Intel x86-64. **Updated 2/17** It IS AMD64 compatible...out next quarter

[robg1701]

HP leaks Intel 64bit Info:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14187


http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?lp=de_en&url=http://www.tecchannel.de/news/hardware/14533/

ORIGINAL: http://www.tecchannel.de/news/hardware/14533/

 

[NFS4]

http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-5160169.html?tag=nefd_top

Intel's approach is compatible with AMD's, the representative said. "There will be one operating system that will support all (64-bit) extended systems," the representative said.

 

[NightCrawler]

A billion dollars down the drain.....supposely that is how much Intel invested in Itanium. I don't think their going to make their money back.

Oh well at least this will speed up the Windows 64 bit launch.....I hope.

 

[ViRGE]

Woot, finally some concrete details. So right now, we're looking at a server chip(a Xeon I assume) due Q2 that's x86-64 capible. I suppose the question now is if Prescott has the same 64bit capibilities on-die or not; Xeon's are usually just a modification of the standard core design that allows SMP and more cache, so it would seem likely that Yamhill/CT technology is also already present on the Prescott. That in turn begs the question: will Intel enable it at all(via a BIOS update or whatever), or will it lay dormant, and only be activated on a new line(like HT on the Northwood)?

 

[Insomniac]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
Woot, finally some concrete details. So right now, we're looking at a server chip(a Xeon I assume) due Q2 that's x86-64 capible. I suppose the question now is if Prescott has the same 64bit capibilities on-die or not; Xeon's are usually just a modification of the standard core design that allows SMP and more cache, so it would seem likely that Yamhill/CT technology is also already present on the Prescott. That in turn begs the question: will Intel enable it at all(via a BIOS update or whatever), or will it lay dormant, and only be activated on a new line(like HT on the Northwood)?

Seems like the Prescotts are all set for 64-bit from the article.

Nocona will use the same core as Prescott, Intel's current desktop processor, meaning that Intel could quickly migrate the 64-bit architecture to desktop processors.

 

[PetNorth]

LOL I thought x86-64 weren't necessary until 2006 hehehe

 

[NightCrawler]

Originally posted by: PetNorth
LOL I thought x86-64 weren't necessary until 2006 hehehe

Market Pressure !!!!

 

[Pandaren]

So, that article on Chip-Architect.com saying Prescott has hidden 64-bit capabilities is confirmed.

I see from the leaked HP slides that Intel calls their 64-bit implementation IA-32e (e for "extended"). I wonder exactly how similar IA-32e is to AMD64. The fact that Microsoft said that Windows Extended or Windows Elements would run on both suggests that they use the same instructions set.

I guess x86-64 is here to stay.

 

[jm0ris0n]

InQ This just in

Intel's Barrett says 64-32 architecture compatible with AMD's

INTEL'S Craig Barrett said that the 64-32 extensions it will introduce will be broadly compatible with the AMD64 family.

In a Q&A, he said that while Intel and AMD's architectures were quite different, and the real question is whether OSes and other software ran on the two families.

Broadly, he said, for the most part the OSes for one will run on another.

Intel will roll out BIOS and other system support during the course of the year ready for the Nocona launch and for the Prescott chip for workstations.

He said that it wasn't fair to compare the Itanium and the 64-bit Extension chips, because the former was designed for big tin and the latter didn't.

Boo-Ya!

 

[mikecel79]

Well now that it's been confirmed that there are 64-bit instructions in Prescott I'm willing to bet we won't see them enabled until they move it to the LGA775 socket. At that point I wonder if Intel will change the name to Pentium V because the 64-bit extensions are enabled. It would make sense since this is a rather big change for the processor.

 

[jm0ris0n]

This also explains that the prescott delay might have had more to do with what its doing under there than heat.

Or maybe because of all the extra under the hood, there is a lot of extra heat

 

[hahher]

so how would this have happened? it takes 2 years to plan cpu right? scenario was that 2 years ago, amd released info on x86-64 to intel, intel builds it into cpu, talks it down in public, let's amd test the waters, then when intel sees support for it, intel announces they will have compatible cpu?

couldn't intel just as well have started devlopment of their own x86-64, just to give amd a hard time?

 

[jm0ris0n]

Intel did develop their own 64bit instruction set. its call IA64 and the processor known as Itanium uses it. Intel wouldn't develop two competing 64bit instruction sets.

 

[PetNorth]

With notices like this, to read now *pearls* like this...

64-bit desktop computing unnecessary, says Intel CTO

...only five months ago, makes me to laugh extensively muhahahaha

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: PetNorth
With notices like this, to read now *pearls* like this...

64-bit desktop computing unnecessary, says Intel CTO

...only five months ago, makes me to laugh extensively muhahahaha

Do you disagree? Do you feel the average consumer NEEDS 64-bit on the desktop? Do you feel they NEED more than 4gb of RAM?

Btw, Nocona isn't a desktop chip. As of right now, Intel does not have any plans on bringing 64-bit to the desktop real soon.

 

[PetNorth]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: PetNorth
With notices like this, to read now *pearls* like this...

64-bit desktop computing unnecessary, says Intel CTO

...only five months ago, makes me to laugh extensively muhahahaha

Do you disagree? Do you feel the average consumer NEEDS 64-bit on the desktop? Do you feel they NEED more than 4gb of RAM?

Btw, Nocona isn't a desktop chip. As of right now, Intel does not have any plans on bringing 64-bit to the desktop real soon.

Of course I disagree. That statement is simply stupid.

All new and good technology is positive, and yes, is necessary now too, much better that within three years (gains for example in 3D design, audio and video encoding, scientific and mathematical programs, games... will be tremendous with 64bits).

Do you disagree? ;-)

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: PetNorth
All new and good technology is positive, and yes, is necessary now too much better that within three years (gains in 3D design, audio and video encoding, scientific and mathematical programs, games will be tremendous with 64bits).

Do you disagree?

Do I disagree that "all new and good technology is positive"? Nah, new technology rocks!

Do I disagree that all of the above apps you listed will be "tremendous with 64bits"? Yep. And if you are expecting "tremendous" things from x86-64 on the desktop, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

The main advantage with 64-bits is the ability to address >4gb of memory. Once that becomes a bottleneck, then you'll see "tremendous" strides w/64-bit.

 

[jhu]

You don't need a license for IA64-compatibility. You need a license for the process to connect to Intel's bus, something that AMD already might have access to through Intel directly or indirectly through someone like IBM. AMD won't falter any faster than its larger partners allow it to falter. Intel would need to persuade IBM to go 100% behind IA64 to get AMD's lifeblood let once and for all. But to get IBM 100% behind IA64, it would take IBM basically killing off its low- and mid-range processor markets.


actually, you might have to pay infeneon. instead.

 

[PetNorth]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: PetNorth
All new and good technology is positive, and yes, is necessary now too much better that within three years (gains in 3D design, audio and video encoding, scientific and mathematical programs, games will be tremendous with 64bits).

Do you disagree?

Do I disagree that "all new and good technology is positive"? Nah, new technology rocks!

Do I disagree that all of the above apps you listed will be "tremendous with 64bits"? Yep. And if you are expecting "tremendous" things from x86-64 on the desktop, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

The main advantage with 64-bits is the ability to address >4gb of memory. Once that becomes a bottleneck, then you'll see "tremendous" strides w/64-bit.

Sorry, but you're wrong ;-)

An example:

Wolfram Research Optimizes Mathematica for Linux on AMD64

As a reflection of Wolfram Research's rigorous software engineering standards, Mathematica 5 is among the first technical computing platforms specifically optimized for the AMD64 architecture--and it delivers impressive performance. The optimized Mathematica port outperforms a regular Linux version of Mathematica on AMD64 systems by up to 50 percent in typical scientific and technical calculations.

I believe this is more than tremendous ;-)

Regards.

 

[Sohcan]

Originally posted by: jhu
You don't need a license for IA64-compatibility. You need a license for the process to connect to Intel's bus, something that AMD already might have access to through Intel directly or indirectly through someone like IBM. AMD won't falter any faster than its larger partners allow it to falter. Intel would need to persuade IBM to go 100% behind IA64 to get AMD's lifeblood let once and for all. But to get IBM 100% behind IA64, it would take IBM basically killing off its low- and mid-range processor markets.


actually, you might have to pay infeneon. instead.

You mean Intergraph. That lawsuit was overturned in favor of Intel in the appeal.

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: PetNorth

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: PetNorth
All new and good technology is positive, and yes, is necessary now too much better that within three years (gains in 3D design, audio and video encoding, scientific and mathematical programs, games will be tremendous with 64bits).

Do you disagree?

Do I disagree that "all new and good technology is positive"? Nah, new technology rocks!

Do I disagree that all of the above apps you listed will be "tremendous with 64bits"? Yep. And if you are expecting "tremendous" things from x86-64 on the desktop, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

The main advantage with 64-bits is the ability to address >4gb of memory. Once that becomes a bottleneck, then you'll see "tremendous" strides w/64-bit.

Sorry, but you're wrong ;-)

An example:

Wolfram Research Optimizes Mathematica for Linux on AMD64

As a reflection of Wolfram Research's rigorous software engineering standards, Mathematica 5 is among the first technical computing platforms specifically optimized for the AMD64 architecture--and it delivers impressive performance. The optimized Mathematica port outperforms a regular Linux version of Mathematica on AMD64 systems by up to 50 percent in typical scientific and technical calculations.

Regards ;-)

There's probably a good bit of the speed up that comes from tageting the Opteron/A64 for optimization rather than the Pentium III/4 / Athlon XP architectures they were previously targeting. Not to say that there isn't a speed up due to the 64-bit instructions (there likely is because of the increased number of registers).

 

[NFS4]

I just think it's funny to see Intel using AMD technology. Isn't Intel supposed to be the "Techology" leader?? AMD is supposed to be lapping up Intel's table scraps, not the other way around

That being said, the rollout, marketing, 64-bit performance and acceptance of Opteron/Athlon 64/Athlon FX were merely beta tests for Intel's 64-bit Xeon processors.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: PetNorth

Sorry, but you're wrong ;-)

An example:

Wolfram Research Optimizes Mathematica for Linux on AMD64

As a reflection of Wolfram Research's rigorous software engineering standards, Mathematica 5 is among the first technical computing platforms specifically optimized for the AMD64 architecture--and it delivers impressive performance. The optimized Mathematica port outperforms a regular Linux version of Mathematica on AMD64 systems by up to 50 percent in typical scientific and technical calculations.

I believe this is more than tremendous ;-)

Regards.

Here's an example of where going to 64-bit loses performance.

http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1315&page=2

 

[PetNorth]

Originally posted by: Accord99

Originally posted by: PetNorth

Sorry, but you're wrong ;-)

An example:

Wolfram Research Optimizes Mathematica for Linux on AMD64

As a reflection of Wolfram Research's rigorous software engineering standards, Mathematica 5 is among the first technical computing platforms specifically optimized for the AMD64 architecture--and it delivers impressive performance. The optimized Mathematica port outperforms a regular Linux version of Mathematica on AMD64 systems by up to 50 percent in typical scientific and technical calculations.

I believe this is more than tremendous ;-)

Regards.

Here's an example of where going to 64-bit loses performance.

http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1315&page=2

come on intel guy... ;-) a bad and early beta compilation, that's all. Please, don't confuse with partial statements.

 

[dullard]

There's probably a good bit of the speed up that comes from tageting the Opteron/A64 for optimization rather than the Pentium III/4 / Athlon XP architectures they were previously targeting. Not to say that there isn't a speed up due to the 64-bit instructions (there likely is because of the increased number of registers).

Exactly. Most programs are compiled using compilers with Intel chips in mind. Thus they are much more optimum conditions for an Intel chip than an AMD chip. Then you make two changes: (1) optimize for AMD only without regard for Intel performance and (2) make it 64-bit. Now how can you honestly assign the performance boost to either (1) or (2)?

I also disagree with your statement that all these programs will see a tremendous gain. Maybe in years to come, but not now. I'm probably one of the only (if not the only) person here at Anandtech who makes a living off of complex computer simulations using software like this. And even I still do not see a need to go to 64-bits at this point in time. Sure I will in the future, but there isn't a great benefit of 64-bits.

Games certainly don't need it yet. Audio and video encoding are close, but they don't need 64-bit at this time either.