Originally posted by: CheapTOFU
I believe this is what ppl said when first pentium1 came out!!
My first computer was 486 66mhz..
I was told by ppl that pentium 60mhz was not that faster than 486 66mhz (I didn't know much about comps then)..
of course, when you use dos or old window, 486 is fast..
Also, ppl said pentium 60mhz had problems with dos and windows and I should wait or just buy 486.. but as soon as everyone started buying pentium PCs, there came win95.. and 486 was too slow to do anything...
Same thing will happen again... Microsoft is already working on 64bit OS.. when it comes out, P4 and athlon xp will become like old 486 that no one cares about
Well - there's a bit of a difference with Pentium. And yes, I was around when the whole "My 486/100 beats your P-60 / P-75..."-thing went round. The difference then was Intel was pushing things - as they are doing with Itanium. AMD just does NOT have the same muscle (read: funds/influence) that Intel has. This is not a "Oh, Intel is better than AMD"-type comment, it's merely stating a fact.
Also, it's one thing comparing the "general route" of things to come at the time, which back then was still Intel-only really, as opposed to now, where Intel and AMD *seem* to be trying to go different ways. SEEM because I doubt that they will.
My prognosis/theory is this:
* Intel HAS got the funds/capabilities to have developed and keep on developing a 32-bit CPU and a 64-bit CPU.
* AMD hasn't. Therefor, AMD has to look for other solutions. A less-than-ideal way (but a way nonetheless) is to have its Hammer Solution - the 32/64-bit crossover.
* AMD has to stretch itself - it's got to make sure it has it's fingers in the 64-bit pie for future strategic reasons. It'd be stupid not to.
* The 64-bitness for Desktops is a complete waste of time (see my comment above) - I have extreme doubts that AMD will really be able to push it to any significant degree. Look at the "speed" that the market is picking up Itanium. And that's with Intel's muscle/funds behind it. See now where I am goin?
I worry a little about AMD's future - spreading itself too thinly and trying to do too many things at once. Desktops are DEFINATELY not ready for 64-bitness yet and don't need it. Most servers - don't need it, 32-bit is quite enough for MOST (not all). I am not saying "Thou shall stay on 32 bits", no no - just that the time for "64 bits" has not come yet - though I expect it to be ripe in a few years.
A similar thing has happened with Pentium/Pentium Pro. Yes, at the time it seemed like an iffy move on Intel's part, but I doubt many of you regret it in the long run, as PPro was father/mother to PII and PIII as well - and that was a definite improvement over even a 486/100, eh? .
One point is, you need to have muscle to push 64-bitness out. Software needs to make use of it, the OS needs to be able to support it, and a whole raft of other things that need doing. AMD itself doesn't have the muscle for it (That's my oppinion - correct me if you know better). Intel is pushing towards 64-bit, and look at how far it's got. It's not because of half-hearted attempts, rather just resistances on various fronts. Pushing out a new architechture like that is not an easy or a simple thing.
Hope this helps a little.
- Shathal. .