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

[Insomniac]

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

I give AMD the credit of deciding to extend x86 (like Intel had been doing in the past) instead of following Intel. I also credit them for getting Microsoft to develop a 64-bit version of Windows. I give Microsoft credit for making Intel use it. No 64-bit Windows, Intel doesn't make the move.

 

[wilki24]

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.

FINALLY! All this bickering among fanbois, and it took this long for someone to point out the truth.

What I want to know is if the new 64bit Intel chips will also include these extra registers and optimizations that aren't inherently part of a 64bit chip?

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: wilki24

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.

FINALLY! All this bickering among fanbois, and it took this long for someone to point out the truth.

What I want to know is if the new 64bit Intel chips will also include these extra registers and optimizations that aren't inherently part of a 64bit chip?

I have little doubt that they will. Double the registers (computing power) and double the bandwidth. The complete package.

I've been trying to stress this point across, apparently as well as many other, that there is more to the architecture of the A64 design than just 64-bit memory addressing.

The 2.2 Barton does not compare to a 2.2 Clawhammer.

 

[NFS4]

For Intel, 32/64-bit chips a long time coming

http://news.com.com/2100-1006-5160834.html?tag=nl

That development comes after years of the bellwether microprocessor company's having pooh-poohed these sorts of hybrid chips. Last year at the conference, senior researchers highlighted the difficulty of developing such chips and bringing them to market. Intel's disclaimers aside, AMD's 32/64-bit chips seem to have caught on with manufacturers such as IBM and Sun Microsystems.

pooh-poohed?? Hehe

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: wilki24

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.

FINALLY! All this bickering among fanbois, and it took this long for someone to point out the truth.

What I want to know is if the new 64bit Intel chips will also include these extra registers and optimizations that aren't inherently part of a 64bit chip?

I have little doubt that they will. Double the registers (computing power) and double the bandwidth. The complete package.

I've been trying to stress this point across, apparently as well as many other, that there is more to the architecture of the A64 design than just 64-bit memory addressing.

The 2.2 Barton does not compare to a 2.2 Clawhammer.

The real issue with keeping x86-64 is its x86 legacy. The x86 ISA has a lot of instructions that no one uses today, yet they still take up a bunch of die space because they have to be implemented for compatibility. This die space could be used for other performance-enhancing features if it weren't for an obsolete x86 ISA.

 

[jhu]

The real issue with keeping x86-64 is its x86 legacy. The x86 ISA has a lot of instructions that no one uses today, yet they still take up a bunch of die space because they have to be implemented for compatibility. This die space could be used for other performance-enhancing features if it weren't for an obsolete x86 ISA.



those rarely used instructions don't use up a lot of die space because they aren't that fast. you would save a miniscule amount of transistors by taking away the legacy portion (other than the x86-to-risc decoder).

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Insomniac

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

I give AMD the credit of deciding to extend x86 (like Intel had been doing in the past) instead of following Intel. I also credit them for getting Microsoft to develop a 64-bit version of Windows. I give Microsoft credit for making Intel use it. No 64-bit Windows, Intel doesn't make the move.

This isn't the first time that AMD has innovated a cpu feature. I can only presume you guys remember the days of Cu metal layers, DDR RAM, etc...

As for them getting MS to develop Windows-64... It's obvious that Intel has been developing an x86-64 chip for years. You don't think that they've been in contact with MS the entire time? Of course they have.

 

[digitalsm]

**Updated 2/17** It IS AMD64 compatible...out next quarter

So people were right Prescott has 64bit capabilities but its just turned off. Interesting to see Nocona will have it turned on. Windows 64 ships next quarter right?

 

[digitalsm]

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
So people were right Prescott has 64bit capabilities but its just turned off. Interesting to see Nocona will have it turned on. Windows 64 ships next quarter right?

The last report I saw said Windows 64 will ship at the second half of 2004.

 

[First]

OMG OMG, Van Smith was right, Prescott ships with 64-bit disabled, bow down!

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Insomniac

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

I give AMD the credit of deciding to extend x86 (like Intel had been doing in the past) instead of following Intel. I also credit them for getting Microsoft to develop a 64-bit version of Windows. I give Microsoft credit for making Intel use it. No 64-bit Windows, Intel doesn't make the move.

This isn't the first time that AMD has innovated a cpu feature. I can only presume you guys remember the days of Cu metal layers, DDR RAM, etc...

As for them getting MS to develop Windows-64... It's obvious that Intel has been developing an x86-64 chip for years. You don't think that they've been in contact with MS the entire time? Of course they have.

[*]Cu metal layers. That's not really a "feature" per se. It's really something that's needed with today's processors (AFAIK). AMD just happened to be one of the first ones to do it. Intel didn't really have anything to gain from AMD using Cu layers.

[*]Again, this isn't so much a CPU architectural thing, just a memory standard. Intel just went with DDR SDRAM b/c it was cost/performance efficient compared to SDRAM or RDRAM.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
OMG OMG, Van Smith was right, Prescott ships with 64-bit disabled, bow down!

GOOD GAWD MAN!! I had erased that name from my memory banks over a YEAR ago, now you bring it back!!!! DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[buleyb]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
OMG OMG, Van Smith was right, Prescott ships with 64-bit disabled, bow down!

Did he actually predict this somewhere?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: buleyb

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
OMG OMG, Van Smith was right, Prescott ships with 64-bit disabled, bow down!

Did he actually predict this somewhere?

Bah, you're actually making me dredge this up.

June 26th, 2002 news item

I can't believe his web site is still operational.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: buleyb

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
OMG OMG, Van Smith was right, Prescott ships with 64-bit disabled, bow down!

Did he actually predict this somewhere?

Bah, you're actually making me dredge this up.

June 26th, 2002 news item

I can't believe his web site is still operational.

Ahh, the memories. Between Van and Kim Kommando, life is good.

 

[NFS4]

I was over at CPUID.com checking to see if a new version of CPU-Z had been released when I came across this article on AMD's K8 architecture (Opteron/Athlon 64/Athlon FX):

http://www.cpuid.com/K8/index.php

 

[NFS4]

What does 64-bit x86 mean for Intel?

What 64-bit processors REALLY mean to Intel and the marketplace.

 

[Pandaren]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
OMG OMG, Van Smith was right, Prescott ships with 64-bit disabled, bow down!

Uh, no. Van Smith is a raving lunatic.

I think the credit for exposing the 64-bit aspects of Prescott belongs to Han de Vries of Chip-Architect. His March '03 report is here.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
OMG OMG, Van Smith was right, Prescott ships with 64-bit disabled, bow down!

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

 

[NFS4]

http://developer.intel.com/technology/64bitextensions/30083401.pdf

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
OMG OMG, Van Smith was right, Prescott ships with 64-bit disabled, bow down!

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

You must have a nest full of nuts

 

[Insomniac]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Insomniac
I give AMD the credit of deciding to extend x86 (like Intel had been doing in the past) instead of following Intel. I also credit them for getting Microsoft to develop a 64-bit version of Windows. I give Microsoft credit for making Intel use it. No 64-bit Windows, Intel doesn't make the move.

This isn't the first time that AMD has innovated a cpu feature. I can only presume you guys remember the days of Cu metal layers, DDR RAM, etc...

As for them getting MS to develop Windows-64... It's obvious that Intel has been developing an x86-64 chip for years. You don't think that they've been in contact with MS the entire time? Of course they have.

I'm not saying they weren't in discussion. I don't think M$ just decided to make a 64-bit version of XP in 2002, just like Intel didn't decide to add 64-bit extensions in last year. I'm not in a psoition to say who made the decision first, all I can say for sure is AMD started it.

 

[Tiorapatea]

What I want to know is if the new 64bit Intel chips will also include these extra registers and optimizations that aren't inherently part of a 64bit chip?

Looks like they do - had a quick look at NFS4's link

Intel's 64bit extensions

64-bit flat linear addressing, 8 new 64-bit general purpose registers (and 8 old GPRs extended to 64-bits), 8 new 128-bit registers for streaming SIMD extensions (SSE1-3). AFAICT (not that far), this looks pretty similar to AMD.

With all this already in the Prescott core, things don't look as good for AMD as they did a couple of days ago. Obviously, I have no idea how performance will compare between K8 and 64-bit Prescott.

I just hope AMD stays in business and keeps the pressure on the quasi-monopolist.

 

[JeremiahTheGreat]

Intel's offering won't hit mainstream for a while will it? (non-server)

AMD still has the upperhand, for now at least..