Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Hammer faster than itanium therefore it sucks

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 1, 2002 12:51:28 AM

<SARCASM>
Because The AMD Opteron is faster in megahertz then the itanium's max of 1ghz; therefore, itanium is slow and it sux.
</SARCASM>

According to AMDmeltdowns logic anyway.

read it, drool, keep your cash in the savings and get ready to rummmmmble!!!!!! ;) 

Enjoy!

"CNET has posted some info AMD's new Hammer processors including their debut clock speeds:
In any event, Sanders said that at least Intel will not be able to tout larger megahertz numbers. With Hammer debuting at speeds of at least 2GHz, the chip will run faster than McKinley. Intel will thus be stuck trying to argue that megahertz is important in the desktop space, where it will likely be ahead, and that megahertz is not important in the server space, where it won't be.
"You can't have it both ways," Sanders said.

Hammer will be marketed under the Athlon brand for the desktop and notebook market and under the Opteron name for the server market. It will be given a performance rating number (an AMD rating) of 3400. "

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
May 1, 2002 3:17:24 AM

I wonder if you can find a link that tell that intel think that only MGZ rule (sorry for the 3 that in the row).

cheap, cheap. Think cheap, and you'll always be cheap.AMD version of semi conducteur industrie
May 1, 2002 3:36:21 AM

They say it with their products in my opinion. Besides I never said it Jerry did.

If you are referring to the sarcasm "I" wrote. IT'S SARCASM! WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO NOW, BOLD IT!? put pretty flowers around it or draw silly markings to show it's a joke?

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
May 1, 2002 4:09:27 PM

Pretty flowers would be nice. Or how about a two shrubberies with a path going down the middle?

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
May 1, 2002 4:55:16 PM

I'd like the second shrubbery alittle higher so you get the two-level effect.

-zigzag
May 1, 2002 5:20:18 PM

I don't think it would matter too much. I would sure the hell hope that somebody buying an Itanium would know a little more than Joe Public. The mhz is everything works with Joe Public, not with the people that are but those types of processors.

If you can find it on the internet, it HAS to be true! :smile:
May 1, 2002 5:35:54 PM

Quote:
"CNET has posted some info AMD's new Hammer processors including their debut clock speeds:
In any event, Sanders said that at least Intel will not be able to tout larger megahertz numbers. With Hammer debuting at speeds of at least 2GHz, the chip will run faster than McKinley. Intel will thus be stuck trying to argue that megahertz is important in the desktop space, where it will likely be ahead, and that megahertz is not important in the server space, where it won't be.


AMD should be worring about Madison with 6mb's of Cache not McKinley. I think Opty and the McKinley will be a par.

You GeForce Ti4xxx is faster then my R8500 but my R8500 is the king of Aniso baby :cool:
May 1, 2002 5:43:18 PM

maybe but will you and i be able to buy it? Or small businesses? no ... this is AMD's introduction to the server market. Intro meaning gotta start somewhere ... besides those are for huge corporate markets that need such an expensive chip.

AMD's goal in my opinion is to just enter it. Once they have a spot they can design the top notch processor where it matters the most. I see AMD just trying to get in the door. Get what i'm saying?

I think Intel should worry about the desktop market since thats where they make most of there money. Intel NEEDS a 64bit processor for home users when AMD releases there next generation k8 processor.



<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
May 1, 2002 5:53:53 PM

32bit still has a lot of life left. Beside what will we need a 64-bit processor for ? Workstations would be good for CAD and 3D Rendering. But for a home that uses Word, Netscape, and winamp doesnt need a 64-bit chip.

You GeForce Ti4xxx is faster then my R8500 but my R8500 is the king of Aniso baby :cool:
May 1, 2002 6:30:36 PM

A computer was never meant for the joe shmoe anyway. If you do just use word, browse the web and use winamp then a pentium 500 would be plenty for you and you will never have to upgrade again. So why post here at all?

You do realize what a 64bit processor means right? You do understand it's a lot more then just doubling the bits? It's not doubling performance it's multipling the performance!

do 2^32 power and then do 2^64 power and thats your difference! The amount of data that can be accessed doesn't double, it is multiplied!

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
May 1, 2002 6:34:30 PM

Quote:
Intel NEEDS a 64bit processor for home users when AMD releases there next generation k8 processor.

What's your logic behind this? On the desktop we're still a good few years out from seeing the limits of 32-bit memory addressing (4 gigs). I hope you realize that storage technology has to catch up first before you can practically deal with applications requiring that much data in memory. Imagine a game like Dungeon Siege loading 4 gigs of stuff into memory before the game starts, using today's hard drives. What's that, about 10 minutes to load? LOL!

Ritesh
May 1, 2002 7:09:22 PM

Quote:
It's not doubling performance it's multipling the performance!


If that's true, then 64-bit would give us 4294967296 times the performance.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
May 1, 2002 8:18:37 PM

He meant competition-wise. If AMD can reach users' dumb minds to buying something saying "64" because it's bigger than 32, they are playing Intel's easy game, and that can be a big loss on Intel.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
May 1, 2002 8:36:29 PM

That would be worse than Intel's marketing, it would be outright lying. If AMD started marketing the Athlon Clawhammer on the desktop front as a 64-bit processor, and enough users figure out that the 64-bit version of Windows is only used in servers and is super-expensive, then they will know they've been gipped since they can't run any 64-bit software on their 32-bit Windows XP. This would backfire on AMD in a huge way.

No, I think AMD will prudently tout the 64-bit capabilities of the Hammer *only* to the high end crowd. It would be nearly suicidal to do it on the desktop level when WinXP 64 isn't available to the masses and won't be for years.

Ritesh
May 1, 2002 8:37:31 PM

riiiight and 640k of RAM was plenty! You didn't need anymore then that! Who needs more then 640k of RAM? 120MB hard drive, who would need more space then that?

happens all the time. USB who needs USB there arn't any devices out anyway?

JSYK it's already said DOOM 3 will require a minimum of 256MB of RAM, 512MB recomended. Video will require a geforce 4 or better. Hard drive space who knows probably a gig minimum. And that will be typical for the games starting next year or 2 years from now.

As the graphics cards get faster the video games get more complex require faster processors, bigger and faster hard drives, and lots more RAM.

fact of life deal with it.

you will be upgrading your computer forever!

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
May 1, 2002 8:39:58 PM

Sorry to burst you, but if current x86-64 tests have been conducted on Win .NET, and MS near confirming the x86-64 support, then it won't be years AT ALL for a new WinXP with the extension support. Probably a year, or somewhere after Clawhammer when mainstream.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
May 1, 2002 8:51:02 PM

Quote:
That would be worse than Intel's marketing, it would be outright lying. If AMD started marketing the Athlon Clawhammer on the desktop front as a 64-bit processor, and enough users figure out that the 64-bit version of Windows is only used in servers and is super-expensive, then they will know they've been gipped since they can't run any 64-bit software on their 32-bit Windows XP. This would backfire on AMD in a huge way.



Windows for itanium is expensive because the itanium is a niche processor, which is very rare and very expensive, therefore microsoft charges more for windows on it.


The hammer will be a MASS MARKET processor, this means that microsoft, if they are so inclined, can release a cheaper windows 64 bit for the hammer to the mass market, which should not be more expensive than regular windows.

Furthermore, the cpu is still 64 bit, even if the windows dosent support it, the cpu still CAN run 64 bits. There is no lying or misdirection there.

The p4 is sold as a chip with sse2, even if NONE OF YOUR APPS USE IT. It is not lying, period.


Quote:
No, I think AMD will prudently tout the 64-bit capabilities of the Hammer *only* to the high end crowd. It would be nearly suicidal to do it on the desktop level when WinXP 64 isn't available to the masses and won't be for years.


Where do you get your "years" figure, I wouldnt be surprised if theres a windows 64 for hammer released very soon after (or before) the hammer launch.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 1, 2002 9:12:12 PM

ummm ya ... but depends on how optimized the software and system software is... why is that hard to believe? Overall it will change the way we think of computing. that is why 64bit cpu's are such a big deal. If you understood the architecture you would know why ... i'll look it up and stuff you should also since you don't seem to know.

64-bit addressing

A 64-bit processor, with 64-bit registers and a 64-bit integer data path, has the ability to address considerably more memory than a 32-bit processor, with 32-bit registers and a 32-bit integer data path. A 32-bit processor provides flat addressing of up to 232 32-bit bytes, or about 4GB of memory. In contrast, a 64-bit processor provides flat addressing for 264 64-bit bytes, or 18 billion GB (18 Exabytes) of memory. Scalability increases associated with 64 bits are dramatic and can be illustrated by the following example:

<A HREF="http://h21007.www2.hp.com/dspp/tech/tech_TechDocumentDe... " target="_new">http://h21007.www2.hp.com/dspp/tech/tech_TechDocumentDe... </A>

ok? it's no joke and should not be taken lightly ... the cross between 16bit to 32bit was wow! but to 64bit thats a lot more than 16 to 32bit difference in performance.

You do know there are programs that uses 64bit integers now? it's called a double i think and that requires 64bit registers. well there arn't any so performance suffers because it needs to be split up to the exponent and the mantissa both use 32bit addressing to do the 64bit calculations. Depending on how many of these instructions you have in code the performance increase can be huge with a 64bit processor.

ohh so much you do not know! This is why you need to take a class in this stuff. Or just read that article and then look up every word you never heard of before and then on the page where you looked up the terminological word you look up those words and continue recursivly and learn that way.



<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
May 1, 2002 9:33:31 PM

Quote:
You do know there are programs that uses 64bit integers now? it's called a double i think and that requires 64bit registers.

It's called a "long long" with most C compilers; IIRC Visual C++ has its own special class for 64-bit integers. "doubles" are 64-bit <b>floating point</b> numbers, which have existed in the x87 world at least since the 386. Even though 64-bit integers can be emulated in 32-bit registers, such a hack effectively doubles the time expense of calculations, and addressing is still limited to 32 bits.

As for the need for 64-bit addressing, one must keep in mind that some database servers already require upwards of 4GB of address space. All x86 processors since the Pentium classic support up to 64GB of addressable space, but only via certain hacks. As a side effect of these hacks, an x86 operating system can't allow a single app to have access to the full 64GB address space without either inflicting a performance penalty (for address checking purposes), or allowing its protection mechanisms (and thus its stability) to be compromised. 64-bit processors are supposed to provide a true fix for this mess.

<i>If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it, does it still cost four figures to fix?<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by kelledin on 05/01/02 04:48 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 1, 2002 9:46:19 PM

So you're saying that excluding any added overhead, a 64-bit processor would do something in one second that a 32-bit processor would take just over 136 years to do (4294967296 seconds, which came from 2^64/2^32). Strangely enough, I don't remember that much of a change when we went from 16-bit to 32-bit.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
May 1, 2002 9:52:12 PM

thats because your only focusing on speed .. your not taking into consideration storage for example.... think overall. EVERYTHING CONNECTED TO AN EXTERNAL DATA BUS, which is everything connected to the computer.

and yes from 16bit to 32bit it wasn't that much. i just said that if you listen. 32 to 64 is a different story.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
May 1, 2002 9:55:05 PM

Quote:
You do realize what a 64bit processor means right? You do understand it's a lot more then just doubling the bits? It's not doubling performance it's multipling the performance!

do 2^32 power and then do 2^64 power and thats your difference! The amount of data that can be accessed doesn't double, it is multiplied!


Ok, when my Clawhammer running UD in 64-bit does 136 years of CPU time in 1 second, then I'll believe you.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
May 1, 2002 9:55:37 PM

I didn't say a x86-64 compatible version of WinXP 64 wouldn't be available shortly, I said it wouldn't be available "to the masses" for years yet. That's because the consumer version of any OS is driven by applications. Since there are virtually no applications out there that need 64-bit memory addressing, we won't see a 64-bit version of Windows XP available in stores for a lot longer than you may think!

Think back to Windows NT 3. Only a select few people used it for years, the vast majority used the 16-bit Windows 3.1. Same concept here.

Ritesh
May 1, 2002 10:20:46 PM

Hmm, 64-bit memory addressing isn't the only advantage of 64-bits! You also get access to more flexible 64-bit data types.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
May 1, 2002 10:27:11 PM

Quote:
Furthermore, the cpu is still 64 bit, even if the windows dosent support it, the cpu still CAN run 64 bits. There is no lying or misdirection there.

The p4 is sold as a chip with sse2, even if NONE OF YOUR APPS USE IT. It is not lying, period.

There is a critical difference between x86-64 and SSE2. SSE does not need to be supported by the OS for an app to use it. But for an app to use 64-bit memory addressing utilizing x86-64, the OS *must be* a 64-bit OS. It is impossible for the CPU to address memory in 64-bits if the OS is not managing it. Therefore, if AMD knowingly promotes the x86-64 CPU as a 64-bit chip on Joe Public's 32-bit platform, it's as good as lying because no matter what 64-bit apps come out on the high end (hardly any will come out on the desktop end for years), *they won't run* on Joe's computer. However, SSE apps can ignore the OS and query the processor directly.

There is no good business reason for Microsoft to sell WinXP 64 to the general public when no applications except a select few are using it (like large database apps). Why? Because Microsoft can continue to sell Win64 as a niche product and make more profit on it, while Win32 continues in the vast majority mainstream for at least three more years or so.

Ritesh
May 1, 2002 10:34:49 PM

Current (IA64) Windows XP 64-bit would/will be completely different from x86-64 Windows XP 64-bit. They can continue selling the IA64 version for a huge amount if they want.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
May 1, 2002 11:06:26 PM

Quote:
It would take at most 6 months and if they start now you'll have windows x86-64 by winter released by spring.


They have been doing it for some time.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 1, 2002 11:06:53 PM

Quote:
It would take at most 6 months and if they start now you'll have windows x86-64 by winter released by spring.


Or do you just think they threw together a running dual hammer demo on .net.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 1, 2002 11:08:31 PM

microsoft can do whatever they want .. they have so much power ... so we'll see what happpens .. MS can put together an OS in no time at all though. Because they have the money to put it simply.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
May 1, 2002 11:10:01 PM

*cough*bugs*cough*

*cough*pleasedon'trush*cough*

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
May 1, 2002 11:12:10 PM

Quote:
There is a critical difference between x86-64 and SSE2. SSE does not need to be supported by the OS for an app to use it. But for an app to use 64-bit memory addressing utilizing x86-64, the OS *must be* a 64-bit OS. It is impossible for the CPU to address memory in 64-bits if the OS is not managing it. Therefore, if AMD knowingly promotes the x86-64 CPU as a 64-bit chip on Joe Public's 32-bit platform, it's as good as lying because no matter what 64-bit apps come out on the high end (hardly any will come out on the desktop end for years), *they won't run* on Joe's computer. However, SSE apps can ignore the OS and query the processor directly.


That is a slight difference, but the cpu IS 64 BIT. It doesnt matter if the user dosent use it, the cpu itself is 64 bit and should be sold as such. It is far from lying.


Quote:
There is no good business reason for Microsoft to sell WinXP 64 to the general public when no applications except a select few are using it (like large database apps). Why? Because Microsoft can continue to sell Win64 as a niche product and make more profit on it, while Win32 continues in the vast majority mainstream for at least three more years or so.


How about a ~30% performance increase for the hammer, which is what I have read is being projected from being able to use the extra registers, microsoft and amd are already working together, it will cost microsoft little to release a windows which will probably eventually be runable on 20% of all pcs, FURTHERMORE, I am sure they could release the os in a way to make it compatable with pure 32 bit systems, like their origional 32 bit extensions(from 16 bit).

Microsoft releasing an x86-64 windows is a win win for them, especially if the next p4 is rumored to have x86-64 capability!

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 2, 2002 1:10:19 AM

It remains to be seen whether Microsoft will sell two separate packages of WinXP 64 or bundle both compiled kernels into the same box. I'm guessing the latter. Two separate versions would just confuse people. Remember, AMD is targeting the 64-bit capabilities of the Hammer squarely against Itanium, so it makes sense for Microsoft to just make one package and let the WinXP Setup program decide which kernel to install.

If they sold two different products, it'll be like Office XP being sold in PC and Mac flavors. Why confuse things with yet another standard? PC, Mac, and AMD PC??? Too confusing.

Ritesh
May 2, 2002 1:41:50 AM

i think this will turn out as highly amusing.

consider how long widows took to finally go proper 32bit.
only with nt,2k and xp are we proper 32bit... all those 95,98 & ME machines are out there with crap 16bit based OS'es in them.

so when the 'common' hammer comes out your gonna have the full range of 16/32 bit hybrid OS'es, proper 32 bit os'es and hybrid 32/64bit os'es.
how fun! :smile:


<font color=purple>Win ME Slayer. And PROUD of it!</font color=purple>
May 2, 2002 1:43:23 AM

That's not a bad idea! Nobody even thought of it, nor MS. It would however be cool to have two in one, allowing scalability in the events of McKinley's success, or that some do not want to buy more and more licenses and another OS just to use Opterons. We'll see how MS works it out, but the way Jerry Sanders wants it as a favor by Billy, I doubt we'll it happening. All he wants is AMD's first name in a new OS just for them until Intel comes begging for a license. If Sanders is a good boy, he'll let it slip under the table to Intel, if he is a bad boy, let the $$$ rake in for the company just so Intel gets the architecture. I am not sure if they can license and copyright their x86-64 though, so I may be wrong on how Intel might use x86-64.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
May 2, 2002 1:44:05 AM

That's why they called the PC world a jungle...

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
May 2, 2002 2:03:51 AM

not at all .. once you have the algorithm to make the proper changes it won't take long at all.

See with programming at first it's hard to do. But once you have the libraries and the concepts down it is very easy to switch. Especially when you have 250 BILLION dollars to through around.



<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
May 2, 2002 3:52:38 AM

yea, we all know $250 million makes troubleshooting and bug hunts work faster, as it obviously can accelerate time...
oh, nevermind, thats right, they're geniuses like you, they don't make mistakes...

<i>Better to be silent and thought an idiot than to speak and remove all doubt.</i>
May 2, 2002 5:19:07 AM

i wanna know how much faster my 64bit optimised tetris will be! :smile:

<font color=purple>Win ME Slayer. And PROUD of it!</font color=purple><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by lhgpoobaa on 05/02/02 01:21 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 2, 2002 2:32:32 PM

what happenend to the memory? heheh ...

if thats all you do is play tetris why bother upgrading?
In 2 years you might not have a choice as most of the software will be coded for 64bit computers and nothing will work on your ancient machine, but until then, why bother?

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
May 2, 2002 3:30:27 PM

Or maybe in 5 years AMD will be begging to lisence IA64. I wouldn't jump to conclusions.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
May 2, 2002 3:55:02 PM

Quote:
I am not sure if they can license and copyright their x86-64 though, so I may be wrong on how Intel might use x86-64.


Intel has licensing rights to X86-64. No monetary costs are involved as far as I know. This is covered under their 10 year cross licensing agreements.

Mark-

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>
May 2, 2002 10:32:57 PM

no, it would be a mood swing if I did something out of character.
I don't like you.
I never have.
You are a disrespectful, condesending, ignorant, knowitall little prick.
You are full of [-peep-] with 90% of your posts, you argue senseless points and insult everyone on the board.
did I mention I don't like you?

<i>Better to be silent and thought an idiot than to speak and remove all doubt.</i>
!