Great Article on AMD.

Bump so I can read it tomorrow :tongue:

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft

good call, procastination is always the best bet.

The holder of <i>this</i> pass is <b>exempt</b> from all forms of <font color=red>flaming</font color=red>.

very interesting. I pretty much sums up every major issue AMD faces, the marketplace and the future. Fairly unbiased.

i give it 4 out of 5 stars  

Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.

I had to be at work at 6am this morning, so last night I wanted to get to bed instead of reading long articles.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft

It has my vote for article of the quarter. It had a very good balance of history vs. projections. Slander was nonexistent. Very good use of compare and contrast showing the strengths and weaknesses of AMD and Intel. Slightly depressing in lieu of when we may see new chips for AMD and what they may cost.

All errors are undocumented features waiting to be discovered.

Interesting article. Does it make anyone else want to puke that the success of the hammer is hinged on microsoft's ability to implement a 64 bit OS?

Yea, but why do you think Microsoft has been under so much scrutiny for monopolization of the entire PC industry? Make no mistake, they control it, not the hardware manufactureres.

The holder of <i>this</i> pass is <b>exempt</b> from all forms of <font color=red>flaming</font color=red>.

The future is not in the hands of MS if they CAN make the OS, the issue is if they WILL make the OS.

AMD continues to insist they are working on it, Intel says they aren't, and MS won't comment. So it's hard to say.

Bad trolls Bad trolls... Whacha gonna do... Whacha gonna do when they post here too...

But the fact remains AMD is dependant on Microsoft as is 95% of the hw and sw manufactures. The clawhammer will never see light if microsoft doesnt want it to, and that kind of control over an industry is incredible to say the least.

I also thought it was a good article, concentrating on technical matters and speculation about what the future holds, rather than who is better than whom. I really hope Microsoft supports the Hammer. It would be ashame to see it fail because of MS.

<i>Money talks. Mine always likes to say "goodbye." :smile: </i>

Could become a package deal Xbox II and Windows x64. Could cause a renaming of AMD to Advanced Microsoft Devices.

All errors are undocumented features waiting to be discovered.

Keep in mind, MS is NOT controlling the Hammer, AMD wants MS because they chose them. It does not mean MS is the life threat or life saver for AMD at all, they don't control them, but they do hold great potential.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!

Do you really think the Hammer could survive without a Windows OS?

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft

The server processor would survive, but the desktop clawhammer would not. Do you really think AMD would release a processor that could only be run on a unix os? They would sell only a handful of chips to enthusiasts, making it a non-profitable venture. Microsoft holds all the cards, as always.

Soy you're saying we need a new OS to run ClawHammer?
I think not. Even if the current times do not allow 64 bit computing, the 32-bit of Hammer is unrivaled and this is what mostly counts, given the fact 64-bit is not entirely needed for any home user. To me it doesn't matter a new OS 64 bit, it's the 32 bit behind Hammer that would get me to buy one.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!

I actually wouldn't mind seeing Microsoft partner with AMD and throw some R&D money thier way. As a side effect, this would cause intel to once again take a serious look at linux. The end result would be two dominant processors and OS's. Never happen, but and interesting idea.

Eden,
I dont think you understand what im saying. If amd wants the perfomance increase of a 64bit processor it needs windows support not the other way around. They didn't choose microsoft as there was no other alternative, and that was the point. I dont really mind MS controlling the OS market(i use mainly linux), but when they dictate the advancments of technologies outside of the OS arena there is a huge problem.

Yes ok, I thought you said that the Hammer completly would die if MS doesn't agree on 64 bit. I do feel it would tremendously hurt AMD, but not to the point it ruins the Hammer. I mean the real deal here is its extreme computing experience. These chips will arguably change the way we compute today if AMD does it right.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!

And it will. I for one won't buy a 64-bit processor if I can only use 32-bits.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft

But what if that processor has a better price/performance ratio in 32 bit applications than the competition? Hammer should continue to go toe to toe with Intel processors for performance in the regular 32 bit applications we use today. It just boasts the added benefit of even greater performance when using 64 applications.

I think the real key is that the Hammer doesn't "lack" when it comes to 32 bit performance. If it does, AMD is in big trouble. Migration to a new OS platform is something that happens cyclically every few years. Even if MS exclusively goes to releasing 64 bit Operating Systems by the end of the year (which obviously it won't), it would take several years for such 64 bit based OS's to become the majority platform in the market. AMD is going 100% Hammer focused for it's top end processor by the end of the year! It MUST stand up to Intel performance in the 32 bit world. The 64 bit boost built in to the same small package should just be icing on the cake.

My personal belief is that Intel will be able to pass AMD in 32 bit performance shortly after the Hammer is released - but AMD won't let that gap be significant and will show a significant performance boost with 64 bit software.

Getting good support from Microsoft could mean the difference between standing still or even slipping in market share vs. having a killer product that is widely embraced as another 'Product of the Year' and continues AMD's growth in the processor market.

<font color=green><b>More salt than just a grain you will need with posts of mine. - Yoda©®</b></font color=green>

I personally think x86-64 will fail if does not Microsoft support it...sure theres Linux but that will be very limiting for AMD. If they want x86-64 to become the standard Microsoft has to be on board.

Another question is will hardware be supported ??...will manufacturers have to release x86-64 drivers for all thier hardware ?...will you be able to run 32 bit drivers on a 64 bit OS ? how 'seamless' is this transition to x86-64 really gonna be ?

<font color=purple>~* K6-2 @ 333MHz *~
I don't need a 'Gigahertz' chip to surf the web just yet ;-)</font color=purple>

I can’t imagine it being that difficult. It’s not like you’re going to a whole new type of address space. I mean it’s different, but its nothing like migrating to a virtual memory space from the Segment ffset crap of the 16bit days. We're talking a few sign extension checks and updates to some constant values.

But then again we’re talking about Microsoft.

All errors are undocumented features waiting to be discovered.

Hav you lost it?
I mean you do know the very Limited benefits of 64 bit for the Home user? only if you recompile code to 64 bit then you can enjoy some preformace increse this is due to extra registers and 64bit ALUs (aswell as some optimization for the CPUs front end architecture). this is said to give around 10% preformance increse...

its other improvments in the Hammer which will make it a solid preformer... not x86-64...

if the ClawHammer 3400+ outpreforms any Pentium 4 by the end of the year in 32bit apps (BTW there is no reason 32bit apps would run slower on the Hammer...) on any Windows 32bit OS you still wouldnt consider buying it?

This post is best viewed with common sense enabled<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by iib on 03/28/02 11:48 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

That is a very, very, very big "if". I really don't think that the Hammer will be as cheap as everyone assumes, though I could be wrong. If it isn't, then AMD's advantage without 64-bit is gone.


<b>If</b> the Hammer outperforms Intel's best (which it very possibly will), and <b>if</b> the Hammer isn't too costly for simply a 32-bit CPU (which I doubt), and if I feel like an upgrade and have the cash, then I'll be the first in line. Well, probably not, but I'll definitely get one.

BTW, I almost said "cache" instead of "cash"  

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft

FatBurger.... I'm curious why you don't think Hammer will continue to be priced cheaper than similarly performing Intel processors? This is a key part of AMD's business model and their focus on keeping their die size smaller is largely to allow them this pricing advantage.

I'm getting the impression that you think AMD will just duke it out with Intel using the T-bred core... and will position Hammer as a specialty cpu for servers, workstations and the like? (making it a real high volume seller like the Xeon.. *cough* *cough*)

I guess most people don't see it that way... they envision the Hammer being the next major re-design of AMD's mainstream processor for the masses. It fits on a nice small dye (110mm), smaller than the Athlon... so it could/should have similar pricing strategy I'd think? (obviously there are other factors to consider...)

Considering the Clawhammer and Sledgehammer plans, it seems the claw would be the mainstream cpu for the masses? The performance gains in the Hammer line will benefit 32 bit performance and 'additionally' support 64 bit. I guess I just don't think AMD can afford to not have the Hammer be a high volume seller for them as it will be the only cpu they have that will be able to keep pace with Intel? Therefore, the pricing must stay similar or cheaper than Intels pricing (anything less than a lower price for equal performance would be a dramatic strategy change for AMD... and very risky)

<font color=green><b>More salt than just a grain you will need with posts of mine. - Yoda©®</b></font color=green><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Tiberius13 on 03/28/02 05:28 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

If MS doesn't approve x86-64 for AMD, then how will Intel do so with Yamhill? You realize if they refuse AMD and accept Intel, they would lose money earlier on by waiting for Intel's processors, and thus lose profits for something that could easily do success given their monopoly in OSs. So if they refuse AMD, I simply don't see how they would accept Intel's. It's obvious they HAVE to get x86-64, they will only win from it, espcially doing it with OEMs like Dell: Brand new system with Windows XP 64!

Also, taking an existent succesful core like K7 and adding major improvements of K8, how in the world would that translate lower performance? Intel's P4 is different, but AMD's is a huge upgrade. I suspect at least a 25% boost above the best Intel processor by end of year. That's more than enough to get me to buy one...

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!

AMD will decide how expansive the CPU is... if we consider some of the main cost factors then the CPU itself shouldn't be much more expansive then the Athlon - it has a normak die size (smaller then NW bigger then athlon) and it uses the same packedgeing FC-OPGA... so not alot of extra costs on Fabrication and Packedging (except for the uses of 8 layers of metal interconnects in the SOI process which is - litle more expencive then the previous 6 layer on Bulk CMOS).

then yes the ClawHammer should cost litle more to menufactor - but we're talking about small figures - the fabrication and packedging itsellf amounts to around 50 - 100 bucks (a willi is assumed to cost 100 USD for Intel an athlon on 0.18u is around 50). so still most of the final price is up to AMD.
by the way - 64 bit should have a minimal impact on costs - in fact the Athlon was bassed on a design of a 64bit processor (some sort of MIPS).

This post is best viewed with common sense enabled

<b>Tiberius13</b>


Because Hammer is AMD's biggest venture yet, which means two things:
1) R&D costs will raise the price of Hammer.
2) Demand will be bigger, AMD won't be able to keep up, and the prices will go up.



Not at all, AMD isn't trying to keep this away from the home user, although if prices are too high, then that will happen naturally. I really doubt prices will be too high for home users, however.



For the most part, yes. But don't forget that part of Intel's market buys Intel simply because they're more expensive (they want the "best"). This is of course a very small market, but one that could provide a tiny bit of relief in the case that AMD loses market share because of higher prices. Of course, that's all speculation based on the fact that the Hammer will be higher priced than Intel's CPUs at the time, which may or may not end up being true.

<b>Eden</b>


First, to my knowledge Intel still has not officially announced that they will produce an x86-64 CPU. If McKinley performs as well in 32-bit as promised, then they have no need to (from a technological standpoint, not a market standpoint). However, this is still worth discussing.

I'm not so sure that Microsoft would rush to support x86-64 if only AMD was the only one producing such a CPU. I hope they would, but Microsoft doesn't have the best reputation for being the friend to the little guy. They might wait for Intel before releasing an OS to support the two.



All we've seen is pictures of the physical processor, there still exists no real benchmarks or pricing information. I refuse to get excited about something until then. I've gone to too many movies with unrealistically high expectations and thought they sucked even though they were good.

<b>iib</b>


Yes...



And except for the R&D costs for producing Hammer in the first place, which are generally added to the equation and make new technology more expensive.



I never said it would, my point was that I won't pay 64-bit pricing for a 32-bit CPU.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft