Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

big Questions about 64bit and the Hammer

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 16, 2001 4:23:32 AM

* all you need to make a 64bit program is compiling it in a 64bit compiler?

* are such compilers hard to program? is it easer to make a 64bit compiler then make a compiler that is optimized for a certian CPU (such as pentium 4)?

* are such compilers avalible for common programing languages? do think they will by the time the hammer is out?

* as hammer gains market share - should we accpect 64bit
software for the hammer alone (it wont be able to run on IA32 cpu would it?) if all you need is to compile it diffrantly it should make sence...

* can 64bit apps run on windows xp in a hammer based computer? and if they can will windows xp be able to run 32bit and 64 bit apps simultansly?

* should a cpu gain alot of preformance runing 64bit? over 32bit...

All the big Questions... what do you think?
December 16, 2001 8:15:28 AM

1) True. That doesn't necessarily mean you'll see advantages in it though. Quite a lot of software just doesn't need to be 64-bit.

2) Not any more than a 32-bit compiler.

3) 64-bit compilers have been around in the UNIX world for a while now. gcc, a very popular freeware compiler collection, can compile 64-bit code, even if the compiler is running on a 32-bit machine. gcc includes compilers for FORTRAN77, C, C++, Java, Chill, and probably a few others I can't recall off the top of my head. It is freely available for Windows and for almost every UNIX variant in existence.

4) Only a few specialized applications can really benefit from 64-bit processing. It wouldn't make sense to recompile the rest of the applications unless the CPU's 32-bit emulation was just horrible (like the Itanium's).

5) Not at the moment, the Hammer isn't released yet. Microsoft hasn't divulged yet whether it plans to support the Hammer in 64-bit mode or not.

6) Only for certain applications. 64-bit mostly benefits applications that need more than 4GB of memory, or need the capability to crunch 64-bit integers in hardware.

Kelledin
[dave@discovery ~] kill -9 1
init: Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?
December 16, 2001 8:54:30 AM

OK Thanx!

but... dont you think that the fact that 64bit offers:
8 new 64-bit general purpose registers (GPRs) as well as 64-bit versions of the original 8 x86 GPRs
will translate into preformance? i've been doing very litle assembly in my time but i do remember that doing math through the register is alot faster then the use of memory... in genral micro opps with registers are done much faster. so isnt the increse in register count and addressability benefits preformance? i think it should
but how much...?
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2001 9:44:55 AM

Of course more registers will allow for faster performance, but that has nothing to do with how big a word a CPU can operate on. So, sure, more registers are good, but for all processors not just 64 bit processors.

As has been pointed out before, there are ways around the 4GB limit of 32 bit address busses built into current CPU's, namely in the form of a special purpose register. My point here is the added addressability won't really add anything new (well OK memory performance for locations above 4GB could be slightly improved).

The move to 64 bit architecture by doubling register size and adding identical execution hardware in parallel to existing bits won't help performance any. All moving to 64 bit will get you is precision/accuracy/resolution.

Since everyone who is currently working on 64bit designs is doing more than merely cutting and pasting to a 64 bit design from a 32 bit design, ie adding more registers etc. then theoretically there will be performance changes on the new designs. The extra performance just won't be due to the change in word size per se. It is all the other new junk being added which will add performance.
December 16, 2001 10:58:26 AM

1. Yes (A 64-bit compiler supporting your processor of course). If you make a progtram from scratch you will have no problem compiling it. As for recompiling old (32bit) source code I am not sure. I think it depends on the quality of the code. Take C for instance. What is an int in 64bit. a long int? a short int? The operand size doesn't matter as long as you only do calculations, but if you would like to store an integer on disk "knowning" that it will occupy 4 bytes, you will have a problem.

2. Writing compilers isn't easy, but the guys that write our compilers are good at what they are doing. 64 or 32 bit doesn't matter. A optimized compiler is harder to write than a non-optimized.

3. Most certainly.

4. I guess linux-users will recompile their programs as they see fit. I also belive companies like ID Software will release different versions of their programs. A company like squaresoft: nah...

5. On the hammer you cannot run 64bit code from a 32bit OS, but the opposite works.

6. With 64bits, repetive operations like anding, oring, clearing and moving arrays in the L1 cache is done twice as fast as with 32 bits. But SSE2 already does this, and at 128 bits too.

All things equal your code would need more memory, and use more memory bandwidth. It would miss in the cache more often too.

Question:
Why didn´t AMD make an IA-64 processor? Didn't intel want to give away a licence? I don't like the idea of one PC being incompatible with another.
December 16, 2001 11:23:51 AM

Coz unlike an IA64 CPU an x86-64 CPU is totaly compatible with x86-32 code... so you can run both 32bit and 64bit without suffering from any loss in preformance runing 32bit programs... the x86-64 is a netural exctention of x86-32... itanium for one preformes very poorly with 32bit x86 code... coz IA64 uses difrante code not x86...
December 16, 2001 12:09:00 PM

I don't think that is why AMD chose to differentiate themselves from intel. It must have had something to do with licenceing issues.

Compability have to suffer at some time. The x86 compability is compability with a processor that was introduced 1980. Much have changed since then.

I mean, I don't think mac-users miss their 680x0 processors anymore. IA64 will last for at least another decade.

But, if AMD continues to release cheap high performing x86-processors, then IA64 will probably be a flop, intel will have to release a pentium64, and we will be stuck in x86-hell forever.
December 16, 2001 12:39:41 PM

well my hopes r that the hammer will make the transiton to 64bit and then when 64bit is solidly(?) implemnted both intel and amd will move to the same IAS
December 16, 2001 3:09:00 PM

hi :) 
I am totally ignorant of 16/32/64/128 bit platform differences.

That said how can this be possible

"6. But SSE2 already does this, and at 128 bits too."

how can you have a 32 bit platform that is also partly 128 bit?

ThanksIA. I'm just curious is all.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2001 3:19:21 PM

IA64 wouldnt make much sense for AMD. It would cost them an enormous ammount of R&D, that they really cant afford. Also, since IA64 is barely compatible with IA32 (performace issues with 32bit apps), IA64 system are targetted purely at the high end for very specific tasks. AMD has little or no support in that market (yet). Even Intel cant manage to sell any quantities of Itanium cpu's, let alone AMD could make money out of it. It just wouldnt make sense right now. x86-64 was quite cheap to develop (in comparison) and might be a golden opportunity for AMD.

So, if ever Itanium would become really adopted, AMD would still have plenty of time to start developping IA64 systems before they become mainstream on the desktop (which is many, many years from now).

Other than that; I really think AMD doubts the potential of IA64. And frankly, who doesnt ? Its not just a new 64 bit architecture, its a very, very strange beast. VLIW has been proven before to be inadequate for general purpose computing. So far, Itanium had not been able to prove us otherwise. Wait and see...

Conclusion: regardless of any licencing issues (which im not aware off), AMD did the sensible thing. If ever required, they'll drop x86-64 and go for some sort of IA64. Just like intel may eventually be forced to drop IA64 and go for some form of x86-64. We wont know for a few years at least.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
December 16, 2001 4:39:02 PM

Yeah Microsoft have not offically stated if they will be bringing out a 64bit version on Windows XP for Hammer.

I think AMD might have a tough time getting Microsoft to support x86-64. The reason I say this is not because x86-64 is hard to code or is inferior, but because of the architectural features of the Hammer Platform (which I will talk about later )

If Microsoft to release a x86-64 version of Windows XP it will mainly be used in Hammer based 2-4 way servers and will not be avaliable to home users.

I fear enthustiasts like us will be stuck with Win XP (32 bit) and it will be highly unlikley that Microsoft will produce a x86-64 'Home Edtion' version of XP. A x86-64 'Professional Edtion' of Win XP with multiple CPU support is more likley.

Going back to the architecture of the Hammer. First and foremostly the Hammer architecture is very diffrent. AMD have decided to go for the ccNUMA architecture instead of the tradtional SMP that Intel have stuck to.

As far as I know Microsoft have had little experience of developing an OS for ccNUMA based systems so are likly to come across new challeges.

ccNUMA architecture with multiple processors will present a serious rethink in the way the OS manages system memory, because we are now dealing with 'local' and 'non-local' memory access. Ultimately the way the OS manages and allocates memory for programs will affect the speed of the system greatly.

In SMP configuration (what Microsoft OS's are used to) the memory is logically treated as one block therefore it matters little of where data is stored in memory since all the memory resources are 'local' to the CPUs.
In NUMA, access to 'local' memory will take less time that access to 'non-local' memory. The OS has to decide where to store data either 'locally' to CPU or 'non locally'. The choice will depend on which processor needs the data the most. If a processor is working on a thread that requests specfic program data all the time the OS should store the program data locally to that CPU and not to anothers CPU memory block. You can imagine how important this will become especially when you add more CPU's (i.e 4-8 way systems). It would to liitle justice if program data was scattered all over the system (we want to minimise the number of requests a CPU has to make to another for a piece of data). Hammer systems might face this problem if the program data cannot wholly fit into one location.
Another problem also comes into play that is 'Integrity of data'. If the same piece of data is stored twice so that each CPU ie. (CPU1 and CPU2) has a working copy it can work with (thus minimising requests) which will be treated as the orginal source ?..if an update is made by CPU2 to memory how will CPU3 decide which data to use ? The updated version stored in local memory to CPU2 or data stored locally in CPU1 ?

In a SMP system data integrity or cache coherency is achieved by the system bus.
<i>In Intel servers this is referred to as a "snoopy" bus, as the CPUs can "snoop" on each other and see each other's memory requests. This is how cache coherency is handled. If a CPU sees that another CPU is requesting a memory address that it owns (has the latest copy of the data), the CPU will respond to the request and deliver the data from its cache. A CPU will request ownership when it wishes to write to an address, and will keep it until it "ages" the written data out to the memory or until another CPU requests
ownership.</i> (Source: Cellular MultiProcessing and Uniform Memory Access, UNISYS, Dec 1999)

In general I am aware solutions to these NUMA problems have already been solved, the question is whether Microsoft wish to develop a OS that not only supports x86-64 but also a new system memory architecture.

I am not slating AMD Hammer systems, in fact I think they look quite promising. I am just wondering whether AMD have enough experience behind them to deliver a decent NUMA based server that will challege Intel and other server manufactuers. Microsoft just presents another can of worms, a simple recompile won't work, the code which handles memory allocation will need to be rewritten. However with normal applications a recompilation is feasible, providing it is designed to work on a single processor PC.

Please feel free to argue or add to my comments as I could be talking a load of shite...I am not a programmer or platform/cpu expert.

<font color=purple>~* K6-2 @ 333MHz *~
I don't need a 'Gigahertz' chip to surf the web just yet ;-)</font color=purple><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by mr_gobbledegook on 12/16/01 03:33 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
December 17, 2001 9:34:17 AM

If Microsoft to release a x86-64 version of Windows XP it will mainly be used in Hammer based 2-4 way servers and will not be avaliable to home users

Why would M$$ release enything like that?There is no need for that!Not yet.
-------------------------------------------
Hammer will be an all-around proc that handels old and new apps,some slower
in 32 mode and the apps not yet here A LOT FASTER in 64 mode.
--------------------------------
In my mind Hammer is best thats happenned since 386.
December 17, 2001 5:31:10 PM

Hello there!
December 17, 2001 8:13:38 PM

But SledgeHammer is mainly designed for servers ie. 2-4 way servers (just like SMP Xeon systems).

Windows XP Professional has muliprocessor support Windows XP Home Edition does not. Naturally server maufacturers will supply an OS that supports multi processors.

However because the Hammer also understands 32 bit code I am wondering if Microsoft will spend time and money to release a x86-64 OS for just single CPU Clawhammer (Windows XP Home Edtion for x86-64) desktop systems.

<font color=purple>~* K6-2 @ 333MHz *~
I don't need a 'Gigahertz' chip to surf the web just yet ;-)</font color=purple>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 18, 2001 12:50:43 AM

I hope that hammer will be released because i really want to buy one.
December 18, 2001 6:00:34 PM

64bit machines are doing brute force work, and have no real application for home users currently. The Itanium is a very strong 64bit CPU shaving years off the schedule for complete mapping of the human genome (YEARS!). This breakthrough has already <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/thestandard/standard_28207.html?..." target="_new">found cures for birth decfects</A> and <A HREF="http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,33~106699,00.h..." target="_new">diseases</A> that were not treatable last year. why should companies wait till the end of next year when Itanium already does it better today? Oh I forgot, you wanted to run 32bit apps on your pseudo 64bit CPU! LOL

Also 64bit machines do the CFD for military, medical, and aerospace projects in record time, and thousand of other 64bit only applications run on the Itanium. If you cannot afford $10,000 for 64bit machine how can you buy the software that costs upwards and over $100,000? 64bit will not be proctical for a few more years for home users or even mid range servers.

Itanium is NOT made for 32 bit apps, so quit trying to complain how bad it is on 32bit apps. lets see how well your car runs on desiel if its made for gas.

Microsoft will produce a x86-64 OS for Hammer, Gates will leave no stone unturned.

The only number crunching you guys do is seti@home and like distributed proccessing apps. games, ms word, excel, photoshop, illustrator, maya, lightwave, and thousands of other apps will not benifit from 64bit CPU at all, even if it does 32bit.

You dont need a 10 ton dump truck to haul a 50 pound bag of dirt.

The Itanium has been a sucess, extreamly stable and priced below its 64bit MIPS couterparts. I wish you guys were not so clueless to the actual uses of 64bit.

As it stands not, there is Linux for x86-64 being developed and what is your favorite 64bit linux application? you were hoping to play counterstrike on it? maybe host a linux server?

It will not be until late in 2002 before the Hammer starts sampling, then we should have a better picture of who the players will be then.

As far as the Intanium not selling well, thats just tabloid gossip. 13.x million the first month and a half in production does not equate to poor/slow sales.
December 19, 2001 10:40:29 AM

'Oh I forgot, you wanted to run 32bit apps on your pseudo 64bit CPU! LOL'

64 bit code for Hammer will be available eventually,it takes time,but it will come in commercial use and I hope software people take use of it.

The demand for cheap commercial computing power has grown exponentially for decades.Tell me FUGGER why it would stop now.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2001 10:49:30 AM

Will Hammer's 32-bit performance & speed be as good as or better than the Palomino? I sure hope so... that would make the chip attractive *just* for it's 32-bit performance... which means people who have no idea what 64-bit is all about would still buy the chip.

After a while there'd be enough to start releasing software... and Intel users would start to get annoyed, and *maybe* Intel will licence Hammer from AMD! That'd be funny...

~ The First Formally Rehabilitated AMD Lemming ~
December 19, 2001 10:57:32 AM

Gobbledegook, the majority of poeple who use multiprocessors have windows xp pro(if they had windows xp) if a person is savy enough to know that he wants smp, he will be savy enough to buy the proper os.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
December 19, 2001 10:59:50 AM

Thats where amd is going with it, and what FUGGER doesnt understand, the hammer is NOT a 64bit cpu with good 32 bit support, it is an AWESOME 32bit processor with good 64 bit support, a totally different proposition.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2001 2:33:09 PM

>64bit machines are doing brute force work, and have no
>real application for home users currently

Agreed. 99% of the this forum members wont need the 64bit extentions of Hammer. They will like the 32bit performance though.

>Also 64bit machines do the CFD for military, medical, and
>aerospace projects in record time, and thousand of other
>64bit only applications run on the Itanium.

Great ! More applications than machines !

>Itanium is NOT made for 32 bit apps, so quit trying to
>complain how bad it is on 32bit apps. lets see how well
>your car runs on desiel if its made for gas.

I have to admit.. good analogy. But Hammer would be a car that could use both. Diesel for now, until gas becomes a requirement.

>Microsoft will produce a x86-64 OS for Hammer, Gates will
>leave no stone unturned.

That remains to be seen. im not sure if there would be a great demand for 64bit windows on hammer machines. Those hammer machines used as servers are more likely to run some sort of Unix/linux. I have no idea, but I do not think many Itanium machines are running Windows..

Typical workstations / power users machines wouldnt need the 64 bit support. 32 bit windows would be fine for them.

>As it stands not, there is Linux for x86-64 being
>developed and what is your favorite 64bit linux
>application?

Well, like I said. Servers !A 2-4 way Hammer machine with x86-64 Linux would make one hell of a server for just about any task. A single cpu hammer with 32bit windows would make a great game/home/office machine.

>As far as the Intanium not selling well, thats just
>tabloid gossip. 13.x million the first month and a half
>in production does not equate to poor/slow sales.

Oh common Fugger.. just admit it. Itanium is not selling well. Yet. No surprises there, no joy. Give it some time, but right now, its practically nowhere in the market, save test and develop machines and those that intel gave away.


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
December 19, 2001 3:59:59 PM

>64bit machines are doing brute force work, and have no
>real application for home users currently

Agreed. 99% of the this forum members wont need the 64bit extentions of Hammer. They will like the 32bit performance though.
-------------
Who once said that there are only 6 computers needed in the hold world?
Was it somebody from IBM?

Who once said that nobody needs more then 1MB of ram?
Was it Bill Gate$?

Who are you trying to fool whit the above statement?
December 19, 2001 4:11:25 PM

You know your making up stuff for A CPU that doesnt even exist yet?

"Great ! More applications than machines !" - wishfull thinking, At least the Itanium exists today. Not just a white paper that Lemmings make up statistics and super huge performance gains about.

Untill the hammer is released, no one know how well it will perform on 64bit or 32bit apps. more wishfull thinking on your part.

"Typical workstations / power users machines wouldnt need the 64 bit support. 32 bit windows would be fine for them." - You dont even know what this thing will cost and you just tried to put one on everyones desk... my guess is upwards of $10,000 per single CPU machine. just more wishfull thinking about a processor that doesnt even exist.

"A single cpu hammer with 32bit windows would make a great game/home/office machine." - you whine about P4 prices, how can you justify paying more for a AMD?? you think it will debute for under 100 bucks? I dont think so. more wishfull thinking.

Once you wake up from your nap, you will realize that your just spewing crap from page 1 of your AMD Lemming handbook.

Got anything more to add about a CPU that doesnt exist? tell us how awesome it will be at quake please. tell us the insane frame rates your gonna get and that 15k madonion score that your gonna score. comon dude make up more stuff about something that doesnt exist please. Tell us how the Hammer is gonna out perform Itanium in 64bit apps, Tell us how your gonna run all your 32bit windows apps on Linux. Im sure your just loaded with Linux applications that are actually usefull and make you rich.
December 19, 2001 4:31:07 PM

Quote:
"Typical workstations / power users machines wouldnt need the 64 bit support. 32 bit windows would be fine for them." - You dont even know what this thing will cost and you just tried to put one on everyones desk... my guess is upwards of $10,000 per single CPU machine. just more wishfull thinking about a processor that doesnt even exist.



Fugger are you an idiot?

Have you looked at amd's roadmaps?

The hammer archetecture is their next DESKTOP ARCHETECTURE, it is replacing the palomino/barton core, unless amd plans to charge 10k for regular home computers(which for some reason,....call it a brain, I doubt) they will not be overpriced.

Hammer is a 32 bit core with 64 bit functionality with little additional cost(the hammers die size should be rather small according to what I have read, much smaller than mr itanium which is freakin huge in chip size terms).


Quote:
"Great ! More applications than machines !" - wishfull thinking, At least the Itanium exists today. Not just a white paper that Lemmings make up statistics and super huge performance gains about.

With all the money intel is losing fabbing the existing silicon I bet they wish it was still a paper product.


Quote:
Untill the hammer is released, no one know how well it will perform on 64bit or 32bit apps. more wishfull thinking on your part.

This is true, however hammer design will replace the desktop palomino design, do you honestly think amd would replace a fast chip with a slower one, after all intel already made that mistake and look how their marketshare was affected.coughp4cough.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
December 19, 2001 4:32:09 PM

Quote:
Got anything more to add about a CPU that doesnt exist? tell us how awesome it will be at quake please. tell us the insane frame rates your gonna get and that 15k madonion score that your gonna score. comon dude make up more stuff about something that doesnt exist please. Tell us how the Hammer is gonna out perform Itanium in 64bit apps, Tell us how your gonna run all your 32bit windows apps on Linux. Im sure your just loaded with Linux applications that are actually usefull and make you rich.


You of all people have NO RIGHT to call someone a liar and accuse them of making stuff up you proven exposed troll liar.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
December 19, 2001 5:12:23 PM

LIAR! LIAR!LIAR!

"With all the money intel is losing fabbing the existing silicon I bet they wish it was still a paper product." - explain that to <A HREF="http://www.celera.com" target="_new">celera</A> how is leading the way to new cures for diseases and birth defects. But it seems you would rather children be born with cureable defects.

Just about anything said about The Hammer is speculation, that includes the price when it debutes. And your also one to brag about "white paper" performance.
December 19, 2001 5:29:07 PM

How the hell does your link counteract my quote in any way???


Secondly, if there was no itanium celera would be using some other cpu to do the calculations, lol, claiming credit for the itanium curing birth defects sounds like something you would say....if I worship itanium can I get into heaven fugger?

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2001 8:12:40 PM

>Not just a white paper that Lemmings make up statistics
>and super huge performance gains about.

Its not lemmings; its AMD itself that claims double performance over Athlon XP. Of course we cant verify that, but if its even close, it will be good. If you dont want to believe it, also fine.

>Untill the hammer is released, no one know how well it
>will perform on 64bit or 32bit apps. more wishfull
>thinking on your part

You're right. Well basically. But you dont need an IQ higher than your shoe size to see from the whitepaper that Hammer will perform.. "adequately". Its basically a super souped up AThlon. There is nothing in there that would lower its performance. There is a lot in there that might greatly improve its performance. Compare it the P4. You didnt have to be a rocket scientist to figure out a 20 stage pipeline and 8Kb L1 cache will have a negative performance impact compared to the P3. We all knew that long b4 the P4 was launched. It was just guessing what 400 Mhz fsb and SSE2 and the other things would do to compensate.

>my guess is upwards of $10,000 per single CPU machine

My guess is you'r wrong.

>you whine about P4 prices, how can you justify paying
>more for a AMD??

Easy. Performance per dollar.

>you think it will debute for under 100
>bucks? I dont think so. more wishfull thinking.

Nope. But from 10.000 to 100 is quite a range. Its likely to be somewhere in between, no ?

>comon dude make up more stuff about something that doesnt
>exist please.

Im not making anything up. But based upon the whitepapers and the existing AXP, its not too far fetched to have an idea of what it will be able to do (and what it wont). The architecture is there, and its promising. Why dont we talk again when its released, if you hate speculation that much.

>Im sure your just loaded with Linux applications that are
>actually usefull and make you rich.

Not personnaly, but out of the 140 server my company operates, there are *4* windows servers (2x exchange). All the rest is Solaris, Open BSD and mostly Linux. It makes us a lot of money, yes. And I dont think our IT department is even ever going to consider replacing these machines with some sort of Windows servers, regardless of the cpu/architecture.


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
December 19, 2001 8:47:45 PM

Fugger, Fugger, Fugger you are going to have one miserable life. Socially you will never get on in the work place cause you will be arguing with anyone and everyone. You are going to be a old lonely grumpy man if you contiune like this. You obviously have some issues you have to deal with. (You remind me of the school playground bully punching everybody for no apparent reason....probably to display your dominance or to cope with your insecurities.
If you are putting up these posts to piss off people then congrulations you are doing quite well, nice one !

As Matistro said Clawhammer is supposed to be a very fast next generation x86-32 processor. Unlike Intel AMD are not stupid enough to release a new processor that underperforms thier current flagship one. Remember Claw Hammer is debuting at PR 3400+ in my opinion AMD could not have come to that number without have a prototype to benchmark. AMD expect to have a 4400+ clawhammer by Q403 indicating it can scale very well.
In addtion within the last week AMD updated thier processor roadmap to include a <b>mobile</b> clawhammer for release in 2Q03. Due to this recent update it shows that on the development side things are going well and AMD is confident enough to introduce mobile versions quite rapidly into the market. Either that or AMD have got ahead of itself and got things horribly wrong.
OK say AMD release a mobile clawhammer by Q303 or Q403 even...come on ! 64 bit performance on a laptop ! that is bloody marvellous ! we won't see 64bit on a laptop from Intel anytime soon. The implications of this are quite significant. Scientists will be able to perform complex calculations/simulations on the move ! For example formula 1 teams will be able to analyse/compute feedback from thier test cars by the track side on thier laptops without having go back to the computer lab in the office/testcenter. Similarly designers will have the benifit of running demanding CAD software whilst on the move ie. on the plane or train. Are you getting the picture ? Any 64 bit performace on a laptop is a major achievement.

Your view is so skewed you that to fail to see a good idea even if its right in front of your face. I support Intel also and give them credit when its due not all my posts have been in favour of AMD in fact I have often said that AMD fail to deliver on time and that Intels thermal protection is very good. You have to look at the whole picture...sadly in your case all you see is Intel. 'Stubborn' is the word that comes to mind (I could have used another word but I will refrain from using it because I know I will be just as bad as you if I did).

Well that filled up my spare time...oh well back to work.

<font color=purple>~* K6-2 @ 333MHz *~
I don't need a 'Gigahertz' chip to surf the web just yet ;-)</font color=purple>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2001 9:50:08 PM

come on! Fugger
why you so loyal to intel.
!