Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Is the hammer IA64 compitable

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • AMD
Last response: in CPUs
April 28, 2001 8:32:29 PM

Well is it or not. If it cant run IA64 amd has shot themselves in company death. If amd is smart follow the Intel 64bit standard.

Isn't the next gen alpha processors using rdram memory interface too.

Northwood P4 + i845(brookdale)+ 200mhz DDR-SDRAM + ATi Radeon 2 = Dream Team :cool:

More about : hammer ia64 compitable

April 29, 2001 8:54:12 AM

No, AMD will not be using IA64.

When Compaq releases the successor to the Alpha, it will use RDRAM with a 128 bit data path, yielding 12.8 GB/s peak bandwidth.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2001 10:36:56 AM

The Hammer will not be IA-64 compatible, but will be x86-32 compatible, meaning it'll run all your current software (unlike Intel's CPU). AMD's processor uses a 64-bit instruction set called x86-64 which is basically an extension of what we've got now.

Intel is aiming Merced and Itanium at the server market, whereas AMD might aim hammer immediately at home users. It will be attractive if it can run all your current software without emulation, which is what Itanium does. If AMD rolls it out quickly, they could be the 64-bit platform of choice for home users. Then Intel might have to license their design for once! (just think of that..)

~ The First Formally Rehabilitated AMD Lemming ~
Related resources
April 29, 2001 2:04:47 PM

Well thats AMD downfall. Lets have a 64-bit processor and have it not support IA64. They are idoits sad to say. when northwood hits around 6ghz the IA64 has started. When all these companys start writing IA64 programs. AMD Hammer will have to "emulate" it and it will choke and I'll look at an AMD 64 bit unless its truely supports the IA64. Intel has the upper hand and you all dont see it.

Most motherboard makers are waiting for Socket 478 motherboards. Thats the reason there are no Socket 423 motherboards out there. OEM's have samples of Northwood. DELL will stick to Intel cause of northwood and never will be a DELL with a AMD inside.

Look at the longer term affect. IA64 will be the standard for everything. HAMMER will never make it if not IA64 supported on the chip.

P4 2.0ghz+i845+1gb pc100+Radeon2= Dream :cool: Team =palomino 1.5ghz+256mb pc2100+Magik1+radeon 32mb
April 29, 2001 2:31:03 PM

Quote:

Well thats AMD downfall. Lets have a 64-bit processor and have it not support IA64. They are idoits sad to say

Not quite. Intel is aiming their CPUs with IA64 at HIGH END SERVERS. It's very unlikely that home users would start buying IA64 compatible software (which is where most Hammers are going).






Quote:

Intel has the upper hand and you all dont see it.

You're the one who doesn't see it. Read my above post.







Quote:

Look at the longer term affect. IA64 will be the standard for everything.

High end server, most definately. Home user, most unlikely. AMD has the upper hand in desktops, Intel in servers.

---------
I am the first and only one with a 16MB GeForce2 GTS graphics card! :smile:
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2001 9:01:12 PM

The short answer is yes. It will run the software that the Intell 64 bit processor runs, along with the current 32 bit programs that are currently used, which the Intell 64 bit will not. Amd stragedy is vrey smart, easing the transition, unlike the arigant Intell stragedy.

Anim88tor
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2001 9:03:06 PM

Um hate to tell you but 64 bit has been around fer about 3 years now it's Intels move on SUN.

SPUDMUFFIN

<font color=red>Being Evil Is Good. Cause I Can Be A Prick And Get Away With It.</font color=red> :lol: 
April 29, 2001 9:10:02 PM

What are people likely to buy? something that will need brand new software or something will that will run your current apps, and also enable you to get new software at your own pace?


<font color=red>"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and dispair!"</font color=red>
April 29, 2001 10:35:28 PM

You won't need new software. The Itanium is capable of running all old 32-bit apps. It just does best on 64-bit apps.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
April 29, 2001 11:59:17 PM

Why bother speculating? Regardless of what current products specs may be now (and product hype), the released products may in fact be significantly different (such as the "Willamette").

<font color=blue>This is a Forum, not a playground. Treat it with Respect.</font color=blue>
April 30, 2001 1:14:16 AM

What nooone has seemed to mention is the fact that IA-64 is not a well designed system. Just look at the 3 years of delays so far. Wasn't the IA-64 Itanic supposed to be out in 1999? I asked a guy who works at Intel on the Itanic project about the delays...and he just smirked and said that every time they thought they were done, another problem would crop up, mostly with scaling the thing above 800 mhz. When they tried running a 32-bit app on an 800mhz itanic, it performed worse than a P-166.

Hopefully AMD will have fewer problems with its implementation

~Crapple0

"the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist"
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2001 1:23:09 AM

Actualy long before that.
Most apps are 32 bit, even a great number of those that run on 64 bit processors. 32 bit apps tend run faster on 64bit processors unless huge amounts of memory are needed, increased memory addressing tends to slow things down. The advantage of the Hammer is that software won't have to be rewritten to run on it. The Intell 64 requires all sofrware to be run on it, to be written for the 64 bit cpu, that is a huge burden on Software companies. First rewrite everything for SSE/2 and now rewrite everything for IA 64. I dont think that Intell has a great number of admirers in the software industry right now. Intell is telling programers to re make there products before it can be used on the IA 64. Amd tells programers run what you have now and develope 64 bit as you need or can ie. upgrades and revisions. Since consumers will ultamatly pay for everything which solution do you think is more economicly frendly?
To say that it will only be used by companies and will write the cost off come tax time is compleatly false. If you dont think so, ask for the reason the next time you get layed off? Cutting costs will unboubtably be the answer.

Anim88tor
April 30, 2001 1:34:12 AM

The Itanium will run 32 bit apps. It will be better optimized for 64-bit apps however.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2001 1:50:16 AM

Whoah, Raystonn, your talking like a broken record. The IA64 will have to emulate x86, thus a significant decrease in performance, while the AMD 64 bit will not. The AMD will run 32 bit just as fast as any CPU out there, while the Intel may be great in 64 bit, but will take a major performance hit in 32 bit. Theres a big difference between emulating and running native apps. Just ask anyone with an alpha, they suck emulating x86, but are awesome in native alpha.

Now as far as 64 bit performance on IA64's and AMD 64 bit, that remains to be seen. Who's standard will win? Guess we'll just have to see. Linux users will be happy, though. Linux will be compatible right off.

Aklein



Life is hard...Live with it.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2001 2:14:48 AM

Microsoft has been developing a 64 bit version of Windows 2000/XP Server to run on the Intel IA64. Which will be released inconjunction with Intel's CPU.
As the IA64 architecture trickles down to the home user segment Microsoft will have a 64 bit OS ready for home users. Sooner or later AMD will once again have to follow Intel's lead. AMD will have to license/use Intel's 64 bit architecture or they will be forced trying to emulate it in software.
Like it or not, AMD is up against some powerful forces.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2001 4:14:38 AM

There is no reason to liscence/use Intels architecture. Amd has developed its own. As long as it runs the same apps no one cares what architecture is used, the speed will be the desciding factor. Its going to be the same situation that we have now with the P3, Athalon. Windows 64 will run on just about any 64 bit processor Mips, Sun and IBM included. Hp descided to let Intel do the development. Numerous companies don't want to support Windoz 64 so they are developing Linux functionality, IBM and SGI are hot on the Linux bandwagon.

Anim88tor
April 30, 2001 4:35:27 AM

From http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWS2000/guide/platform/str...

"The 64-bit Windows platform will bring the following benefits to the developers and end users:

* The full advantage of IA-64's reliable, high- performance, and high-availability architecture.
* Compatibility with Windows 2000-based applications and existing 32-bit applications.
* API-level compatibility between the Win64TM API and the Win32® API.
* Scalability of virtual memory up to 16 terabytes (TB).
* Interoperability with systems based on existing 32-bit architectures."


64-bit Windows uses IA-64 only. This is Intel's instruction set. Microsoft currently has no plans to support AMD's 64-bit instruction set. (If you can call it that. It's just a hack extension to the 32-bit instruction set.)

"As long as it runs the same apps no one cares what architecture is used"

That's really the point. It won't run the same apps. Not any more than a Mac can run PC software.

"Its going to be the same situation that we have now with the P3, Athalon"

Not at all. Both of these processors run the same base x86 instruction set. They both run the same 80386-compatible instruction set. They both have a few extra instructions that are mutually exclusive of one another (for example, SSE and 3DNow) that are used in plugins, drivers, and specially designed apps. The Windows operating system however does not use these extra instructions, so it's completely compatible with the P3, P4, and Athlon.

64-bit Windows is another story entirely. It's built to target IA-64 only. What this means is any CPU that does not use the IA-64 instruction set will not be able to run it at all.

"Numerous companies don't want to support Windoz 64 so they are developing Linux functionality, IBM and SGI are hot on the Linux bandwagon."

I hope you have fun being restricted to only running Linux and older versions of Windows (32-bit versions) on your 64-bit AMD machine.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2001 4:42:13 AM

Good Post. Thanks for backing me up.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2001 4:49:11 AM

"Its going to be the same situation that we have now with the P3, Athalon"

You may not know this but AMD licensed the rights to use the X86 instruction set from Intel.. what.. you thought AMD figured out x86 on there own? lol.
April 30, 2001 10:05:48 AM

I thought the 32bit performance of the Itanium was nearing a halt. It was supposed to be comparable to the classic pentiums. Thats how slow it was supposed to be.


<font color=red>"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and dispair!"</font color=red>
April 30, 2001 12:25:16 PM

heh.. 64-bit has been around since what like 93?

Alpha 21064 :) 
200 Mhz clock, 32 freakin registers and only 1.7 million transitors.. heheh..

About Hammer: Intel is having problems with the current IA64 tech.. runs too slow compared to the more established ones. Rumour has it that MS will support AMD's 64-bit instructions as well.. personally I think Intel should have taken the same route as AMD.. that is, introduce an intermediate step so that users (home and business) don't need to buy all new software and whatnot. oh well..