Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

IA64 VS. x86-64

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 14, 2002 6:42:02 AM

What are your thoughts on these two approaches to 64-bit computing?

"Ignorance is bliss, but I tend to get screwed over."

More about : ia64 x86

February 14, 2002 7:54:13 AM

My thoughts on the current information at hand.

IA64 will be stronger/faster with true 64bit applications, x86-64 will be faster at 32bit applications but be able to run 64bit applications.

The IA64 Itaium uses a single 64bit core, and the x86-64 Hammer uses dual 32 bit cores.

From what I we understand from the Hammer's release notes is that one 32bit core will be fed zero's while the system uses 32bit code. 64bit will be codemorphed to feed the dual 32 bit cores during 64bit use. I cannot confirm that windows will create a version to run on the Hammer. step into whistler and <A HREF="http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/win64/32compat_..." target="_new">current limitations</A>. but if Intel produces the chip microsoft will produce the OS.
Itanium has both Linux and Windows now. The hammer will have at least 3 flavors of linux ready upon release.


Proving once again that <A HREF="http://www.zombo.com" target="_new">anything is possible</A>.
February 14, 2002 8:21:55 AM

I think I'd say it best by saying:
The Hammer is a 64bit exstention for x86 bcoz AMD thinks server and workstation will benfit 64bit now and x86 is far from dead - to that even Intel agrees.

the IA64 is a totally different animal .
i'd say that the essence of IA64 is not being 64bit
its more like a totally different Architecture (not even CiSC )
for Intel to combatant in the RISC High-End arena.
It happens to be 64Bit – because that what it needs to be.
But far more important it’s a totally different Architecture – VLIW (very long int word) processor which offer eXtreme High-End Preformance for Specialized tasks
A market that is owned by RiSC clusters from IBM, SUN, COMPACT etc'.

It is not the Hammer equvelent as its not aimed at the same market.
And IA64 doesn’t look down scaleable (currently it seems Itanium2 will cost ~5 times a Hammer) so as its stands were very far from
Hammer VS Itanium
And once we'd get there I don’t think we'll see Hammer or Itanium…


This post is best viewed with common sense enabled
Related resources
February 14, 2002 8:30:06 AM

I can confirm that Microsoft will make an OS for 64 bit Hammers. But we are a ways away from release. I agree with everyone else ( even fugger, OMG!) that the Itanium and Hammer are different chips for a different market. I think the Itanium will be used for VERY specific, high-end stuff. The 64-bit Hammer for mid-to-low end server apps. Thats not to say Sledge Hammer wont kick butt, but its architecture suggests they are aiming for wide-spread adoption, not just niche markets.
Fugger, I will have to look at the dual core thing again. I thought one of 32 and the other 64. But hey, after 10 pages of tech specs my eyes start crossing, lol.

Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.
February 14, 2002 8:30:28 AM

Hey FUGGER, is that "Zambo.com"? LOL man, goddamn that was funny. But anyway, once again you right. All these haters always when dissing when you schoolin them with knowledge.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2002 11:44:06 AM

>From what I we understand from the Hammer's release notes
>is that one 32bit core will be fed zero's while the system
>uses 32bit code. 64bit will be codemorphed to feed the
>dual 32 bit cores during 64bit use. I

Hello ? Are you sure you know what you are saying here ? If I understand you correctly, this doesnt sound remotely like what I've been hearing so far (but then again, Im no authority on the matter). Are you saying you'd need a dual core (sledge)hammer to execute 64 bit code ? Because that IS bogus, im positive. Dual core hammers arent even confirmed. THe hammer architecture, with the dual integrated memory controller is ideally suited to build multi core chips, but that is certrainly not the most important feature of its architecture. AS for the 64 bit, a single core clawhammer is perfectly capable of executing x86-64 code. And 32 bit code will definately not cut the performance in half by just using half the cpu, come on. What might be true is that 64 bit registers will contain 32 zero's when running 32 bit code, which seems logical. But thats only the registers (or rather, some registers I presume).

On a more general note, I agree with IIB that Hammer and Itanium are not really direct competitors. Hammer will take P4 Xeons head to head instead, using the 64 bit extentions as a free "extra". Hammer might be an indirect threat to itanium however. Intel currently has no 64 capable product to compete in the "low end" server market with hammer. Itanium is not likely to become low end any time soon. Low end means high volume, so if hammer succeeds, software support will follow, forcing intel to follow AMD x86-64 approach to be able to compete. And THAT would undermine Itaniums IA64 migration.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
February 14, 2002 12:06:02 PM

The Claw Hammer doesn't use dual 32 bit cores. It is a fully 64 bit core with backward 32 and 16 bit capability just like the 386 is a fully 32 bit core with 16 bit capability. The dual cores you are referring to is the Sledge Hammer intended for 8 way SMP servers...

Regarding the performance of the cores... I'd say we have to wait and see...


/* The more you know, the more you realize how little you know */
February 14, 2002 1:59:06 PM

And where did you see anything about two 32 bit cores in that article?

/* The more you know, the more you realize how little you know */
February 14, 2002 2:10:35 PM

I was going to ask the same thing.
February 14, 2002 2:49:26 PM

Source:http://www.chip-architect.com/news/2001_10_02_Hammer_mi... Dual Cores

Quote: "The dual cores support 64 bit processing. AMD made the bold move to go it alone and not wait for Intel to implement a 64 bit X86 extension with an extended register set. Intel may now be forced to develop something similar "

Source: http://www.entmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=502...

Quote: "Hammer, on the other hand, purports to natively support existing 32-bit x86 code, as well as new x86 code that has been extended to 64-bits. "

Source:http://www.a1-electronics.co.uk/AMD_Section/CPUs/Hammer...

Quote: "AMD Sledgehammer & Clawhammer processors in Long Mode will support all 64-bit operations & allow support for existing 16 & 32-bit applications through a long mode compatibility option. In Legacy Mode Sledgehammer & Clawhammer processors will provide backward compatible 16 & 32-bit support for traditional operating environments such as Windows 98 & IBM OS/2. "

Source:http://www.vr-zone.com/Home/news98/news98.htm

Quote: "ClawHammer will be a 32-bit chip with 64-bit instruction extensions; SledgeHammer will be a true 64-bit architecture"

Hell, I give up... make what you will from the quotes.

Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.
February 14, 2002 3:58:20 PM

First of all, it's very naive to think that two 32-bit cores would end up as a 64-bit core. Two cores are exactly what is says. To CPU's on the same die. No more, no less.

IBM's Power4 are two 64-bit cores on the same die. Do you think that makes it a 128-bit chip then?

Do you think that the 32-bit 386 are two 16-bit 286's glued together?

This is the same thing. Just as Intel extended the 16-bit 286 to a 32-bit 386, AMD is now extending a 32-bit Athlon to a 64-bit Hammer.

I can understand there might be some confusion though, since AMD is also releasing a dual core SledgeHammer but that is basically two 64-bit Claw Hammers on the same die just like the Power4...

/* The more you know, the more you realize how little you know */<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Parma_Endorion on 02/14/02 02:14 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
February 14, 2002 6:22:03 PM

AMD has not stated that any Hammer chips will be dual core. Dual core is just speculation by industry *experts* due to the features built into the base chip for memory management, hyperthreading, etc.

If AMD was to produce a dual core version of Hammer it would probably wait until the SledgeHammer iteration of the Hammer family and .09 micron sometime in 2003. a dual core chip would take nearly twice the silicon that a single core version would take. AMD has for some time made a point to comment on the small die size of their chips when compared to the Pentium 4 chips. So, until .09 micron I doubt we'll see a dual core Hammer family chip. Even then, it's all just speculation until AMD actually SAYS Hammer will offer a dual core.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
February 14, 2002 10:03:22 PM

Perhaps the Hammer and the Itanium are aimed at two different markets, but it's possible that there will be desktop IA64 chips at some point.
Is it time to throw out all that legacy technology?
Will IA64 take over in the long run, or is x86 here to stay?

"Ignorance is bliss, but I tend to get screwed over."
February 15, 2002 3:01:37 PM

While it is possible that Itanium could transition/trickle down to desktop market sometime in the future, Hammer seems to be on a much faster track to do that. In fact, from the looks of things, it seems to me that Hammer will be positioned as the Athlon replacement on the desktop and mobiles within 18 months, and Athlon will be pushed down to the entry level systems. I suspect Duron production may start tapering off within the next 12 months. AMD won't really need it, nor will the market, AND, just like there will be a P4 based Celeron shortly (based on Willamette) it stands to reason that Athlon will become the new Duron...even though it's actually an older design than Duron.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
!