Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What's left for AMD?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 25, 2002 8:04:34 PM

After wandering the web a bit and being unable to find any details, I thought I'd ask you all what is left for AMD in the 32 bit market?

Most AMD fans talk about 64 bit like it's cold fusion or something, but I really don't give a damn. I (and I'm sure most others) won't need to be able to address more than 4G of memory for a few years, and the benefits beyond this are marginal at best. I enjoy having a nice tiny little chip (80mm^2) that only costs me $150 and is proven and reliable. I do not want an Itanium or x86-64 extensions, and I will not want one for at least a good five years.

So what is left for AMD in 32 bit land? I can't find many details on Barton- I read that although they will increase the L2 to 512KB, it will *still* be at the obsolete 133FSB. Anyone know how high clock speeds are expected to get on this? What about after Barton? The AMD roadmap is blank, and I certainly hope they aren't abandoning 32 bits and putting all their eggs in the Sledgehammer due to the 32 bit spanking they are currently receiving from Intel.

What's going to be the end of the road in 32 bit land? I sure hope AMD isn't abandoning this market, because without serious competition Intel may start reaching monopolistic market shares, and prices will go up while progress slows down.

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway

More about : left amd

July 25, 2002 8:28:02 PM

Hammer will be able to do both 32bit and 64bit. The chip will not be a monster in size and will get smaller as they move to a smaller process. If you always want proven and reliable then buy older technology. No one's forcing you to buy anything right after it debuts.
July 25, 2002 8:29:43 PM

Well, Hammer's features won't be exclusively 64-bit extentions. It will have improvements to help in modern day 32-bit code. It just happens to throw in 64-bit extensions because AMD needed this design to be in the server and workstation market as well.
Related resources
July 25, 2002 8:33:30 PM

i'm not too impressed with amd's 64-bit hipe either. when it releases, there no 64-bit software for it, ohoh! even when os and software is avail, it will be a slow process and who knows the actual benefits of it is.

i wouldn't compare hammer's 64-bit with Itaninum2, they're different classes.

amd's HyperTransport isn't that impressive either, but look at intel's "HyperThreading".. sure is nice to trick software into believing there's two processors.



<font color=green> linux is free.. if your time is worthless </font color=green>
July 25, 2002 8:35:42 PM

imgod2u,

i believe the 32-bit enhancements you're talking about for hammer is SSE2 (yeh, intel has that for over a year now).. and not AMD has abandonned their 3DNow (which is the real enhancement.. heh)!

<font color=green> linux is free.. if your time is worthless </font color=green>
July 25, 2002 9:50:08 PM

Yes of course I understand x86-64 can also run 32 bit code, but you're missing the entire point of my posting.

I DON'T WANT 64 BIT ON MY HOME MACHINE! Extensions or otherwise.

Have you ever looked at the schematic for a 64 bit multiplier next to a 32 bit multiplier? It's not pretty. Adding these extensions are going to make the processor very large, even with 130nano fabs. That means cost will be higher than we've ever seen from AMD, and they will generate even more heat than an XP, and will probably debut at a measly 1Ghz. Junky don't play that.

But you're making me argue this trendy issue that I don't want to argue- I'm just trying to state that I (and many others) will NOT want anything but a nice, small, high clockspeed x86 32 bit CPU, and I want to know what AMD's plans are in this market. How much better will their 32 bit processors get? What's after Barton? Should I switch to Intel next time I upgrade if AMD is abandoning this line?

Pretty please don't try to convince me that Sledgehammer or Itanium2 or Sparc or whatever is good or bad, just please let me know if you have any more information as to what's left for the 32bit CPU markey.

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway
July 25, 2002 9:59:13 PM

personal thoughts: AMD should get what`s left over their pros. i`d say....connect the L1 bridge as done in Tbird AHJYA. that`ll give regular users still 133 FSB for a large number of mobos, while people like u guys(i mean people who build their own systems, enjoy tweeking, overclocking ect.) will move on to the 166 or 200 FSB, with new chipsets like sis746, nforce2, kt400 ect. even chipsets like Ali magiK C or sis745, kt333 provides 166 FSB.

i think i`m just being greedy...lol

Be nice.
July 25, 2002 10:01:56 PM

you are an idiot.
you think to highly of your knowledge.

"Pretty please don't try to convince me that Sledgehammer or Itanium2 or Sparc or whatever is good or bad"

I will try to convince you of nothing.

just so you'll know the actull execution logic - such as a multilier is already 64bit. sence it take cares of floating point multipication as-well which is 64bit.
and in genral execution units are a small <10% of a modern processor die size.

This post is best viewed with common sense enabled
July 25, 2002 10:11:08 PM

i get what u mean....

just like those crappy 815 chipsets with unwanted 752 VGA cores, or the nforce 420(i mean, if u want to game, who needs a GF2 mx400? and if u need 2D, then who needs nvidia?), including technology that the users aren`t gonna even use. just makes the price more expensive, while giving the users no benifit.

my opinion: amd did put up a good fight with the athlon, but eventually intel will donimate. even though i`m a AMD zealot, i don`t think amd can turn the tide. maybe with hammer. who knows? but i`m doubtful.

u remember when the first power pc CPUs came out, and the alpha CPUs? they had much better performance than the pentium, but most users ignored them. yes, the power pc gave apple a bit more market share, but that`s about it. how long has it been since the 32bit X86 was the mainstream? since 1989, if i remember right(i386). 13 years, too long for stunts like itanium2, or hammer to change the PC system.

i`m just guessing, the hammer will be a extra-performing 32bit CPU, but that`s it. if it`s not in the mainstream, then its 64-X86 structure will not be much use. and from athlon, i`m guessing that the hammer will not have a market share over, say 25, 35%, even lower at the high end PCs.

Be nice.
July 25, 2002 10:15:18 PM

P.S. not saying that the nforce 420 is a bad chipset. pretty good, but i`d personally never use the GF2 included.

Be nice.
July 25, 2002 10:20:53 PM

plus....is it true that the next generation intel processor will have the PR of 6000? 4MB of cache? if so...i`d sell all my AMD stocks in a hurry. lol

i do hope that the hammer gives a huge improvement. personally the reason i`m waiting for hammer is that by then, barton prices will be pretty affordable.

Be nice.
July 25, 2002 10:50:15 PM

Quote:
Have you ever looked at the schematic for a 64 bit multiplier next to a 32 bit multiplier? It's not pretty. Adding these extensions are going to make the processor very large, even with 130nano fabs. That means cost will be higher than we've ever seen from AMD, and they will generate even more heat than an XP, and will probably debut at a measly 1Ghz. Junky don't play that.

But you're making me argue this trendy issue that I don't want to argue- I'm just trying to state that I (and many others) will NOT want anything but a nice, small, high clockspeed x86 32 bit CPU, and I want to know what AMD's plans are in this market. How much better will their 32 bit processors get? What's after Barton? Should I switch to Intel next time I upgrade if AMD is abandoning this line?


Lets address your concerns one at a time:

1. Have all those extensions will make hammer a large chip putting out tons of heat.
Nope. Ive seen a Hammer. Its actually a VERY small chip. On par with the P4 in actual chip size. Heat? Dunno yet.

2. Debut at 1 gig? Nope. more like 2 gigs.

3. Dont want 64-bit extensions on your home machine? You wont notice. First, you have to have an OS that supports 64 bit. If you dont, neither the OS or the chip will even address the 64-bit registers. In other words, the chip acts like the 64 bit extensions are not there. It wont slow your performance AT ALL.
You act like the 64-bit part is gonna hurt you in some way, it wont.

4. Whats after Barton? They will continue to ramp up the speeds on Barton and XP for a while. After that is the k-9.

Anyway, i think you have the wrong idea about Hammer. Wait until a few months after its debut and it will be significantly cheaper. Even upon release, im sure it will be less expensive than intel's top-of-the-line stuff.

Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.
July 25, 2002 10:55:26 PM

Quote:
when it releases, there no 64-bit software for it, ohoh! even when os and software is avail,


Wow shallowboy, thats one of the oldest arguments out there. Fortunately, its NOT true. I forget the link but at least 5 companies (including IBM) have already made compilers for the Hammer 64-bit extensions.
Secondly, Microsoft has already stated its making a 64-bit OS for Hammer. Go listen to AMDs conference call made around Jamuary. They even stated the name of the guy at MS whose heading up the project.


Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.
July 25, 2002 11:09:46 PM

Show me the IBM compiler for x87-64 i will be happy to see that.

IBM dont need X87-64

IBM have every reason to kill X87-64

The day i meet a goth queen that tell me Intel suck.I turn in a lemming to fill is need in hardware.
July 25, 2002 11:19:46 PM

Quote:
You act like the 64-bit part is gonna hurt you in some way, it wont.

Will hurt you in pocket. And what other reason is there to buy an AMD system nowadays? Price! And that's it. Take low price away and what've you got? (for the 32bit market)

This sig runs too hot.
July 25, 2002 11:39:14 PM

No consumer-level software will benefit or is planned to be ported to x86-64. Database software in the workstation/server market is a different story. AMD doesn't have the resources to independently design 2 core designs so they opted for a one-size-fits-all approach. The x86-64 component of Hammer is for the benefit of their entry into the server market. It's not to benefit the consumers in any way. As for the cost of implementing it, I doubt you'll need to worry. Most likely AMD will overcharge for their server-level processors and keep the price of their consumer-level processor low.
As for the enhancements Hammer has, there's actually a bit more than SSE2. There's the added packing stage that helps scheduling of execution significantly. The integrated memory controller will increase latency reduce the reliance on cache. All in all, it should offer a pretty sizable performance boost over the K7 design in modern code. SOI technology will help scalability somewhat so the K8 will ramp up in clockspeed somewhat as well. It's nothing huge either scalability-wise or IPC wise but it's a nice combination of a little increase in IPC and a little increase in scalability.
July 26, 2002 12:22:51 AM

Ok, you're right, hammer will debut at 2Ghz, I shoulda looked into that. But by then Intel has chips at 3Ghz, maybe 3.5Ghz, and suddenly we're measure the clock speed discrepancy in Gigahertz. Hmm, AMD will have to come up with an even more sneaky bizarre confusing marketing plan to try and conceal this.

You're trying to tell me that I won't notice 64 bit extensions, but I think the fact that the processor says "Sledgehammer" on it will be hard to ignore.

Everyone is still missing my point, I don't want to discuss hammer, and everyone is trying to convince me that it truly is better than cold fusion. I don't want it, and I will refuse to buy any processor that has 64 bit anything. Pretty please stop trying to show me the light. There are a million discussions on the benefits/drawbacks, and it doesn't interest me. I am interested in staying with a 32 bit solution for the next 4-5 years, and I want to know if AMD has any plans to improve things in the area after Barton.

Please don't try to convince me that the 64 bit pill is better than viagra and I must be assimilated into the hammer collective or else. I'm not interested at this point in time. Period. I'd rather hear some good insight and numbers into just how far AMD is planning on pushing their 32 bit solutions.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the AMD fans are avoiding this question because the answer is embarrassing. While Intel will have a 5Ghz Pentium 5 in couple of years, AMD may never surpass 3Ghz in the 32 bit market, and more importantly, they may lose even more ground in benchmarks. So suddenly the only possible line of thought becomes "x86-64 will be more benficial to society than penicillin", and to just stop thinking about 32 bit processors altogether. Is this accurate?

I'll ask one more time, how far is AMD going to push their 32 bit processors? What clock speeds will we see, what die size (90nanos?), how big will the cache get, will they ever pump up the FSB? etc. etc. I can't find anything on this topic on the web- everyone seems to have stopped all discourse on AMD's 32 bit products and they instead chant "Hammer, hammer, hammer" ceaselessly.

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway
July 26, 2002 3:02:49 AM

Hammer IS the next 32bit processor from AMD. Yeah, it has 64bit instructions.....use it or not, up to you.

@2ghz if it performs as good as an Intel 5ghz, does that number really matter? Only problem I see with that is trying to get people to believe it. Remember now, even Moores law is according to performance, not just mhz. Yeah, its sneaky, and tricky to put PRs that look like clockspeeds.....but its sorta not fair that they would have a chip just as good, or even better, but thought of as a lesser product because its clockspeed is slower.

ImGod posts that it wont be too big a hit in the wallet, but Im not too sure about that. I think you will be paying for the added instructions, and the 64bit abilities. The overpaying server market will be hit hardest, cause it can be. I think the consumer is going to be told this is the next big advancement in PC technology, and have to pay for it as well. Initial VERY high dollar amounts, then come down according to market needs. If Hammer takes off, expect to pay a premium for a while. But arguing about it is futile, only time will tell.

Once again for Junky.........Hammer is AMDs next 32bit processor.

This sig runs too hot.
July 26, 2002 3:29:58 AM

Except from what I recall it would not be called Sledgehammer, but Opteron or some such, and even if it wasn't it would have been clawhammer for the PC/WS units.

I don't think everyone is missing your point at all, I think everyone cannot understand why you are making such a big deal out of it.

If, in two years time you have two offerings, a NGhz Intel 32 bit CPU that costs $X and a YGhz AMD 64 bit CPU that costs $X ± 10% and they perform the same what will you care?

Why would you not want 64 bit if the performance were equivalent and price equivalent? What you have not yet done is provide a substantial arguement against 64 bit. You are more than entitled to your opinion, and I'm not trying to make you buy 1 or the other, considereing neither exist for sale today anyway, but why are you so polarised against it?

If you just prefer Intel, that's fine, if you are just trying to force the 32 bit issue because you want to make Intel look good and AMD look bad - why? Are you really a key stock holder of Intel in disguise, hoping to keep your portfolio high?

Help us to understand a valid reason that you don't think 64 bit will cut it. So far none of the arguments have been either valid or substantiated.

Remember:

We don't know what hammers will cost
We don't know what 32 bit 5Ghz P4 will cost, nor if they will ever be released as is.
We don't really know what the release speed or performance of a hammer will be on production software and hardware.

So, how given the above can you still argue against it? Sure we can speculate that it might be slower than the best offering from Intel at the time on 32 bit code, but we won't know that for sure, nor the price of either when that is decided.....

-* <font color=red> !! S O L D !! </font color=red> *-
To the gentleman in the pink Tutu
July 26, 2002 3:31:13 AM

Quote:
ImGod posts that it wont be too big a hit in the wallet, but Im not too sure about that. I think you will be paying for the added instructions, and the 64bit abilities.

We never paid too much when the K7 arrived and it had 3 FPUs, much enhanced caching, and so much more. I do agree price WILL be higher than current XPs, but NOWHERE near Intel's.

And yes clock speed does not matter, it's the PR which sells for AMD.

--
An AMD employee's diary: Today I kicked an Intel worker in the "Willy"! :lol: 
July 26, 2002 3:37:07 AM

Hammer is the 32-bit processor. 64-bit was just thrown. Come back the clock in the K6 days, you could assume the K7 was not a 32-bit alternative or the next one from AMD, but IT IS. My point is you are trying to deny the future man.

As for chip size, it has been said, we saw some Hammer chips on the web, they ARE NOT gigantic and in fact far from the first Socket 423 Wilamettes. BTW extremly small die sizes like 80mm^2 destroy the whole point of heat transfer and optimum cooling.

Barton has 512K L2 and according to texas techie, may have 166MHZ FSB. Rumors have spread Barton will have some Hammer optimizations, so it can explain why per clock the Barton has 600PR over a Tbred.

You seem to be a clock speed freak, I suggest you stroll down to my thread called 1CC=1NS, Also Pipeline question. I think you will grasp why clock speed means NOTHING if it only goes too fast but with no efficiency in each cycle.
AMD can do a 1GHZ CPU, label it PR5000, and it WOULD perform like an Intel P4 5GHZ. It does not matter what clock speed, the efficiency of the units inside, the data fed and the speed and lower latency of fetching and decoding all make a huge difference in how much a rated MHZ processor can perform.

--
An AMD employee's diary: Today I kicked an Intel worker in the "Willy"! :lol: 
July 26, 2002 3:39:12 AM

If what you said were true, then AMD will start losing a lot of money.

How can you claim that a Hammer at 2Ghz will outperform a Pentium 5 at 5Ghz, since neither really exist and there are no benchmarks available? Pretty strange claim. You just have so much faith in AMD that you are utterly confident that they will perform something bordering on the impossible when they are losing money and market share like crazy?

Yes, I am also very curious as to the CPU size. Anyone who claims to have seen the CPU would either have to work at AMD, or AMD let them hang out and rip off the heat spreader which hammer's use to get a look at the core. I find either scenario very unlikely. I still think it's gonna be big and expensive.

But now you've got me really worried. If everyone has convinced themselves that AMD's 32 bit solution is the x86-64, then AMD's "solution" does not address the problem, and this always leads to the shittiest of products. I don't really care if I'm using an AMD or Intel processor, but if AMD can't compete any longer than us consumers are the ones who really suffer. I don't think Moore's law can sustain itself if Intel finds themselves too comfortably in control of the market. I'd much rather AMD solves existant problems and remains competitive.

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway
July 26, 2002 3:46:31 AM

I would also like to add, from what imgod2u said, what and about how much is expected from the ClawHammer alone:

-On-die mem controller, is said to carry a solid 20-30% boost in performance.
-SSE 2 will provide even more competition to what is one of the P4's most strongest selling aspects to many IT aware users. With Hammer's powerful FPU, SSE2 apps will just love working with it.
-Improved all around core, and is said around 5-10% more performance overall from it.
-It has 512K L2 cache, or I hope so, as there have been bad rumors of 256K L2 which would be horrible.
-IMO the FSBless architecture of the Hammer is revolutionary, somethign new and fresh, brings a difference and allows people to create new ways to adapt to it.
-HyperTransport to the guy who falsely attacked it, is more effective anytime than HyperThreading for one reason: IT WORKS WITH ANYTHING ANYTIME. HThreading requires software programming support, and has been tested on current P4s and it reduced performance sometimes. Hyper Transport improves the entire speed of data transfer and from what a guy once told us, it will improve even game load speed as the AGP to chipset HT is very fast. Other than that, its 8-bit interface will allow LOW COST manufacturing. So in fact mobos should cost less.
-Hammer's on-die will now no longer require endless searches for the right chipset, and instead now we just look for the mobo and chipset with the features we like.
-PC2700 support.
-12-stage pipeline allows slightly higher frequencies.
-SOI will allow even more ramping (amount is not known)
-IHS will remove the core crushing problems and core frying.
-Thermal protection will be on any Hammer mobo.

These are some of the ClawHammer's improvements alone. SledgeHammer is EVEN MORE. CH is rumored to debut at 2GHZ with a PR of 3400, which should be able to compete the Intel 3GHZ at the end of the year as Intel has just announced. And since the CH is so efficient per clock, it means PR ramping will be more sensitive. So a 66MHZ jump on CH will result likely in 200PR instead of 100, or a tad less.

I will not however hype it, because we have been victims of several disappointing products recently:
1) P4 Willy
2) Parhelia

These had awesome speccs, yet they sucked ass. So I will keep any hype closed in, because even Prescott has some nice sheet specs, but even then, it's Intel, they could anytime just rip off these and just continue ramping clock speeds only. Whatever it is, we cannot hype either, it's not trustable anymore. I will however beleive Texas-techie's claims, he has proven us he does have AMD contacts, and I would beleive any performance claims he has, as long as it sounds credible.
--
An AMD employee's diary: Today I kicked an Intel worker in the "Willy"! :lol:  <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 07/25/02 11:49 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 26, 2002 3:59:58 AM

"How can you claim that a Hammer at 2Ghz will outperform a Pentium 5 at 5Ghz"

I never stated that as fact, it was just an example. Even if I stated it as fact, that still wasnt the point. I wasnt saying "AMD ROCKS INTEL", I was trying to make a point that GHZ doesnt always = the better performer. Maybe you should read it again. You're trying to word it in your favor, cause your argument is dead......In this new post your topic has changed, and youre a little vague.....
Whats this mean?

"then AMD's "solution" does not address the problem"

What's the "problem"? Forgive me if I missed it earlier in the thread, but you didnt state the "problem" in this last post.
Moores law will slow down as soon as cost of producing the next big thing gets too be too expensive. So $ stops Moore, or lack of. Moore never said anything about AMD needing to compete in order for CPUs to scale in performance..

This sig runs too hot.
July 26, 2002 4:08:06 AM

I would like to make a few corrections:

Quote:
-On-die mem controller, is said to carry a solid 20-30% boost in performance.

Of the statement's AMD has made, 20-30% is the overall improvement for Clawhammer vs Athlon. This is including the benefits (if any) of the 64-bit extensions and the increase in clockrate (i.e. 2 GHz vs 1.8 and probably 1.9 GHz of the current K7). How much help the onboard memory controller will bring alone is a mystery.

Quote:
-SSE 2 will provide even more competition to what is one of the P4's most strongest selling aspects to many IT aware users. With Hammer's powerful FPU, SSE2 apps will just love working with it.

The FPU works independently from SSE2, if anything they're 2 competing standards. I don't see how strong FPU would help SSE2 in anyway.

Quote:
-Improved all around core, and is said around 5-10% more performance overall from it.

Read above statement.

Quote:
-It has 512K L2 cache, or I hope so, as there have been bad rumors of 256K L2 which would be horrible.

Not really. As I've stated before the onboard memory controller means less reliability on cache. So the Hammer won't need as much cache at all compared to the Athlon, which doesn't really need all that much cache to begin with.

Quote:
-IMO the FSBless architecture of the Hammer is revolutionary, somethign new and fresh, brings a difference and allows people to create new ways to adapt to it.

Actually, it limits things as motherboard manufacturers no longer have the option to choose what type of memory and what style to implement that memory they can put on their motherboards. It does help performance of the CPU however it pretty much cuts the motherboard manufacturer's job down to making the south bridge.

Quote:
-HyperTransport to the guy who falsely attacked it, is more effective anytime than HyperThreading for one reason: IT WORKS WITH ANYTHING ANYTIME. HThreading requires software programming support, and has been tested on current P4s and it reduced performance sometimes. Hyper Transport improves the entire speed of data transfer and from what a guy once told us, it will improve even game load speed as the AGP to chipset HT is very fast. Other than that, its 8-bit interface will allow LOW COST manufacturing. So in fact mobos should cost less.

Hypertransport is a pretty impressive interconnect technology but as far as CPU performance, it really is irrelevent. It does help overall system flexibility though. Hyperthreading on the current P4's is very crude. First of all, the hyperthreading arguement is the same as that for dual CPU's. Because essentially that's what it is. The OS sees 2 CPU's instead of 1 and sends 2 threads of instructions at once. In multithreaded software (software that would original benefit from dual CPU's) this would help. Of course, in the current crude implementation, it can also hurt. Probably why Intel chose to disable it on the P4.

Quote:
-Hammer's on-die will now no longer require endless searches for the right chipset, and instead now we just look for the mobo and chipset with the features we like.

Chipset problems have traditionally been due to the south bridge, not the north bridge, so any problems that once existed will still exist and you will still need drivers.

Quote:
-PC2700 support.

Hardly anything significant don't you agree?

Quote:
-12-stage pipeline allows slightly higher frequencies.

Actually, I don't think so. As I mentioned in a previous post, the added stages aren't simply taking currently existing stages and cutting them up into multiple stages (which is what helps clockrate ramping) but rather completely new functions. This does not help scalability as you're not making stages simpler, you're simply adding more stuff to do. It will, on the other hand, help efficiency of the chip somewhat.

Quote:
-SOI will allow even more ramping (amount is not known)

SOI is probably the only thing that will help ramping of clockspeed asside from the shift to .09 microns. However, the use of SOI does make yields a bitch. I would imagine AMD is having a pain trying to get good yields with it right now (probably the reason why they demoed Hammer at 800MHz).

Quote:
-IHS will remove the core crushing problems and core frying.

Again, not something new.

Quote:
-Thermal protection will be on any Hammer mobo.

Finally.
July 26, 2002 4:09:29 AM

"-It has 512K L2 cache, or I hope so, as there have been bad rumors of 256K L2 which would be horrible."

With the on chip memory controller, maybe the larger L2 would be redundant. How fast will the memory bus be? whatre they going to be using? DDR/II? DDR400? The point of the on chip mem controller.....to eliminate the need for large cache, and make system memory more efficient, and in sync w/ the processor? Im a skeptic though.

3)t-bred. <----victim of fanboy hype.

This sig runs too hot.
July 26, 2002 4:21:07 AM

First of all the "problem" I mentions that needs to be solved is the fact that Intel has been king of the speed hill ever since the 2.4 P4, and they are just increasing the gap with higher CPU speeds and bus speeds. AMD needs to be able to compete at the same level of performance. Serious problem.

Now the proposed solutions AMD has to this problem are Sledgehammer and Clawhammer. These will do two things:

1. Allow you to address more than 4GB of main memory

2. Allow software to run in 64 bit mode, which provides a good performance boost in some applications.


1. Will be utterly irrelevant to anything but high end servers for five years or so. It's not needed, and the extra silicon required to accomplish this will drive up costs. I don't like paying more for a feature I will never utilize in a CPU.

2. Ok, some software benefits from being compiled on a 64 bit platform, and you will see significant performance improvements. The problem here is that there will be next to zero software packages released for 64 bit architecture. It requires two sets of binaries or you must compile on install, either scenario will cost a bundle for software distributors. Again, I would be shocked if even half the software a person uses on a regular basis was x86-64 compatible in five years time. But again, this feature takes more silicon and drives costs up.

So great, I got two new features that I could care less about driving up costs. All the while Intel grins because the gaps in the benchmarks just keep widening. Intel is able to increase the instruction set, optimize core design, double L2 cache size, all the while AMD desperately tries to get people to release 64 bit binaries.

AMD simply cannot compete with this strategy today. In five years when I feel like I need 10GB of RAM, and I can't even buy the latest windows unless I have some sort of 64 bit processor, then this is a solution. But currently it is a technology that solves no problems.

The main problem I see with my argument is if somehow AMD miraclously made clawhammer nice and small, say 90mm^2 or so. Then they could make them cheap enough that they would still have the 'value' reputation, and hold some market share.

BTW- I'm talking about the consumer market here. AMD might very well be able to do interesting things in the server market where the software already exists for x86-64: Linux and Apache. You might see some great performance here, I don't really know. But I'm more concerned about FPS in UT2K3 :) 

------------------

Problem: Your product is inferior and is outperformed by your competitor.

Solution: Introduce two features nobody will use. Charge more for these features. Launch convoluted marketing campaign.

Result: Bad



Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway
July 26, 2002 4:40:10 AM

If in 5 years you see yourself using a 64bit processor, than Id say theres a possibility that AMD has a chance here. Now is the time that the transition begins, and what better position to take than have a perfect transitional chip.......64 AND 32.....How can you beat that? Ok, no software today, one developer tomorrow, 2 the next day, 4 the next. That's how it happens. Do you need AGP8x? Would you look for it in a mobo? I know I would want to be prepared for it. 64bit is going to be full blown someday, right now you have a choice....AMD takes it a step further and takes the choice away from you, giving you what you want, PLUS 64bit. I buy Intel nowadays, and I frequently argue against AMD-heads here.....But ANYONE can see the benifits of having 64/32 processing. As for driving up costs, I agree......But it will come down. All newly released Procs cost a little more at first, you know that. Besides, what're your options? Intel. Last time I checked, they werent handing out coupons.
64bit is the evolution of PC computing. It's just silly to say "I dont need it". You will need it, and the transition has to start someday.....just so happens that day is in Jan of 2003, and it's AMD that's bringin it to ya.

This sig runs too hot.
July 26, 2002 4:40:11 AM

Ok, first of all, have you not been paying attention to any part of this thread? Hammer will have more than just 64-bit extensions. Those are thrown in there to help it in the server/workstation market. There are other improvements which will help performance in modern day 32-bit code and I've already outlined them more than once. I do not think I should have to do it again.
July 26, 2002 4:44:23 AM

Quote:
64bit is the evolution of PC computing. It's just silly to say "I dont need it". You will need it, and the transition has to start someday.....just so happens that day is in Jan of 2003, and it's AMD that's bringin it to ya.

And by the time I will need it, Hammer will be like what the 286 is nowadays. Although I do think AMD is pretty careful and is indeed wise with their implementation of Hammer, it's 64-bit support is really insignificant. Obviously they've learned from the Pentium Pro fiasco and made sure Hammer will offer better 32-bit performance as well. 64-bit? I'll buy it when I need it, or possibly within a year of needing it. Certainly not within 3 years of needing it.
July 26, 2002 5:28:58 AM

Someone asked about IBM supporting Hammer with a compiler.. Toms front page carried the news about 4 days ago. Too lazy to go find it. I think the link was to Digital times or something like that.

Someone else (ok, so im too lazy to go back) said the on-die memory controller makes the cache less reliable. (or something like that). That might be true unless AMD has a semi-innovative way to solve that problem ( wink x1000). They have done some interesting things to the cache architecture to improve performance.

I think Junky said something like "unless someone has ripped the head spreader off and looked at the die"

*** me gets a very big grin ***

Trust me, the core is huge, it will dissipate heat just fine.

I already stated that both Barton, t-bred and XP will continue to be scaled by AMD. However, the best performer will still be Hammer. And it will keep up with Intel. You seem a little upset about Hammer. Fine, so dont buy it. If you think you can do better. I suggest putting in an application at AMD.

Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.
July 26, 2002 5:37:30 AM

jjunkkyy:
Quote:
How can you claim that a Hammer at 2Ghz will outperform a Pentium 5 at 5Ghz, since neither really exist and there are no benchmarks available? Pretty strange claim. You just have so much faith in AMD that you are utterly confident that they will perform something bordering on the impossible when they are losing money and market share like crazy?

It's a hypothetical situation, not a claim.

Quote:
Yes, I am also very curious as to the CPU size. Anyone who claims to have seen the CPU would either have to work at AMD, or AMD let them hang out and rip off the heat spreader which hammer's use to get a look at the core. I find either scenario very unlikely. I still think it's gonna be big and expensive.

I, for one, will vouch for texas_techie's credibility. I'm sure a lot of us will, even though what he tells us about hammer isn't always good news.

Quote:
But now you've got me really worried. If everyone has convinced themselves that AMD's 32 bit solution is the x86-64, then AMD's "solution" does not address the problem, and this always leads to the shittiest of products.

What problem is it supposed to address as a 32-bit solution? Just be faster? Ok, AMD claims it will be faster at 32-bit. You can't argue against that effectively until the Hammer's released, so just take AMD's word for it. Or don't; that's up to you.

Price? Nobody knows what it will debut at. But it will probably be cheaper than Intel's equivalent 32-bit solution, so AMD will be able to compete effectively.

Temperature? If you're not using the x86-64 extensions, the extra x86-64 logic will probably sit idle, and not generate a significant amount of heat. If there's extra cache, that would increase heat, but would also increase performance in both 32-bit and 64-bit. The on-die MCH will increase size (and thus heat), but compared to having an external memory controller (probably fabbed on a larger, hotter-running process), having the MCH on-die should not cause the system as a whole to run hotter. The CPU will run hotter, but there won't be as much heat-producing NorthBridge logic.

Size? Why do you care about size? The thing will fit in a standard ATX chassis without blocking card slots; what more do you want? If you think the extra size will increase heat, go look at my comment on temperature.

The Hammer is AMD's next solution for 32-bit; it's also their next solution for 64-bit. It serves both markets. Barton development will continue for a while but will pretty much be deprecated.

You need to lighten up. If you just want a 32-bit processor, Hammer will still do fine, and it could very well be faster and cheaper than whatever Intel's got. If you don't want to use the x86-64 extensions, just don't use them. It's not like the 64-bitness will slap around your kids and screw your wife when you're not home.

<i>I can love my fellow man...but I'm damned if I'll love yours.</i><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by kelledin on 07/26/02 00:50 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 26, 2002 5:48:50 AM

Quote:
IBM dont need X87-64

IBM have every reason to kill X87-64

That must by why IBM <A HREF="http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/as-16.07.02-000/" target="_new">ported their database</A> to x86-64 (or x87-64, if you will). A fine way to kill x86-64, eh? Just support it to death. :tongue:

As for IBM wanting to kill x86-64, remember the adage that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Sun and IBM are willing to support AMD because they don't see AMD as competition. Sun's target market might overlap AMD's, but Sun is going to be using the Opteron for that market anyways. IBM's primary target market is refrigerator-sized minicomputers and supercomputers, which the Opteron isn't really meant for. The Itanium, however, would hit IBM and Sun uncomfortably close to home.

<i>I can love my fellow man...but I'm damned if I'll love yours.</i>
July 26, 2002 7:20:55 AM

Quote:
Hammer will be able to do both 32bit and 64bit. The chip will not be a monster in size and will get smaller as they move to a smaller process. If you always want proven and reliable then buy older technology. No one's forcing you to buy anything right after it debuts.



I read the hammer is still smaller than the p4 iirc.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
July 26, 2002 7:25:16 AM

Quote:
Ok, you're right, hammer will debut at 2Ghz, I shoulda looked into that. But by then Intel has chips at 3Ghz, maybe 3.5Ghz, and suddenly we're measure the clock speed discrepancy in Gigahertz. Hmm, AMD will have to come up with an even more sneaky bizarre confusing marketing plan to try and conceal this.


And are you dumb enough to think that clock speed in itself matters?



:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
July 26, 2002 7:27:35 AM

Quote:
How can you claim that a Hammer at 2Ghz will outperform a Pentium 5 at 5Ghz, since neither really exist and there are no benchmarks available? Pretty strange claim. You just have so much faith in AMD that you are utterly confident that they will perform something bordering on the impossible when they are losing money and market share like crazy?


HE SAID "IF" YOU IDIOT!

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
July 26, 2002 7:44:16 AM

If you ought to choose only between Apple II (8-bit CPU) and IBM AT 8086 (16-bit CPU), which one will you choose?

<font color=orange>ÃÎËßÌ ÇÀËÚÊ ËÀÏÍÈ, ÃÎËßÌÀ ÙÀÍÃÀ ÂÄÈÃÍÈ!</font color=orange>
July 26, 2002 9:26:06 AM

Just as an FYI to a person who seems intent on being an idiot and not enlightening himself by using a wonderful little function called a search engine, you would have found AMD's statement that the die size of the Hammer would be 100-110 square mm (this would probably be the ClawHammer, and not the more endowed Sledge). Bigger than then the T-bred, but smaller than the Palomino and much smaller than the Northwood. Now, stupid, anything else idiotic to say, any more feet you'd like in your mouth?

Also, your "disregard" for 64-bit is unfounded and an unbaked thought. Who cares if you use it or not? I had a 32-bit able CPU but I still used DOS and Win 3.x (may have supported 32-bit...). In case you've had your head up your arse for quite a while, the AXP will become the Duron, the Hammer will become the AXP-64, or some crap like that, and the server version will be Opteron. Your precious 32-bit will still exist in the Duron line, as if your 32-bit programs will be destroyed and ripped into tiny little shreds by the Hammer. This is what is called a transition product. In a few years, in case you haven't noticed the bloat in software, massive amounts of RAM will be needed. 512 is quickly becoming standard for intensive programs, and if you use simple math skills, and extrapolate out RAM need over time, you'll see that if 5 years ago, 64MB was considered bleeding edge (might have even been 4 years ago), 4096MB will be bleeding edge in 4-5 years. Hmmm... sounds like the limits of 32-bit. Also, I thought that the G4s of the Mac were able to handle 64-bit code, though they might not be true 64-bit. And, to say you'll never use it is to say that you'll never use the airbag in your car since you never get in an accident...

So, now that you've thoroughly made a fool of yourself and removed any trace of credibility you may have had at one point, how do you feel?

Gads, how I can't stand people who speak either by pretending they have knowledge, or speak even without that pretense. At least the people who are respected on here who raise controversial points concede that there is some knowledge that they don't have. You, though, continue on in your ignorance, as if ignorance means you're right.

And, if you don't want to have a chip that has silicon that you won't use, then I guess you're screwed, since the P4 has HT logic on-die, even though it isn't enabled, and the rumor that the Prescott will have Yamhill/x86-64 logic means you can't get that either, since it will both have "wasted" silicon and 64-bit extensions! Wow, what a shock, a engineering decision that allows for flexibility!

Now, little troll child, go crawl back into your little hole in the ground and let the adults talk uninterupted.

To everyone else, I apologize for the harshness of my reply. I just felt that this thread needed this kind of response, as all other avenunes didn't seem to be working.

-SammyBoy
July 26, 2002 5:35:07 PM

Wow this is great. Takea few shots at a hyped up technology that is slightly more trendy than Britney Spears and everyone freaks out. I think I'll start pointing out the obvious flaws in the segway, or point out how web services is bullshit, and then maybe argue why 3G is useless.

:) 

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway
July 26, 2002 6:03:41 PM

no one is tryint to hype anything. you are dreaming. they are (stupiedly) trying to explain to you that there is nothing *worng* you should fear of with Hammer being a 64bit processor. or with 64bitness in genral.

btw I said stupiedly couse I dont know why you guys keep bothering. this person came to this *forum* unwillingly of hearing what people have to say that contrast with his own opinions. don't bother.


This post is best viewed with common sense enabled
July 26, 2002 6:15:38 PM

Ok some quick observations...

This is my first time hanging on this forum, and I'm surprised at a few things.

First of all, I still haven't had my question answered. Nobody has told me anything about Barton or post Barton that I don't already know. I still believe this is an important question- and the millions of peeps with Socket A will probably see why.

Second, people get a little too riled up. If you can't take a little cursing and blaspheming then you need to start taking Paxil. Although I was pleased I managed to generate this much discussion just by belting out some insults and doubling down.

The only thing I've noticed that really bothers me here is that everyone seem to buy into the marketing horseshit that AMD puts out. Yes I understand clock speed is only one small component of a CPU's performance, but I think it's self evident that this "Performance Rating" is utterly ridiclous. I refuse to refer to a CPU as "the 2000+", it's a 1.67Ghz. Someone was arguing that the "performance rating" would start to scale great, and that a 66Mhz clock speed increase would start equaling a 200PR increase or something. Ay, it is a sad day when techies start accepting marketing-speak and even speak it. What's next, is someone going to try and convince me that Itanium "utilizes the synergy between proactive memory addressing and dynamic solution execution"? Knock it off- talk about tech spex of tech products with real numbers that actually mean something.

And BTW you've convinced me, I'm gonna go gets a shiny new clawhammer and X86-64 Linux as soon as it's released and compute in 64 bit bliss.

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway
July 26, 2002 6:16:30 PM

Ok some quick observations...

This is my first time hanging on this forum, and I'm surprised at a few things.

First of all, I still haven't had my question answered. Nobody has told me anything about Barton or post Barton that I don't already know. I still believe this is an important question- and the millions of peeps with Socket A will probably see why.

Second, people get a little too riled up. If you can't take a little cursing and blaspheming then you need to start taking Paxil. Although I was pleased I managed to generate this much discussion just by belting out some insults and doubling down.

The only thing I've noticed that really bothers me here is that everyone seem to buy into the marketing horseshit that AMD puts out. Yes I understand clock speed is only one small component of a CPU's performance, but I think it's self evident that this "Performance Rating" is utterly ridiclous. I refuse to refer to a CPU as "the 2000+", it's a 1.67Ghz. Someone was arguing that the "performance rating" would start to scale great, and that a 66Mhz clock speed increase would start equaling a 200PR increase or something. Ay, it is a sad day when techies start accepting marketing-speak and even speak it. What's next, is someone going to try and convince me that Itanium "utilizes the synergy between proactive memory addressing and dynamic solution execution"? Knock it off- talk about tech spex of tech products with real numbers that actually mean something.

And BTW you've convinced me, I'm gonna go gets a shiny new clawhammer and X86-64 Linux as soon as it's released and compute in 64 bit bliss.

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway
July 26, 2002 6:55:03 PM

noone has told you anything about barton, cuz noone knows anything. AMD hasnt made any official announcements. or even unofficial for that matter.

Buy the marketing crap? Well of course its rediculous. But it was necessary for morons who think clock speed matters. Your average joe doesnt know anything about computers. SO when he goes to buy he sees an Intel at 2.2 and an AthlonXP at 1.8 gigs, he will assume Intels is much faster. But if he see an Athlon 2200+... who knows. I think AMD did the right thing with their PR in order to debunk the speed myth.

Everyone here is fully aware of actual speeds and performance of chips. So im not sure what you want us to "knock off". Next time you cant find info about a company's roadmap - there is probably a reason. Cuz they arent saying and noone knows.

Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.
July 26, 2002 7:21:00 PM

Quote:

And BTW you've convinced me, I'm gonna go gets a shiny new clawhammer and X86-64 Linux as soon as it's released and compute in 64 bit bliss.

first of all you are an idiot.
secondly I find you being conviced 64bit is good quite hard to belive becouse no one in this thread said it will be good. mostly they said it will not matter for users still using 32bit apps. you seem to think other-wize.

This post is best viewed with common sense enabled
July 26, 2002 8:00:32 PM

you remember the argument that the geforce sucked because no one had any games that would utilize it? with any new hardware, the software will follow, its pretty hard to write to somthing that doesnt exist yet.

how do you shoot the devil in the back? what happens if you miss? -verbal
July 26, 2002 8:18:05 PM

Ok sorry, I might have overhyped the features CH has, but I do recall as many have also, that the overall performance per clock over K7s is a good 20-30%, while SH is about 40-50%.

Also about the 12-stages, maybe 2 were added for the x86-64 instances?
Finally, do you have any idea why AMD didn't just go for 20 stages? The K8 seems to rock at performance per clock, so why the heck wouldn't they just add more stages, improve bandwidth and branch prediction, and they could have a similar to P4 CPU, that 1:ramps in clock speed very well, and 2:p erformance per clock far exceeds P4's.
Seems to me someone was lazy there, but I don't wanna make a fool of myself again, so I'll let you tell me why possibly, or theorize.

Methinks we should turn this thread into our own discussions, as obviously we ain't going nowhere with the guy who made it.

--
An AMD employee's diary: Today I kicked an Intel worker in the "Willy"! :lol: 
July 26, 2002 8:30:56 PM

Actually, dink, Barton rumors were mentioned (166FSB, an additional 600+ to the PR over the same clocked T-bred and Palomino, Hammer optimizations on the Barton (not x86-64, which you seem to equate with the devil), etc.) but you ignored them. Maybe, if you actually had intelligence, you'd have used the search function of to forum to find Barton info, as in must be in a least one... hundred threads on it.
July 26, 2002 8:39:06 PM

40-50% for the SH? Interesting. Last I heard, AMD was saying 20% increase due to the on-die memory controller, and 5% due to K7 improvements (possibly whats on the Barton?) They never mentioned if that was the desktop or MP version. And, I thought that AMD stated that they had indeed increased the pipeline length, slightly reducing the IPC, but that it would quickly be offset by the ramping clockspeeds and the improvements on the die. Maybe that was something I read somewhere else.

Eh, I love rumors. Speaking of rumors, what do you know about the K9, texas_techie? :wink:
July 26, 2002 8:41:46 PM

Forums are usually FFA...game term, Free for All...you'll always find a few or even a horde of forum participants trying to prove their superiority but there are also the ones who simply give their opinion and follow the proper etiquette...but trolls need to be put down...and fighting fire with fire is usually the only way...and it's fun especially if you're not the retard side.

I myself am dissappointed with AMD for not catching up with the GHz/clock speed race...but it's a fact and AMD has the CPU to prove it that clock speed is not everything...still no matter how Intel jumps to higher speeds AMD still has the price/performance advantage...how many ppl can afford the latest P4(2.5GHz) CPU vs the ppl who can afford the latest AMD(2200+) CPU? The marketing strategy of AMD for the AXP's is not horseshit...they need to do that so noobies will not compare in clock speed by itself...is it lying if an AXP 1800+ really performs like a 1.8-1.9 GHZ...anyway with or without that marketing strategy the price itself of AMD CPU's will make you buy them...unless you know how to overclock a 1.6A or 1.8A P4 then why buy AXP 1800+ if you can achieve 2.2+ GHz with P4s...with AMD CPUs you get what you pay for...the upcoming Hammer won't probably be priced as high as the P4 2.5GHz which is a good thing for people who cannot afford the latest Intel CPU but feels great that they can afford the latest AMD CPU which is not a lemon in any way and still competes with the latest Intel CPU...

"""Ay, it is a sad day when techies start accepting marketing-speak and even speak it. What's next, is someone going to try and convince me that Itanium "utilizes the synergy between proactive memory addressing and dynamic solution execution"? Knock it off- talk about tech spex of tech products with real numbers that actually mean something.""" -junkkyy

the 2000+ or xxxx+ numbers may not be the real "tech spex" but it's not a lie either...AMD needs to do this for the noobies out there who base everything on which has the biggest number/clock speed...If only we can have classes to educate the noobies then AMD will just have to name their AXPs as Athlon XP "QuantiSpeed" 1.73GHz for the 2000+ CPU...I remember from a home computer shopping network selling a P4 1.8GHz (256k cache) PC...the host of the show was bragging that he's a veteran in the computer industry and that he supervises in making all the PCs they sell on the show...then the a-hole tried to compare the AXP by saying something like this "Don't be fooled by what the other competitor is selling. They advertise a CPU named 1800+ when it is only 1.5 GHz, we have here for you for a special today only price of blahblahblah a 1.8GHz system!" Oh BS!...now that's the kind of "veteran" techie you should be sad about...he did the same thing AMD is doing but in a weak backstabbing way...he used the marketing strategy of AMD to sell his product when he well knows an AMD 1800+ is equal, sometimes better than the P4 1.8GHz...

well enough about that...anybody knows what is limiting AMD in leaping to higher clock speeds? All I know is they got stuck on the AXP 2100+ coz of the 0.18 process and now that they have used 0.13 with the t-bred how fast would it take them to at least reach 2.4GHz? or will they be releasing a 100MHz leap every week/2 weeks after hammer is released to catch up with Intel?...hehe
July 26, 2002 8:54:19 PM

Actually adding pipeline stages, like imgod2u said in another thread to me, does NOT reduce IPC, but does require better branch prediction and bandwidth. Lower latencies are a must as well.

I thought I began understanding pipelines, and that when you add stages it's cuz you shortened each and divided them, but it turns out you can add stages for new functions, so now I am more lost than ever on how that works and affects performance and scaling.

--
The sound of determination is the echo of will...
!