did not know Atari had selected such images and they were the ones to have Atari take them down once it was noticed from some sites. Im sure you didnt mean it was AMD that put up those pics, just making sure.


now you can make legitimately make predictions about the market, but you said yourself, this will only happen years down the road. Can you without a doubt, and certain evidence, claim a specific timeframe? 2,3,4,5 years? There is no way of knowing, we just dont know what itnel's plans are. Intel has been making alot of changes in thier long term plans lately, its not impossible that they may have done the same for itanium and IA-64, but yes its possible they didnt either. The only facts here is that there are no facts to either one lol.

sure IA-64 is better then x86-64, i dont htink anyone said it wasnt. x86 is one of the most patched up messes around lol, but the fact is the industry wont just drop a standard instantly, and any improvement, no matter how small, will make the industry hold onto it longer. Thats why i think x86-64 will taek off faster then IA-64 has, dont you think?

Once xp-64 comes, that will 'legitimize' x86-64, although linux has been supporting it since day one basically. I dont see evidence that there will be no large scale app development of x86-64. You think AMD isnt busting itself trying to make sure major apps are covered? Even MS to a smaller extent will be pushing to get apps. this is why itll be adopted faster then itanium. By then, there will be amd and itnel chips that support it, thats a much bigger market then itaniums. IA64 may be a fresh start and a clean slate, but the market just isnt ready for it.

Dual core may be a step for intel to sneek ia64 in slowly, it might not. Combining the xeon and itanium platforms is a good first step to getting itanium/ia64 closer to mainstream, but it wont be a quick process. alot more designing chip wise sitll needs to happen before intel can push such a chip into mainstream. I welcome the change, if its progress in the right direction, the good stuff usually takes time, it may come, it just wont be anytime in the near future.
October 24, 2004 11:59:01 PM

Quote:
AMD itself stated that they did not know Atari had selected such images and they were the ones to have Atari take them down once it was noticed from some sites.

Right and the US doesn’t sell arms to hostile nations.

Quote:
Thats why i think x86-64 will taek off faster then IA-64 has, dont you think?

Yes I agree the KISS rule is being applied to the industry right now.

Xeon

<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>
October 25, 2004 1:22:35 AM

"Right and the US doesn’t sell arms to hostile nations."

LOL , please, dont give me conspiracy theories, you got any evidence?


"Yes I agree the KISS rule is being applied to the industry right now."


exactly, you picked that up perfectly. Market wise, thier moto is.. "If it aint broke, dont fix it" Now we both know x86 isnt perfect, but its worked and ppl are happy, so they will keep selling that until a viable solution is offered up. that means something priced in the same range and something that offers either more performance, or at least equal, not to mention mass produced on a large scale.

IA64 may move down sooner or later, or perhaps a derivative of that in some form, who knows. and im sure amd has considered such things as well and im sure they know x86 isnt perfect, but they saw the market embracing it, why not capitolize on that and extend it if they can show an improvment over the old.
!