Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What will amd be using in 10 years

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 16, 2001 11:20:40 PM

Well its IA64 of course. Just wanted to state that.

Nice Intel and AMD users get a Cookie.... :smile: Yummy :smile:

More about : amd years

August 17, 2001 1:55:38 AM

I seriously doubt that RCF. Itanium and IA-64 isn't being received very well.

-MP Jesse

"Signatures Still Suck"
August 17, 2001 3:36:02 AM

good chance that it will be becuase inteel has the force to make devlopers switch to it

<font color=red>Gasoline + Fire</font color=red><font color=green> Can be a lot of fun</font color=green> :smile: :smile: :smile:
Related resources
August 17, 2001 4:40:11 AM

there will be two 64 bit operating systems for a while for two platforms, Linux for <A HREF="http://www.linuxia64.org" target="_new">IA-64</A> as well as Linux for <A HREF="http://www.x86-64.org" target="_new">x86-64</A> and Win64 for either of them.

and costwise, AMD one will be cheaper. it will be some time before one architecture outsmarts other. AMD will eventully have to switch to a newer architecture later on, but I doubt it will be the IA-64. the x86-64 is a superb stop-gap architecture for transition into 64 bit world, and I am sure AMD can develop a very good architecture from there, which, technologically might be at par or better than the IA-64.

girish

<font color=blue>die-hard fans don't have heat-sinks!</font color=blue>
August 17, 2001 9:14:34 AM

dbd

if in doubt blame microsoft...
August 17, 2001 10:27:08 AM

Will that be the day after the pope says he's actually jewish?


<font color=red><i>Tomorrow I will live, the fool does say
today itself's too late; the wise lived yesterday
August 17, 2001 2:22:00 PM

that will be the day.

<font color=blue>die-hard fans don't have heat-sinks!</font color=blue>
August 17, 2001 3:40:10 PM

Quote:
and Win64 for either of them


Can anyone prove this one way or the other? I originally heard that there would need to be two different versions of Windows, one for each architecture.

This is something that could kill AMD or make them triumph over Intel. If there were two different versions of Windows needed, and M$ decided to only do one for Intel, we could say good-bye to AMD forever :( 



<font color=blue>Quarter pounder inside</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Change the Sig of the Week!!!</font color=red>
August 17, 2001 3:45:36 PM

My understanding is that existing versions of Windows will work fine on X86-64. However it should work even better if it was made 64 bit.


When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
August 17, 2001 3:48:05 PM

Good chance they'll be using Peanut Butter and Jam. That will never have to be upgraded and you can always add more into your P&J sandwhich.

Oh dear, just a little humor..... :) 

-MeTaL RoCkEr
My <font color=red> Z28 </font color=red> can take your <font color=blue> P4 </font color=blue> off the line!
August 17, 2001 3:59:02 PM

i meant "both" or "each"... sorry i should have written that way.

btw win64 is already being developed for IA-64 and has a pretty good coverage in the recent MSDN editions. Windows XP 64 bit will also be available for IA-64 platform.

but Microsoft supporting the Hammer, is quite left to speculation. Here, <A HREF="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/13887.html" target="_new">this is interesting</A>!

so what either means today is, Intel. if they at all make a x86-64 version in windows and it kills the IA-64 version (of course on performance, but its hard to say that with any kind of windows) then M$ might dump the winIA64 outright in favour of x86-64!

there are too much $$$ at the top.

girish

<font color=blue>die-hard fans don't have heat-sinks!</font color=blue>
August 17, 2001 9:02:56 PM

Can you find a little older article? :) 

So there does have to be different versions of Windows?
And I know that 32-bit Windows will run on x86-64, I'm talking purely about 64-bit windows.



<font color=blue>Quarter pounder inside</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Change the Sig of the Week!!!</font color=red>
August 18, 2001 4:53:45 AM

the windows VM could be made 64 bit aware and allow 64 bit x86-64 apps run on the hammer.

these apps wont have native 64 bit OS support but still run their 64 bit code and work with windows in 32 bit. a sort of upward-compatibility mode to windows.

afterall, "processing" and "UI" are different things.

girish

<font color=blue>die-hard fans don't have heat-sinks!</font color=blue>
August 18, 2001 7:43:23 AM

hammer.

Lets talk about the hammer. it is basically two processors on one die. A 32 bit, and a 64 bit. what does that mean? well it means the having the kickass power you guys are used to bathing in, plus the instruction support for the much more efficient 64 bit language. Tom has plenty of info in depth into this matter. if you take a look at the pentium coming, IA64, you will notice that it does not have complete compatibilty for the 32 bit operating systems, and your favorite programs; in fact, it is rummored to do worse then it predessor pentium 4, 3 . However, read the article that describes this radical change pentium is going to make. I think they are going to shoot themself's in the foot like they did with RAMBUS. The Hammer will be the king because it will FULLY support EVERY operating system, based on the standard instruction sets - ie. compatibilty, reliabilty. well, anyways you guys probably wouldn't understand the articles anyway's, because of your conversations I'm reading. WELL coffee :) 

asta

{-Tr@k0r-}
August 18, 2001 1:44:30 PM

How does AMD's x86-64 compare to Intel and HP's IA-64?
<font color=red>IA-64 has 127 integer general purpose registers and x86-64 only 16</font color=red>

IA-64 is a new architecture, x86-64 an extension of IA-32

x86-64 provides better backwards-compatibility support for existing x86-32 code.

IA-64 is an Explicitly Parallel Instruction Computer <font color=red>(EPIC)</font color=red> as opposed to the x86-64 which will be CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) what this means in short is that <b>the IA-64 will generally execute code much more efficiently with less effort.</b>

<A HREF="http://www.x86-64.org/faq/Architecture" target="_new">http://www.x86-64.org/faq/Architecture&lt;/A>

Nice Intel and AMD users get a Cookie.... :smile: Yummy :smile:
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2001 9:09:37 PM

Whoa 2 chips on one you say? Wow that’s pretty interesting ... yes very except for the small fact or the insane amount of heat created and insane amount of electricity used too. You also never took into consideration that cross bar technology is needed and I don’t see that on AMD's patent lists. Also the memory latency would be stupidly high(we all remember the Pentium pro with its “back side bus”), being that 2 chips would be fighting over the same bandwidth and memory addresses .Oh that brings me to another point the base instruction set of the hammer is 32 eh? Well you missed the reason that IA-64 is around because IA-32 can’t address enough memory. IA-32 addresses in the area of 4-GB while IA-64 is in the area of 18-GB there is a slight difference. That’s why I am not confident that the hammer will be all mighty. Its base addressing with be IA-32 because those extra 16 resisters are for 64 bit. So I fail to see the reason to even bother with the hammer they will have to move to IA-64 sooner or later. I also highly doubt Microsoft will bother to make yet another version of windows to operate on the chip. Simply because they ignored the Ultra SPARC (SUN), G.x (Apple), ALPHA(Compaq), Power PC(IBM), Crusoe (Transmeta), MIPS (SGI), EK2 (Elbrus), and PA 8.xxx (HP). So why would you think Microsoft would all of a sudden make an OS for the hammer? That’s my thought on the situation just making a point not trying to offend no one.

-Spuddy


<font color=red>Being Evil Is Good. Cause I Can Be A Prick And Get Away With It.</font color=red> :lol: 
August 19, 2001 12:46:20 AM

Maybe. Don't forget AMD has it's own version of 64bit code. Too soon to tell.

-MP Jesse

"Signatures Still Suck"
August 19, 2001 2:50:21 AM

Well there is Windows NT 4.0 for Alpha.

Nice Intel and AMD users get a Cookie.... :smile: Yummy :smile:
August 19, 2001 4:28:48 AM

I think 64 bit addressing can address a hell of a lot more than just 18 GB spud.

~Matisaro~
"Friends don't let friends buy Pentiums"
~Tbird1.3@1.55~
August 19, 2001 5:49:51 AM

Well I'm not goign to say anything. We shall see when everythign happens. I do know this though:

I'm neither an AMD or Intel supporter, I support the best chip for my needs. Right now that is a T-Bird, 2 years ago it was a Pentium 3.

I think some of the AMD lemmings are doing the same thing as the intel trolls they hate so much. Assuming a product is gonna be good just cause its AMD. I see it over and over again, AMD will do this, AMD will do that. Just because according to a majority of people they have the best processor out there right now, an opinion I agree with as of now, but I will say nothing about the future.

Its completely stupid to assume the 32/64 bit hammer will "kick all this ass" and will be great just because its backwards compatible. Just like all the great stuff I heard about the pentium 4, when it finaly came out, and was reality it was a big disapointment. And we all know AMD can't make mistakes and make a bad processor based on thier current success. Note: that last line was sarcasm... The same attitude alot of intel trolls had, then intel made a not so good product. It happens, thats why its great there are companies competing, you get better products cheaper and faster. If AMD wasn't around we'd be drolling over the p4 1.3 GHz or less right about now, which is scary. IF intel wasn't around AMD would not be nearly as good, and would lose one of their major selling points being price. Which would make no difference if there was no competion.

I dunno why I even bother'd to type all this. I'm not knocking either company, just the ignorance some people display, not that this post is gonna change any of that :smile: , and no it wasn't targeting at anyone in particular, just my opinion

Computer: $2000 Internet Access: $40 Registering for forums: Free A good signature: Priceless
August 19, 2001 6:26:43 AM

Quote:
IA-64 has 127 integer general purpose registers and x86-64 only 16

well, 127 rgisters against 16 is not to big a deal!

its common for a RISC processor to have a large register file. basically using such a large number of registers (and IA-64 even has higher number of FP registers and a few new sets of registers) is no task of a assembly programmer, and the compiler has to be smart enough to use them efficiently. plus the VLIW core is also inefficient in terms of instruction handling in that the CPU does not check any dependencies and everything is left to the compiler (or the programmer) to get independent instructions together to form the VLIW word. with complex code like windows and linux it is near impossible to produce large words to make it work efficiently.

that is, IA-64 would then work a just-a-bit-better CISC processor!

on the other hand, AMD has a great stop-gap architecture in x86-64 that lends itself very well to 64 bit environment while retaining 32 bit performance. it is not two processors into one. IA-64, might be.

32 bit windows could be made to support 64 bit applications (they will need to switch to 64 bit mode to execute 64 bit code and that could be expensive) and the default operand size of 32 bits and 32 bit addressing is actually a welcome thing in the sense these 64 bit apps will easily run with 32 bit windows legacy platform support.

have a look at <A HREF="http://www.alphapowered.com/presentations/alpha21364.pp..." target="_new">this</A> presentation from Alpha where the 64bit Alpha is compared to IA-64 EPIC.

Quote:
the IA-64 will generally execute code much more efficiently with less effort

this effort is passed onto the compilers and code generators. IA-64 optimisations are boring. and if the compiler fails, Itanium fails. I would say <i>the x86-64 will generally execute code much more efficiently with more effort.</i>

girish

<font color=red>No system is fool-proof. Fools are Ingenious!</font color=red>
August 19, 2001 7:05:08 AM

heck its (2^64) = <b>18446744073709551616</b> bytes!

lets dissect it:
18<font color=blue>E </font color=blue>446<font color=blue>P </font color=blue>744<font color=blue>T </font color=blue>073<font color=blue>G </font color=blue>709<font color=blue>M </font color=blue>551<font color=blue>k </font color=blue>616

its about 18k Peta bytes or 18 Exa bytes.

(actually it should be 2^4 x 2^60) that is 16 Exa bytes!)

or 18 Mega Mega Mega bytes.

who will need this much?

girish

<font color=red>No system is fool-proof. Fools are Ingenious!</font color=red>
August 20, 2001 11:09:10 AM

and *somebody* said 640 kkb was all the memory one would need!

<font color=red>No system is fool-proof. Fools are Ingenious!</font color=red>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 20, 2001 12:23:10 PM

I think WIndows for IA64 is a moot point. Who on earth is going to run Windows on an Itanium platform ?? No one.. just like almost no one ever installed NT on the Alpha (I seem to recall less than 5%.. and consider not many Alpha systems have been sold anyway). Thats the main reason MS stopped supporting the platform. It just didnt sell.

Itanium is meant to compete with high end Suns and IBM's. Usually for scientic, or mission critical applications (like ERP) that you wouldnt want to run on Windows anyway. I suspect 99+% of these machines to run some Unix derivate. Maybe in 5 years IA64 systems will find their way into desktop machines and/or low end servers & workstations. Thats when Windows support will start to make a difference.

Hammer on the other hand, will work the other way around. From the desktop/workstation to the (high end-)server. Windows support for Hammer is critical to achieve this. We all know Hammer will run 32 bit windows without problems, so hammer cpu's will be sold anyway (if the 64 bit comes for "free", and AMD doesnt offer comparable performing 32 bit only chips).

MS would be crazy (or forced by intel) not to support the platform. It perfectly suits their growth markets (low- mid range servers, workstations). I highly doubt they will give this market to Unix/Linux. Especially since I seriously doubt they will make much money from IA64 windows.

IA64 will be a low volume, high margin chip for quite some time. I suspect Hammer to be more of a mainstream (relative)"high" volume, low margin chip. At least, thats what I would do if I were AMD.. phase out 32 bit Athlon, and replace them by Hammer cpu's for comparable prices; that way creating an installed base. (They could still differenciate by creating "MP" versions for higher margins.)

It'll be interesting to see how it turns out, but I am still convinced Hammer and IA64 are no direct competitors. At least not for the comming years, and with the exception of a small overlap perhaps. Kinda like Apple and Sun..



---- Owner of the only Dell computer with an AMD chip
August 20, 2001 3:25:09 PM

Here's something interesting.

A friend of mine who's a pretty decent programmer (C/C++, assembly, etc), said that the reason he dislikes IA64 is because he doesn't want to have to spend a year going over books to learn a new assembly language. That seems a rather valid point for me.

I hate to think of the poor M$ programmers who created Win64 for Itanium, after learning new assembly language.

Huh huh. Hey Butthead, I just said "poor M$ programmers". Huh huh. Cool.



<font color=blue>Quarter pounder inside</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Change the Sig of the Week!!!</font color=red>
August 20, 2001 4:22:04 PM

Itatium is not a RISC processor buddy.

Its using EPIC that is faster then RISC and CISC.

Nice Intel and AMD users get a Cookie.... :smile: Yummy :smile:
August 20, 2001 4:23:28 PM

learning curve for the IA-64 is great! Not only programmers will need to learn this architecture from scratch, but also learn by heart the differences between the two - 32 bit and 64 bit versions of Intel architectures.

the AMD approach is better one as far as programming is concerned as it lends itself well to existing compilers and programming techniques.

cost of the software is another major thing in AMDs favour.

I agree with what bbaeyens said.

girish

<font color=red>No system is fool-proof. Fools are Ingenious!</font color=red>
!