Intel following AMD's lead

[tontod]

Not sure if this has been posted before, but here it is:

Intel follows AMD

:Q

Edit: whoops, yahoo changed the link.

 

[Wolfdog]

While they do have some dubious claims, it will be interesting to see if in fact Yamhill is AMD compatible. I tend to believe that they will go thier own route with the extensions since the yamhill project has been going on for quite some time. There has even been some speculation that some if not all the required adaptions for x86-64 aren't already in the prescott core. The only problem I have with the whole "following" amd's lead is that there is no retail version of windows that supports 64-bit on the consumer level. That won't be taking place until the middle of next year. So it is not much of a lead at all. I wonder if the 64-bit consumer release was pushed back to add support for a Intel instruction set. If they enable it on prescott they say it will take a year to bring it up to speed with software support, etc. That would put it at a six month or so disadvantage in the consumer market. Since no windows support means no consumer software support.

 

[Sid59]

hrm, interesting. it's gona be good to see what materialize this next year with the CPU market.

so far i've heard the following rumours and i bet none of them are true. never saw an article on it, so i can;t verify the truth.

P4 Prescott already has 64 bit extentions
Intel licensced AMD 64 bit extentions

 

[BlvdKing]

I have heard that Intel will use AMD x86-64 extensions as well, but it would not suprise me if Intel fragmented the market with it's own x86-64 either. Only time will tell.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: tontod
Not sure if this has been posted before, but here it is:

Intel follows AMD

Might want to fix your link... Unless you want to read about "Big Dec. 26 Deals Need Not Involve Fighting The Crowds"

 

[lifeguard1999]

While it would not surprise me, I will wait for something more concrete from Intel's mouth.

 

[ArborBarber]

Here's a link that might help a bit...it's a little more in line with what the author of this thread was getting at...I think...LOL

Here's A Switch: Intel May Be Ready To Copy Rival AMD

 

[DragonFire]

Its nice the AMD is trying to do something first instead of following what ever Intel does (socket to slot and back to socket) but for home users, who the hell cares? On top of needing 64bit windows out and ready to, you would need simple apps like Mozilla to be 64bit, games would have to start coming out as 64 bit and so on before there is even a need for a 64bit cpui......something Intel knows.

 

[JeremiahTheGreat]

Never stopped them from releasing SSE/SSE2/SSE3..

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: DragonFire
Its nice the AMD is trying to do something first instead of following what ever Intel does (socket to slot and back to socket) but for home users, who the hell cares? On top of needing 64bit windows out and ready to, you would need simple apps like Mozilla to be 64bit, games would have to start coming out as 64 bit and so on before there is even a need for a 64bit cpui......something Intel knows.

You don't NEED 64-bit anything... that's the beauty of the Athlon-64, it's completely backward compatible with 32-bit software. The only thing you NEED is 64-bit drivers if you intend to use a 64-bit OS.

 

[Aegion]

Originally posted by: DragonFire
Its nice the AMD is trying to do something first instead of following what ever Intel does (socket to slot and back to socket) but for home users, who the hell cares? On top of needing 64bit windows out and ready to, you would need simple apps like Mozilla to be 64bit, games would have to start coming out as 64 bit and so on before there is even a need for a 64bit cpui......something Intel knows.

Of course Unreal Tournament 2003 already supports the X86-64 bit cpus of AMD, and other new games are likely to be based on the engine. The fact that the Windows X86-64 beta is now out gives software developers an opportunity to make sure their software supports X86-64 right now. For situations in which it gives a major performance boost, there may be an incentive for software makers to make sure their product supports it before a rival does and obtain a competive advantage. There is no reason for simple programs to support 64 bit since AMD's offering is backwards compatible.

 

[Aegion]

Originally posted by: Wolfdog
W That would put it at a six month or so disadvantage in the consumer market. Since no windows support means no consumer software support.

Those 6 months are likely to be extremely painful for Intel though as its the same period in which AMD is going to be switching their chips to being produced on a 90nm process, allowing them to release them in much larger numbers. This also leads to the problem of their being a large customer base on the opposite architecture before Intel can even have X86-64 but support on their processor. (Intel can try to release chip supporting their 64 bit opperations in advance to partially combat this problem, but software makers are likely to question how effective the Intel process is an whether its worth actually supporting it until drivers supporting it and showing how well it works are released.) Any delay beyond the projected date of a year for Microsoft to release an OS supporting the Intel architecture would also be absolutely catastrophic for Intel. Linux support is also not going to start until Intel releases the details for the architecture, along with at least some chips using it. Driver support can't get going until Intel releases the details of the architecture, which would mean enough leakage that we should know Intel's future plans for certain. One other question is given that the Cetrino is increasingly being used for Intel laptops, is it possible for Intel to offer 64 bit support in that segment of the market? (AMD is releasing viable mobile 64 bit processors.)

 

[jhu]

Its nice the AMD is trying to do something first instead of following what ever Intel does

there have been several instances in which amd did something before intel: mmx came out on amd cpus first, 3dnow ushered in simd with floating point math, memory controller on the cpu.

 

[AndyHui]

mmx came out on amd cpus first

No, MMX came first on the Intel Pentium MMX.

 

[jhu]

if you look at release history, amd's k6 was introduced even before intel's pentium mmx

 

[AndyHui]

Intel Introduces The Pentium® Processor With MMX? Technology - Jan. 8, 1997

AMD Introduces Sixth-Generation AMD-K6? MMX Processor - April 2, 1997

MMX is most definitely an Intel item:

AMD and Intel Settle MMX? Litigation

 

[jhu]

oops, my bad. well amd came out with x86-to-risc translation before intel. so amd has done quite a few things before intel

 

[AndyHui]

With which processor did AMD do this for?

 

[Mikewarrior2]

Originally posted by: AndyHui
With which processor did AMD do this for?

seconded...

 

[jhu]

well guess i was wrong on that one too. rather it was nexgen that did that with their nx586, not amd

 

[BD231]

K6-2/K6-3 are risc based aren't they?

 

[jhu]

kind of. they translate x86 to their own internal microps.

 

[lifeguard1999]

When asked for clarification, an Intel?s spokespersons said: ?the Intel PR person was misquoted... So we have not confirmed a CPU or prototype or whatever IBD claimed.?