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

[PetNorth]

Frankly, I'm confused with you. What is necessary for you? What is unnecessary for you?

For me, if 64bits gives us 15%, 20% gain, this is necessary simply. why not? ??? Not to mention if the gain is of 50% like with Mathematica 5 64bits version.

So, I repeat, I don't understand yours rare statements about the necessary or the not necessary, sorry. I can't understand it. I think most of the people neither can.

 

[Wingznut]

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.

Let's take a quote from the article you linked... "Especially when dealing with large data sets, greater than the 4-GB limit addressed by 32-bit processors, Mathematica 5 will help deliver exceptional application performance."

The ability to address more than 4gb of RAM is what makes the difference. And RaynorWolfcastle and dullard are correct... The AMD optimizations also have a hand in the difference.

Btw, Mathmatica isn't an average user's desktop program. It's primarily used at the workstation level.


Look, I didn't say that there were ZERO applications that would benefit from 64-bit. I'm just saying that the desktop user that uses them will be few and far in between.

I also find it a bit amusing that you find a single example of where 64-bit is advantageous, Accord finds one where it is not, and you bash his example. Trust me (not that I expect you to), there will be far more desktop applications that don't benefit from 64-bits.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: PetNorth
For me, if 64bits gives us 15%, 20% gain, this is necessary simply. why not? ??? Not to mention if the gain is of 50% like with Mathematica 5 64bits version.

You are right... If you got a 15%+ gain directly from 64-bits, then I'd definitely call it advantageous. You simply aren't going to find those gains in gaming and other desktop applications.

On the server side, sure. In the workstation arena, sure. On the desktop, I just don't see it.

 

[PetNorth]

I also find it a bit amusing that you find a single example of where 64-bit is advantageous, Accord finds one where it is not, and you bash his example. Trust me (not that I expect you to), there will be far more desktop applications that don't benefit from 64-bits.

You are right... If you got a 15%+ gain directly from 64-bits, then I'd definitely call it advantageous. You simply aren't going to find those gains in gaming and other desktop applications.

hehe come on, I'm sure you know there are more examples, all people knows them. There is ogg encoding examples, mp3 encoding examples, zip comression examples, pov-ray examples (all in Linux and yet with beta version); there is DivX example (beta windows version); there is CEOs Epic, Far Cry, Half Life 2 declarations, estimating 30% gains in their 64bits versions games, etc etc.

And you know, accord... well, no comment in this materia when Intel and AMD are in ;-)

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: PetNorth
And you know, accord... well, no comment in this materia when Intel and AMD are in ;-)

"People Who Live In Glass Houses Should Not Throw Stones"...

Just did a search for your posts. Seems as though every one of them is pro-AMD or anti-Intel. Not a single one about ANYTHING else. Hmmm...

 

[MikeMike]

it seems as if 64bit has sped up some items, with windows 64, however the beta type drivers are holding back a lot. i think intel was pressured into doing this by amd's sucess. also, 64bit will help in home environment in a lot of programs, but not all (WORD???)

o yea, wingznut, try and figure out if im a fanboi or not LOL

MIKE

 

[PetNorth]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: PetNorth
And you know, accord... well, no comment in this materia when Intel and AMD are in ;-)

"People Who Live In Glass Houses Should Not Throw Stones"...

Just did a search for your posts. Seems as though every one of them is pro-AMD or anti-Intel. Not a single one about ANYTHING else. Hmmm...

I like AMD, yes. Is there any problem? ;-) but I think all my posts are at least reasonables (well some of them are only sarcastics hehe). and I try that they be *documented*. Not unreasonables, not partials, not undocumented. I hope I succeed it ;-)

 

[sandorski]

re: 64bit is faster

Not really. AMD's Athlon 64/FX/Opteron cpus are faster in 64bit, mainly due to the fact that AMD has increased the number Registers and other components for dedicated useage in 64bit. So, yes, AMD's 64bit processors will see a significant gain in performance when using 64bit, but that's because of architectural design and not the natural result of 64bit computing. A smart move by AMD IMO, it helps move the market to 64bit computing and increases consumer acceptance of it.

 

[Insomniac]

Isn't the real question whose 64-bit chip is faster? I for one would like to know if Intel can beat AMD at their own game.

 

[jkats]

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 they don't NEED it. You could argue that the average user doesn't need anything more than 500mhz cpu - just enough to surf the web and do word processing. You could also argue that we don't need toilets, and we don't need running water, and we don't need electricity - plenty of people in this world live w/out them. The fact is, we WANT more. We have the technology we have today because of the pioneers who were not satisfied w/ the status quo, but continually pushed the envelope. If everyone had your attitude, we would all still be stuck using PII's. You sound like Intel's Otellini, speaking on 64-bit technology:

"You can be fairly confident that, when there is software from an application and operating system standpoint that will take advantage of it, that we will be there."

Any spokesperson for a bleeding edge "innovative" technology company that makes such a moronic statement should be fired on the spot. How does he expect the software to get there if there's no hardware to write it for?! Unless, of course, he's referring to the adoption of AMD64 technology in the marketplace - in which case his statement is even more moronic and damaging to Intel and he should be shot. For a company that's supposed to be leading technology, what are they doing at the back of the line?

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: PetNorth
I like AMD, yes. Is there any problem? ;-) but I think all my posts are at least reasonables (well some of them are only sarcastics hehe). and I try that they be *documented*. Not unreasonables, not partials, not undocumented. I hope I succeed it ;-)

My point was that you immediately discard what Accord says (and urge others to do the same) because he tends to like Intel more, irregardless of the actual content of his opinion. Going by your reasoning, we should just ignore all of your points as well. No?

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
o yea, wingznut, try and figure out if im a fanboi or not LOL

Heh. Well, I don't see you casting any stones at anyone yet. So I'll hold off... For now.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Insomniac
Isn't the real question whose 64-bit chip is faster? I for one would like to know if Intel can beat AMD at their own game.

That one will definately be interesting, and frankly, I don't think Intel will be able to do it. They've got plenty of good engineers to do it with, but x86-64 was designed by AMD with the K8 in mind; AMD has a homefield advantage here.

 

[PetNorth]

My point was that you immediately discard what Accord says (and urge others to do the same) because he tends to like Intel more,

No, that isn't the reason I discard what Accord says. The reason is because that concrete post is simply biased, partial and tipical of a fanboy trying to confuse to the people with the result of a simple early and beta 64bits compilation, without debug, of SETI (July 2003). This is more clear than water, isn't it? ;-)

 

[Accord99]

No, that isn't the reason I discard what Accord says. The reason is because that concrete post is simply biased, partial and tipical of a fanboy trying to confuse to the people with the result of a simple early and beta 64bits compilation, without debug, of SETI (July 2003). This is more clear than water, isn't it? ;-)

No, that was a release version of the 3.08 client.

 

[PetNorth]

pffff another silly post :-(

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: PetNorth
pffff another silly post :-(

I give up.

 

[NFS4]

Is NE1 here gonna give AMD a little bit of credit? I doubt that Intel would be this quick to hop on the bandwagon if Opteron and the other AMD64 weren't so widely accepted. Anyway:

Are Intel's and AMD's 64-bit Approaches Compatible?

Microsoft Broadens Commitment to 64-Bit Windows

 

[buleyb]

Originally posted by: sandorski
re: 64bit is faster

Not really. AMD's Athlon 64/FX/Opteron cpus are faster in 64bit, mainly due to the fact that AMD has increased the number Registers and other components for dedicated useage in 64bit. So, yes, AMD's 64bit processors will see a significant gain in performance when using 64bit, but that's because of architectural design and not the natural result of 64bit computing. A smart move by AMD IMO, it helps move the market to 64bit computing and increases consumer acceptance of it.

Kudos to this, This is the best summary of this issue so far.



And NFS, I give AMD a lot of credit for their tech, but not their marketing. Intel seems to be playing this well so far. From our viewpoint, they're late and performance/cost is unknown, but AMD isn't letting the world know about their tech fast enough. Intel will end up stealing this fan-fare regardless of who has the better chip.

Let the games continue

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: buleyb

Originally posted by: sandorski
re: 64bit is faster

Not really. AMD's Athlon 64/FX/Opteron cpus are faster in 64bit, mainly due to the fact that AMD has increased the number Registers and other components for dedicated useage in 64bit. So, yes, AMD's 64bit processors will see a significant gain in performance when using 64bit, but that's because of architectural design and not the natural result of 64bit computing. A smart move by AMD IMO, it helps move the market to 64bit computing and increases consumer acceptance of it.

Kudos to this, This is the best summary of this issue so far.



And NFS, I give AMD a lot of credit for their tech, but not their marketing. Intel seems to be playing this well so far. From our viewpoint, they're late and performance/cost is unknown, but AMD isn't letting the world know about their tech fast enough. Intel will end up stealing this fan-fare regardless of who has the better chip.

Let the games continue

In other words:

AMD: Girl next door. Not a knock-out, but good-lookin'. Smart. No one pays attention to her much and she doesn't say much either
Intel: Head cheerleader. Drop dead gorgeous. Smart...but also knows how to throw her weight around and manipulate people. Quite the loudmouth and guys drool over her.

AMD goes to the prom all decked out in a fancy new dress (x86-64) and has her makeup done and gets looks from ALL of the guys in school. Intel shows up 15 mins later in a similar [but more expensive] dress (Clackamas sp?), but with a bit more cleavage and her overbearing charm.

 

[arod]

I agree with jkatz here, if we dont need new tech we might as well only have 500 MHZ processors.... This isnt just about 64 bit, its technology and its not like AMD is stinking it up in 32 bit, quite the opposite actually..... tearing up intel on games. I admit it I am pro-AMD and the reason is intel is similar to nike or mac to me (where your paying double the price for the name)... Personally if I cna have 64 bit for less than a intel chip which is slower theres no reason not to... theyre cooler, faster, just as stable(gaming, i could care less about synthetic), why not go AMD?

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: NFS4
Is NE1 here gonna give AMD a little bit of credit? I doubt that Intel would be this quick to hop on the bandwagon if Opteron and the other AMD64 weren't so widely accepted. Anyway:

Are Intel's and AMD's 64-bit Approaches Compatible?

Microsoft Broadens Commitment to 64-Bit Windows

Not really. The speed of the response likely has no relevance at all to anything. It's not like AMD released the Opteron, and then Intel said, uh oh, maybe we should make an x86-64 CPU. These just demoed CPU's have been in development for a considerably longer time than 8 months. Even when Intel is perceived to be losing, they still win. They have played AMD on this one. Let AMD do all the hard labor, and then swoop in when it is most convenient and reap all the rewards that AMD and their terrible marketing department weren't able to capitalize on. No one denies that AMD has very capable engineers, too bad they are wasted by a brain dead marketing. AMD has won nothing here but the right to stay in business at least a little longer, as they don't get a dime from Intel for this. Had Intel decided to go in another direction, it would have been disastrous for AMD.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Pariah

Originally posted by: NFS4
Is NE1 here gonna give AMD a little bit of credit? I doubt that Intel would be this quick to hop on the bandwagon if Opteron and the other AMD64 weren't so widely accepted. Anyway:

Are Intel's and AMD's 64-bit Approaches Compatible?

Microsoft Broadens Commitment to 64-Bit Windows

Not really. The speed of the response likely has no relevance at all to anything. It's not like AMD released the Opteron, and then Intel said, uh oh, maybe we should make an x86-64 CPU. These just demoed CPU's have been in development for a considerably longer time than 8 months. Even when Intel is perceived to be losing, they still win. They have played AMD on this one. Let AMD do all the hard labor, and then swoop in when it is most convenient and reap all the rewards that AMD and their terrible marketing department weren't able to capitalize on. No one denies that AMD has very capable engineers, too bad they are wasted by a brain dead marketing. AMD has won nothing here but the right to stay in business at least a little longer, as they don't get a dime from Intel for this. Had Intel decided to go in another direction, it would have been disastrous for AMD.

We'll have to wait and see how Intel's implementation compares to AMD's.

 

[Pariah]

That's another part of it. The only description I've seen of Intel's implementation is that it is compatible with AMD's. That in no way implies that it is the same implementation. Intel may have added a number of features to make it better and trump AMD again.

 

[ViRGE]

Even if they did, AMD64 is going to be the least common denominator, so it may not affect AMD too much. The industry is very slow to move from the LCD, especially if it means requiring different binaries.

 

[buleyb]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
Even if they did, AMD64 is going to be the least common denominator, so it may not affect AMD too much. The industry is very slow to move from the LCD, especially if it means requiring different binaries.

Well you know hyperthreading is going to be part of this. I honestly can't wait to see how hyperthreading with more units and general usage registers plays out...