Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Future Processors vs Available Memory

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 25, 2002 10:54:27 PM

After looking over the recent thread about "Tom being biased?", I have compiled several questions which might be the start of another good thread.

1-With the release of the K7 Athlon Thouroghbred and the K8 Athlon Hammer, will AMD step up the FSB to 166Mhz DDR or will they possibly go further with a larger FSB?
2-What is the future for AMDs plan on increasing their subsequent FSBs? Will they continue usage of PC-333 DDR and PC-166 SDR? What is the possibility of the so called PC-400 and PC-500 DDR SDRAM?
3-Can Intel really pull ahead with the "new" NW 133FSB and PC-1066 RDR?
4-What can we look forward to for the near future? AMD has plans for the clawhammer, but I haven't heard anything for Intel. I'm guessing they are going to step up clock speeds and faster versions of RAMBUS and eventually convert to the even smaller .09 micron manufacturing technique.

With all these possibilities, I don't think their is really any need to be biased at the two companies. They both have good products and they both have a strong future ahead of them. Intel has messed up themselves with RDRAM, but it seems to be the only plausible memory for the future of the Pentium4. AMD has an unclear future, due to the many rumors floating around their upcoming processors. If I am not mistaken, in several days I believe (early march), AMD plans on pushing its Athlon T-bred in the market. Sounds like it has a lot of potential already :) 

"When there's a will, there's a way."
February 26, 2002 12:29:16 AM

unless a miracle happens it seems the t-bred will be 133fsb.

probably see barton being 166.

just read today that hammers first chipset will be dual channel PC2700 giving 5.4gb/sec bandwidth.

via also has 2 dual channel DDR P4 solutions comming out in Q2/Q3 of this year, the P4X600 & 800. they are probably going to use PC2400, PC2700 and PC3200 ddr ram.

"I came, I saw, I overclocked", Julius 'Smokin CPU' Caesar :smile:
February 26, 2002 12:32:52 AM

Can't wait for March too!

What I find odd, is that I heard a few times many months ago about a super computer, possibly Hammer, having an 800MHZ FSB. Does anybody remember hearing about such???
Hammer will most likely be more memory intensive. Why add a Memory Controller then? The more the merrier!
As for Intel, I agree nothing has come out of their roadmaps that seem to fly interest. AMD is doing nothing but evolutionary but revolutionary for us Desktop users. I dunno but Intel has got to wake up and smell the coffee, they can't just ramp technology by ramping clock speeds! Nothing's interesting then! AMD keeps adding new things to their processors, AXP having SSE and Hardware Data Prefetch, and even better heat dissipation without die shrinks!
I am hoping Intel isn't just sleeping there letting AMD, because they WILL get hit by the Hammer. I don't imagine anybody here after buying a ClawHammer looking at any P4 any soon! It just would be waiting a year at least before the P4 reaches that! Not to mention the CW has a PR that is very high, PR3400, which should be equal or even higher than Intel's clock speeds by end of year if it times right, and if CW also will have a PR4400 later in Q1 '03, I doubt Intel will jump to 4.4GHZ that easily, and that WILL be making a dent on them. So Intel SHOULD react from now on, it's gonna be a helluva fight!

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
Related resources
February 26, 2002 12:53:47 PM

Personaly, I will not count the P4 out before the Hammer even is out in a working spec.

Hammer's estimated PR rating could be just that. PR and a guess. THe fact that the PR rating was close to the equivilent P4 speed was simply a coincidence. And I highly doubt that the 133 FSB P4s will match up as well (the 2.4 smoked the 2.2 at 100 by much more than a simple 200 MHZ speed increase would indicate.)

Intel is choosing to push their Itanium line of processors to the business world, and their P4s to the desktop users. However, they seem to be focusing on the business world more than the personal desktops. Does this mean that the P4 will be the last x86 processor from Intel? Perhaps, or perhaps not. It probably depends on how successfull Hammer, Itanium, and the new P4s are, and that is something that only time will tell.

This is a non-smoking forum.
If your computer is smoking, please extinguish it immediately.
February 26, 2002 2:58:13 PM

Quote:
Personaly, I will not count the P4 out before the Hammer even is out in a working spec.


The hammer is on working silicon and has been delivered to mobo partners.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
February 26, 2002 2:58:14 PM

I just thought that I'd add one more newt eye before I stirred the pot, and that eye would be named Yamhill. :) 

<A HREF="http://www.theregus.com/content/3/23835.html" target="_new">http://www.theregus.com/content/3/23835.html&lt;/A>

I wanted to find the original article because as usual, The Register doesn't tell the whole story. (Or tell it well anyway.) Unfortunately though, Mercury News got consumed by Bayarea.com and it's just all a mess. When I finally found a link to the original article, they wanted to charge me to read the whole article. Heh heh. Screw that.

<pre><b><font color=orange>AROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!</font color=orange></b></pre><p>
February 26, 2002 3:38:27 PM

Quote:
The hammer is on working silicon and has been delivered to mobo partners.


And that's welcome news. In about a month or two I expect bogus WCPUID and benchmark screenshots to appear on Asian web sites.

BTW, one further aspect of the 133(533) P4, as well as the 166(333) Athlon, is that they'll overclock even higher on the FSB. Most people are reporting 133MHz FSB on Northwoods with relative ease, and pretty good Athlon overclocks too. We'll finally drop down a little more from these huge multipliers (can you say 100x22?).

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
Don't step in the sarcasm!
February 26, 2002 3:57:08 PM

Quote:
We'll finally drop down a little more from these huge multipliers (can you say 100x22?).
Quote:


How bout 1100 x 2? That better?

Seriously though.

Mat, what I ment about not being speced yet, is that I haven't seen the actual test results of the CPU. If they have a working model, then perhaps it realy is around PR3400, or perhaps that's what they want it to be when they release it and are still tweeking the final architecture.

It's not fair to be playing a death march for the P4 when there have been Benchmarks from a reliable source (I consider THG relitively reliable), while the Hammer hasn't even been fully tested and set to be put out into the market. It's a bit premature for an AMD victory celebration party.

This is a non-smoking forum.
If your computer is smoking, please extinguish it immediately.
February 26, 2002 3:58:43 PM

Quote:
that eye would be named Yamhill

Well, well, well, Silver,

Now you go spewing tunnel-vision, mis-informative, FUD on something Intel won't even confirm, let alone have available in working silicone this year. Wasn't it you that was taking the tac that you couldn't compare P4 533 to Athlon 166 because, just possibly, someone had a piece of silicone from Intel that was purportedly spec'ed for 533 and not vis versa? Well, I can dish your own medicine back:

Claw hammer is in working silicone and WILL be released, most likely by the end of the year at 3400. This is not vaporware; there is already MS and Linux kernel support available.

Yamhill is (maybe?) a secret skunkworks vaporware project that Intel is keeping on the backburner just in case McKinley (Itanic II) sinks like the first. Intel is very adamant that P4 is the future of the desktop until IA-64 crosses over. This could be a cover, but as you so elequently put it: "The 133(533) isn't vaporware because it exists, doesn't matter if it's available publicly or not."

How's that for thread cross-over?

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.
February 26, 2002 4:37:20 PM

Quote:
"The 133(533) isn't vaporware because it exists, doesn't matter if it's available publicly or not."

Actually, I believe I said that.

MS kernel support? Last I checked, MS was still pretending that there were too many pitfalls in x86-64 to make it worth their while. I haven't heard that there is actually support yet, can you let me know where I can find out more?

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
Don't step in the sarcasm!
February 26, 2002 4:49:05 PM

Quote:
Actually, I believe I said that.

Actually, you're right; I guess Silver wasn't as eloquent I a had thought (see sig). :tongue:

Quote:
can you let me know where I can find out more?

Oops, I wasn't supposed to say anything about that, now was I...well, sue me!

Anyway, Clawhammer will support MS XP under its native 32bit mode as the fastest x86 32bit desktop processor.

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.
February 26, 2002 4:55:13 PM

So then you are admitting there is no current plan for a 64-bit Microsoft operating system that will run on an AMD processor?

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
February 26, 2002 6:40:46 PM

That is incorrect. Microsoft PLANS to have 64 bit windows, but RIGHT NOW there is true 64 bit Linux support and only 32 bit Windows support......

Jesus saves, but Mario scores!!!
February 26, 2002 6:46:01 PM

What Kief said....

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.
February 26, 2002 7:17:12 PM

ath0mps0, do you actually know that you're mentally deficient yet? Or have you not quite figured that out?

<i><b>IF</b></i> (and that's a big if) I had said that I thoroughly believed in the existence of said Yamhill and thought that it was wonderful (which I clearly never made such a statement), then I could see your post as having any point whatsoever.

However, for your edification (since you so clearly cannot grasp the world around you), I didn't "go spewing tunnel-vision, mis-informative, FUD" on anything. All that I did was provide a link to a controvertial topic for discussion and <i>intentionally</i> not take a stance on either side of that subject.

So how you can even relate doing <i>that</i> to comparing a legit engineering sample to something that clearly is neither an engineering sample nor a pre or post production release is frankly beyond me. ath0mps0, you truely are a <i>special</i> person.

Then on top of these ever so brilliant deductions of yours, you add your truely exceptional skill in research to the fray when you prove that you can't even quote the right person. Why you're not just special, you're <b><i>super</i></b> special.

I can imagine that putting together a whole post without having your mommy help you must have taken a lot out of you. Would you like a lolly?

<pre><b><font color=orange>AROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!</font color=orange></b></pre><p>
February 26, 2002 7:30:19 PM

Quote:
MS kernel support? Last I checked, MS was still pretending that there were too many pitfalls in x86-64 to make it worth their while. I haven't heard that there is actually support yet, can you let me know where I can find out more?

Heh heh. Isn't it funny how Microsoft can be implementing 64-bit integers directly into the Windows API since Windows 95, and be implementing 64-bit integers into VC++ 6.0, and yet proclaim that working with a 64-bit platform is so difficult?

Taken directly from the MSDN library for Visual Studio 6.0:
Quote:
Microsoft Specific —>

Microsoft C/C++ features support for sized integer types. You can declare 8-, 16-, 32-, or 64-bit integer variables by using the __intn type specifier, where n is 8, 16, 32, or 64.

And:
Quote:

The LARGE_INTEGER structure is used to represent a 64-bit signed integer value.

...

The LARGE_INTEGER structure is actually a union. If your compiler has built-in support for 64-bit integers, use the QuadPart member to store the 64-bit integer. Otherwise, use the LowPart and HighPart members to store the 64-bit integer

QuickInfo
Windows NT: Requires version 3.1 or later.
Windows: Requires Windows 95 or later.
Windows CE: Unsupported.
Header: Declared in winnt.h.

<pre><b><font color=orange>AROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!</font color=orange></b></pre><p>
February 26, 2002 7:56:24 PM

The __int64 type is an entirely different subject matter. On a 64-bit machine, a normal integer (int) would be 64-bits wide. This could cause a greal deal of code to behave incorrectly when compiled for a 64-bit processor. If the standard integer stayed 32-bit, that would make programming a great deal easier. But working with 32-bit integers is much slower than working with 64-bit integers on a 64-bit processor. (This is similar to how working with 16-bit integers is much slower than working with 32-bit integers on our current 32-bit processors.)

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
February 26, 2002 8:08:28 PM

Actually, my mommy did help me; she already gave me a lolly 'cause I'm not s'pose to take candy from strangers.

I'm gonna tell cause you called me super special in <b>bold</b>! Nahhh, nah, nahh, nah, nahh, nahhhh.

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.
February 26, 2002 9:45:52 PM

Quote:
That is incorrect. Microsoft PLANS to have 64 bit windows, but RIGHT NOW there is true 64 bit Linux support and only 32 bit Windows support......

Show me where Microsoft has stated they plan to support x86-64 in their 64-bit Windows product. Thusfar I have seen nothing of the sort. In fact, Microsoft has tied 64-bit Windows in with the IA64 architecture.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
February 26, 2002 9:56:47 PM

Even if Microsoft doesn't specifically recompile Windows on the X86-64, they can easily create a 64-bit extension to the 32-bit WinXP that will allow 64-bit apps to run under Windows XP with enhanced performance. I don't know if you guys recall Win32s? Win32s was the 32-bit extension that Microsoft added to Windows 3.1. A 64-bit extension can still be added to WinXP 32-bit although it won't be efficient.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
February 26, 2002 10:05:17 PM

That is always a possibility, but your operating system is still running 32-bit and still has the same 4GB memory limit. What is anyone going to do with an x86-64 system anyway? That instruction set offers no enhanced performance. It only offers more memory. Do you need more than 4GB of memory right now? Does anyone here even have that much?

Win32s was useful because it allowed applications to use more than 1MB of memory. Everyone was hitting up against the limit of memory at that time. 1MB simply was not enough. 32-bit applications had access to a full 4GB, removing all the limitations. There is no need in the desktop segment for a 64-bit memory extension such as Win64s. No applications are anywhere near the 4GB limit, and will not get near during the next few years.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
February 26, 2002 10:49:12 PM

Best Buy employee: "I have more than 4GB. I have 128MB!"

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
Don't step in the sarcasm!
February 26, 2002 11:06:01 PM

Quote:

That is always a possibility, but your operating system is still running 32-bit and still has the same 4GB memory limit. What is anyone going to do with an x86-64 system anyway? That instruction set offers no enhanced performance. It only offers more memory. Do you need more than 4GB of memory right now? Does anyone here even have that much?

Win32s was useful because it allowed applications to use more than 1MB of memory. Everyone was hitting up against the limit of memory at that time. 1MB simply was not enough. 32-bit applications had access to a full 4GB, removing all the limitations. There is no need in the desktop segment for a 64-bit memory extension such as Win64s. No applications are anywhere near the 4GB limit, and will not get near during the next few years.

Hmm, I recall around the time of the lauch of Windows 95, I read an amazing technical book called Inside Windows 95. This book looks at the architecture of Windows 95. I vaguely recall that it covered information on Microsoft's Win32s (used in Win3.1) and Win32c (Win95). I vaguely rememeber the book and I can't find it right now to quote it. However, <A HREF="http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q83520" target="_new">here</A> is some information about Win32s from Microsoft.

Correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't a 64-bit extension of Win32 (eg. WinXP), give programs the ability to handle 64-bit integers (–2^63..2^63–1) and other 64-bit data types through hardware rather than emulate them through software?

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
February 26, 2002 11:14:43 PM

The ability to use 64-bit integers would depend on your processor and your compiler. Who is going to build AMD's Windows compiler? Intel has one that targets both IA32 and IA64. AMD does not have a compiler team. Microsoft's compilers target only IA32.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
February 26, 2002 11:26:47 PM

<A HREF="http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/libr..." target="_new">WHY IT WOUNT WORK!!!</A>

It seems you cant get past the point of why it wount work. Which in turn why MS woun't support it. Try and read this, it states very clearly why MS isnt going to go out and make some silly hybrid OS. Further more you dont seem to understand how code is dealt with by the CPU. It just doesnt magically switch to 64 bit then back to 32 bit.

Oh ya my p3 must be 128 bit too right since i have sse onboard *spud shakes head*

-Spuddy

<font color=blue>Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man </font color=blue> :smile:
February 26, 2002 11:33:15 PM

Microsoft should eventually develop a 64-bit OS or at least a 64-bit extension to Windows XP with support for x86-64 if it catches on. Right now we have two competing standards, which will win does not depend on the supporter's prominence in the market but rather on how cheap the product is and how much performance it will provide to the end user. I have yet to hear of any end-user version of IA64 coming out from Intel. And if they don't release one soon to compete against the soon-to-be-released Clawhammer, AMD will win the 64-bit race to the public.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
February 26, 2002 11:43:11 PM

Um since when is this just a AMD Intel fight. I do beleive that IBM, Transmeta, Compaq, SGI, and SUN Corp also have a bid on the 64 bit market. Give you head a shake before you go blubbering about how the 64 bit arena and how it will be owned by AMD or Intel.*spud shakes head*

-Spuddy

<font color=blue>Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man </font color=blue> :smile:
February 26, 2002 11:49:19 PM

Quote:
which will win does not depend on the supporter's prominence in the market but rather on how cheap the product is and how much performance it will provide to the end user.

Those who need 64-bit address space right now are not overly concerned with cost. I do agree that performance will be very important. IA64 offers enhanced performance from the new instruction set. x86-64 only offers memory past 4GB.

Quote:
I have yet to hear of any end-user version of IA64 coming out from Intel.

There is no market for it. Intel released a 64-bit processor back in the 80s. It did not do well. There is simply no value price-point market that can use more than 4GB of memory currently. Wait until programmers begin complaining about 4GB not being enough for applications and games targetted at the home audience. Then the market will be created.


Quote:
And if they don't release one soon to compete against the soon-to-be-released Clawhammer, AMD will win the 64-bit race to the public.

The public is not crying out for a 64-bit processor. Scientists are. AMD needs to take a look at what markets are available. Right now I see no need for Intel to bother releasing a 64-bit processor for the average consumer. They are not even making use of 10% of the capabilities of current 32-bit processors.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
February 26, 2002 11:53:30 PM

I will tell you what. Convince me that the average consumer will need a 64-bit processor some time within the next 6 years or so and I will see what I can do about getting Intel to address the situation.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
February 26, 2002 11:59:19 PM

Spud why don't you just lay off man?
Obviously you're Spudmuffin, if not, then some troll who likes to pick on people who try to get informed, so you LAY OFF AMD_Man, you hear me? We're here to learn not to insult each other's knowledge.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
February 27, 2002 12:01:16 AM

Quote:

Um since when is this just a AMD Intel fight. I do beleive that IBM, Transmeta, Compaq, SGI, and SUN Corp also have a bid on the 64 bit market. Give you head a shake before you go blubbering about how the 64 bit arena and how it will be owned by AMD or Intel.*spud shakes head*

Yes, but none of those are going to be entering the home user market anytime soon because they don't have any hold on the market. Who's going to buy an 64-bit IBM or Trasmeta processor when you can get a 64-bit AMD or Intel processor?

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
February 27, 2002 12:14:46 AM

AMD does not mean to make a 64bit hybrid just for the fun, they said they wanted to make a solid and smooth transition for all users in the future. Please Ray do read more about AMD's plans before saying their processor in not that much gonna help. If it ain't gonna be that much useful for 64bit, it don't matta, its performance is MOST LIKELY gonna be sky high above any P4 for about 6 months until Intel can reach 4GHZ. Why I say that? I am assuming all this so we're gonna see, but it is more than likely logical and true: It will begin at PR 3400, now assuming that is compared to a Tbird or even an AXP, one can assume it will have the strengh a P4 4GHZ would dream of. I may be sounding too AMD here, but Ray you gotta read more about other processors before jumping in, just like you suddenly learned Athlons are DDR pumped. Now how couldn't you have known that in any THG article, or Anandtech for that matter? It's been here for 2 years now!

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
February 27, 2002 12:16:25 AM

Quote:

WHY IT WOUNT WORK!!!

It seems you cant get past the point of why it wount work. Which in turn why MS woun't support it. Try and read this, it states very clearly why MS isnt going to go out and make some silly hybrid OS. Further more you dont seem to understand how code is dealt with by the CPU. It just doesnt magically switch to 64 bit then back to 32 bit.

Oh ya my p3 must be 128 bit too right since i have sse onboard *spud shakes head*

Hmm, I'm not a hardware engineer or professional computer programmer (YET!), but it seems to me that that info refers to the Itanium (IA64) and the IA64 Win64 OS. As the X86-64 is based on the IA32 standard, I would think it would be more flexible when it comes to 32 to 64 DLL calls and vise versa. I was talking about a Win64 extension to the Win32-based WinXP, not a completely new 64-bit version of Windows XP. It was done before when moving from Win16 to Win32 with Win32s, so why can't be be done again?

EDIT: Actually, Spud, I do know a bit about thunking. I read quite a bit about it a few years back, but I have no idea where those books went. I also know that when it comes to thunking, the AMD Hammer will be far more flexible than the Intel Itanium because it natively supports all 32-bit data types.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by AMD_Man on 02/26/02 09:28 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
February 27, 2002 12:32:48 AM

I'm detecting some pessimism AMD_Man from some here. Obviously none are trying to be as enthusiastic as you and I. I for one beleive WinXP CAN be part 64-bit like you're saying, and regardless of how the memory is handled, it WILL succeed. Keep up the positive, you are more right than many here who are contradicting you right now.


--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
February 27, 2002 12:42:12 AM

Quote:


I'm detecting some pessimism AMD_Man from some here. Obviously none are trying to be as enthusiastic as you and I. I for one beleive WinXP CAN be part 64-bit like you're saying, and regardless of how the memory is handled, it WILL succeed. Keep up the positive, you are more right than many here who are contradicting you right now.

I need to reread the book Inside Windows 95. It was a beautiful book about the power of Windows 95 as the next logical step from Win3.1 + Win32s.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
February 27, 2002 12:49:43 AM

What we need here are real professional computer programmers to shed some light. I'm merely a 15-year-old amateur. I believe Raystonn is a programmer, but I somehow doubt Spuddy is.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
February 27, 2002 1:01:26 AM

He may be, but somehow there is more enthusiasm channeled from you than him right now. It is for sure he is not showing much interest towards the Hammer, and it's up to us to give him some links and info, as he doesn't really seem to check out AMD's news.

EDIT: And what do I look like? I'm 15 too man, and I try my best to get into all this. I'm just so enthusiastic about the technology around chips these days.
--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 02/26/02 10:05 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
February 27, 2002 5:04:29 AM

I never insulted him; I gave him a hard truth that many of you guys aren’t seeing here. Get past the bull that AMD and Intel are throwing at you and look at the need. Ray is right what in the bloody heck do I need more that 4 gigs of memory for? Like give your head a shake people there is no market for that in the consumer segment and I really don’t think there will ever be. You are being naive to think that AMD will be the saviour of the 64-bit revolution.

I can tell you that they aren’t it won’t be one company that can do this. All the larger partners, the movers and shakers are going have to sit down and plan this out. This isn’t a overnight thing, and I certainly don’t think it’s going to come to light even within the next 10 years. There is just not the demand for it.

Also remember what the programmers slogan is "KEEP IT SIMPLY" they aren’t going to want to learn a new code to do this. They aren’t going to want to move to a new compiler set. And they certainly aren’t going to want to design software for two platforms. For example look at the games we have for the x86 and for the g4. Very little pass into that arena and why its because of the hassles to recompiling, re-optimization, and re-debugging for a new instruction set. It’s not cost effective of time effective. But what do I know I am just some lowly end user.

-Spuddy


<font color=blue>Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man </font color=blue> :smile:
February 27, 2002 5:17:07 AM

Regardless of all the "politics", what will the 64 bit OS do for us, and when will home users be taking advantage of 64 bit systems?

<font color=red>God</font color=red> <font color=blue>Bless</font color=blue> <font color=red>America!</font color=red>
February 27, 2002 5:30:18 AM

Quote:
The ability to use 64-bit integers would depend on your processor and your compiler. Who is going to build AMD's Windows compiler? Intel has one that targets both IA32 and IA64. AMD does not have a compiler team. Microsoft's compilers target only IA32.

-Raystonn



Its a good thing that the hammer will probably be the fastest 32 bit processor ever then huh.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
February 27, 2002 5:32:47 AM

Quote:
The public is not crying out for a 64-bit processor. Scientists are. AMD needs to take a look at what markets are available. Right now I see no need for Intel to bother releasing a 64-bit processor for the average consumer. They are not even making use of 10% of the capabilities of current 32-bit processors.

-Raystonn


Everyone here is forgetting, the hammer is not a 64bit cpu with 32 bit support, it is an ultra fast 32 bit cpu with 64 bit support, there is a huge difference.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
February 27, 2002 5:35:25 AM

Quote:
I never insulted him; I gave him a hard truth that many of you guys aren’t seeing here. Get past the bull that AMD and Intel are throwing at you and look at the need. Ray is right what in the bloody heck do I need more that 4 gigs of memory for? Like give your head a shake people there is no market for that in the consumer segment and I really don’t think there will ever be. You are being naive to think that AMD will be the saviour of the 64-bit revolution.


The point ray and you are missing, is that the hammer is not like the itanium, it is NOT designed to compete with the itanium, and it is NOT a native 64bit processor, it is their desktop and low end server replacement chip, it runs 32 bit code BLAZING, and can support 64 bit code for the people who WANT it. It does not rely on 64bit ability to run fast.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
February 27, 2002 6:11:49 AM

As I have posted before, and I hope this clears some things up:

1. Microsoft IS, repeat IS, porting/making/developing (you pick the word) a native 64-bit OS that will support Hammer. And it will also support the 32-bit side of things too.
The average home user wont see or know the difference. But this OS does exist, and it is operational (at least partly).
I post this for those that fear, or hope in Rayston's case, Hammer wont have a decent OS to operate within. My source or sources are VERY reliable. (read: have seen it in operation)
that is all

Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.
February 27, 2002 6:23:20 AM

Quote:
The point ray and you are missing, is that the hammer is not like the itanium,

I did not miss these points. However, those who are arguing that the hammer is actually a native 64-bit processor and will allow AMD to shape the future of 64-bit computing did.

Quote:
it is NOT designed to compete with the itanium,

I know that. You know that. It appears we must spoonfeed the rest.

Quote:
and it is NOT a native 64bit processor,

Agreed.

Quote:
it is their desktop and low end server replacement chip,

Desktops and low-end servers really do not need access to more than 4GB of memory right now. AMD would have been better served taking that die space and using it to enhance performance.

Quote:
it runs 32 bit code BLAZING,

Assuming this is true, AMD should be able to keep up with the Pentium 4 using the hammer line.

Quote:
and can support 64 bit code for the people who WANT it.

Unless you have a need for more than 4GB of memory, the only reason to want it is bragging rights over the number 64.

Quote:
It does not rely on 64bit ability to run fast.

In fact, there is no performance enhancement achieved at all simply by using its 64-bit extensions. These extensions merely gives access to more than 4GB of memory.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
February 27, 2002 6:27:31 AM

Quote:
1. Microsoft IS, repeat IS, porting/making/developing (you pick the word) a native 64-bit OS that will support Hammer. And it will also support the 32-bit side of things too.
The average home user wont see or know the difference. But this OS does exist, and it is operational (at least partly).
I post this for those that fear, or hope in Rayston's case, Hammer wont have a decent OS to operate within. My source or sources are VERY reliable. (read: have seen it in operation)
that is all

I have yet to see any mention or support of this from Microsoft. For the time being their public position is that there are no plans for such an operating system. It really is not needed anyway. The hammer will do just fine on the 32-bit operating systems until you want to address more than 4GB of memory. I do not see that happening any time soon.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
February 27, 2002 6:29:04 AM

Quote:
Its a good thing that the hammer will probably be the fastest 32 bit processor ever then huh.

I await the benchmarks. Let the games begin. ;) 

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
February 27, 2002 6:31:42 AM

the key word there Rayston is "public"

Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.
February 27, 2002 6:33:39 AM

Quote:
Regardless of all the "politics", what will the 64 bit OS do for us, and when will home users be taking advantage of 64 bit systems?

The 64-bit version of Windows is written from scratch for IA64. Every bit of operating system code is IA64. The IA64 instruction set itself offers huge performance advantages in its massive parallelisms. In addition to the 64-bit address space for those who need more than 4GB of memory, you get the performance enhancements of a new instruction set written from scratch after years of learning.

Home users will probably not be migrating to 64-bit systems until 4GB of memory becomes a constraint. I do not see this happening for at least another 6 years. At that time Intel will have a desktop IA64 processor available.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
February 27, 2002 6:35:30 AM

Quote:
the key word there Rayston is "public"

Just because you see something being developed, does not mean it will ever make it to market. Every company has projects (some call them skunkworks) designed solely as a backup plan in case the main plan fails.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
!