Prescott already has 64bit extensions?

[Goose77]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Goose77

Originally posted by: OddTSi

Who said there would be a rift? I think it's pretty safe to say that Intel's 64-bit ISA would eventually be the dominant one. Just like with SSE and 3DNow.

No offence but 3dnow is AMDs.

of course it is, and it is no where near as dominant as SSE, which is hwat the post was illustrating

right.. sorry bout that chap.... read a little too fast and miss read it!! and now i support fully of what was said by OddTSi.

 

[Ardan]

I agree that I doubt Intel is going to pull some new 64-bit architecture for Prescott out of a hat when Microsoft did say they won't support another one. As far as Linux goes, I don't think a release of IA64 or x86-64 is going to swiftly dominate that sector at all. I look at my father, whom is developing drivers for Linux machines that are going onto US Navy Submarines and ask him about all this. He says that Lockheed-Martin has no intention of using either architecture and mentioned that they aren't developing anything for IA64 or x86-64 because their clients don't want to switch to either...and their clients? US Military, Spanish Navy, British Military, and Canada. They already are using 64-bit and aren't going to bother switching. I just don't think either one is going to be the end-all for 64-bit computing because these huge users are already switching to someone else that has a lot more experience with it. I'm sure others will, so don't go and mis-interpret what i'm saying as that NOBODY will . I'm just saying that a lot of the big names where I know people on the inside are saying that they aren't developing in linux for either one (though his coworkers have said they would rather code for x86-64 after using both).


Those are my two cents Good day!

 

[InlineFive]

Coming from Intel this wouldn't surprise me. I find it interesting that whenever Intel (or AMD for that matter) release a new chip it is always marked as being manufacturered at least a year ago. Interesting...

You never know what they get up to!

 

[thorin]

According to a source whishing to remain anonymous

Wow yet another completely and amazingly credible rumour on a topic that's come up 4million times already imagine that.

Yawn

Supplemental Article @ theReg

Thorin

 

[Goose77]

Originally posted by: Ardan
I agree that I doubt Intel is going to pull some new 64-bit architecture for Prescott out of a hat when Microsoft did say they won't support another one. As far as Linux goes, I don't think a release of IA64 or x86-64 is going to swiftly dominate that sector at all. I look at my father, whom is developing drivers for Linux machines that are going onto US Navy Submarines and ask him about all this. He says that Lockheed-Martin has no intention of using either architecture and mentioned that they aren't developing anything for IA64 or x86-64 because their clients don't want to switch to either...and their clients? US Military, Spanish Navy, British Military, and Canada. They already are using 64-bit and aren't going to bother switching. I just don't think either one is going to be the end-all for 64-bit computing because these huge users are already switching to someone else that has a lot more experience with it. I'm sure others will, so don't go and mis-interpret what i'm saying as that NOBODY will . I'm just saying that a lot of the big names where I know people on the inside are saying that they aren't developing in linux for either one (though his coworkers have said they would rather code for x86-64 after using both).


Those are my two cents Good day!

Good info! you'r right, a lot of the large companies and some small businesses have already moved to the 64bit machines, for the fact that software has already been developed for what they need. The x86-64 and intel's instruction set is not to get businesses going, but to allow the consumer to begin the switch. And with this switch, it will allows the adoption of 64bit apps to happen, and because x86-64 is compatible with 32bit apps it allows for the transition to happen at it's own pace and not forced as intel did with the 32bit procs.

Whether any of you like or dislike AMD, their x86-64 procs is a brilliant move on their part. Every one needs to stop being Apprehensive about amd and just take the plung!

 

[Goose77]

HEHE.. repost.. whats up with anand's servers.... notice this has been happening alot lately!

 

[OddTSi]

I have a question. Wouldn't it make sense for Intel to use the EPIC ISA if they do go 64-bit on the desktop processors? Aside from the fact that it's a very modern and very good ISA, having that same ISA on 75% of the world's computers would do marvelous things for the adoption of Itanium processors (assuming they keep 64-bit performance significantly faster on the Itanium). The reason I think this, is that with that big of a marketshare on desktop computers, there will be widespread adoption of all kinds of applications. With everyone having apps that run on the ISA, big companies won't have to either code their own apps or pay some outrageous prices to the only company that's selling it, making the software side of Itanium servers super cheap.

It's like with the Xeon processors. The reason they beat out other proprietary processors so tremendously in workstation server adoption is that they can use the VAST VAST VAST assortment of x86 applications that are already widely available and relatively cheap (if not free in some cases). Releasing an EPIC-based desktop processor would IMHO be the best way for Intel to speed up adoption of the Itanium (again, given that they keep Itanium 64-bit performance significantly faster enough to warrant the higher pricetag). Anyone agree? Disagree? Feel free to point out anything I'm overlooking.

 

[thorin]

Anyone agree? Disagree? Feel free to point out anything I'm overlooking.

The only thing that I'd say you're overlooking was something someone pointed out to me. WHich is, just because Intel now has 75% of the install base for 32bit CPUs doesn't mean that they'd automatically inherit the same install base when people switch to 64bit CPUs. Though at the same time Joe Average is still all about Intel.

Thorin

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: thorin

Anyone agree? Disagree? Feel free to point out anything I'm overlooking.

The only thing that I'd say you're overlooking was something someone pointed out to me. WHich is, just because Intel now has 75% of the install base for 32bit CPUs doesn't mean that they'd automatically inherit the same install base when people switch to 64bit CPUs. Though at the same time Joe Average is still all about Intel.

Thorin

That is a good point, but for that AMD better pull some tricks out of their wand, otherwise Intel will easily come around with some more advertising/marketing and easily take them away. Also, remember, AMD does not have support from a few companies like Dell. Most people, almost all, have heard of Dell and a few other major companies. When the average user thinks of buying a pre-built computer, Dell comes to the minds of most people. Most being greater than the rest, by how much, I'm not sure.

A few posts ago, a quote was used about Microsoft not creating a different 64bit edition for each processor, so I think it would be safe to rule out Intel going with a different 64bit extension than AMD. I have a strong feeling, though, that they will do something very similar to Hyper Threading, just to be on the safe side. I don't expect them to create the ultimate 64bit CPU either because they don't want it to compete with Itanium processors. What I'm guessing could happen, would be that they implement a solution like HT, in that, it will almost be emulated with software but with some hardware support. After all, the software considers HT as a dual cpu machine, for the most part. I don't know too much about CPU design/architecture, but I'm guessing there may be a way to do this similarly, except for 64bit extensions, which would primarily be used for marketing.

Again, this is a big IF thread, but I usually tend to believe that these types of articles arose from something hinting at this, not from some guy's nightly dream. Whatever Intel chooses, it will probably have been thought out very carefully so I don't expect Intel to let the company flop on this. One more thing to note, I wonder how the EE line of CPU's will do with this. As in, if they will contain some special extensions or something other than cache that the standard CPU's won't have...

 

[roboninja]

I would assume the Intel CPU's would use the AMD64 extensions (with obviously a different name ). AMD and Intel have a patent license agreement (notice SSE2 in the Athlon64?). Intel could use the AMD64 extensions failry easily. The only drawback would be marketing, whereby Intel would be using AMD tech. But, it would be great for compatability reasons to only have one "version" of 64-bit extensions.

 

[Wingznut]

Regarding MS stating that they won't create an OS for yet another 64-bit instruction set... Is that for real, or some inquirer/xbitlabs/register rhetoric?

Anybody happen to have a (good) link?

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Wingznut
Regarding MS stating that they won't create an OS for yet another 64-bit instruction set... Is that for real, or some inquirer/xbitlabs/register rhetoric?

Anybody happen to have a (good) link?

A few seconds of Google haven't been helpful toward the goal of finding a link for you, but I do remember reading something similar, though have no idea where.

Even if the statement really did come from Microsoft, I'm pretty sure they'd buckle under pressure and do a port to an x86-64-incompatible extension from Intel. They just like revenue too much to pass up the opportunity, in my humble and inexperienced analysis.

 

[OddTSi]

Originally posted by: Wingznut
Regarding MS stating that they won't create an OS for yet another 64-bit instruction set... Is that for real, or some inquirer/xbitlabs/register rhetoric?

Anybody happen to have a (good) link?

I read something about it on Reuters a while back, but for the life of me I can't get their search to work. People are slightly exagerating what was said though. In the article it stated that Microsoft said they're only going to compile WinXP-64 in two ISAs, IA64 (aka EPIC) and x86-64 and that Intel would have to choose one. They did however say that "slight changes" can be made to the IA64 implementation if Intel so desired. That's basically the jist of it, from what I remember. I'll keep trying to find the article though.

And I'm with jliechty, I'm sure if it came down to it, Microsoft would make an OS for Intel. I doubt they're willing to turn away their biggest "partner".

 

[OddTSi]

I couldn't find it on Reuters, but I found the same article on Forbes.

Click Me

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: OddTSi
I couldn't find it on Reuters, but I found the same article on Forbes.

Click Me

Thanks for the link, OddTSi...

Microsoft Corp. Tuesday announced a version of its Windows XP operating system for Advanced Micro Devices Inc.'s new Athlon 64 processor and said it would also develop an operating system for an eventual 64-bit desktop chip from Intel Corp.

That sure doesn't sound like what people are posting about.

 

[Goose77]

Edit: delete! hehe reposted the same stupid link by accident! Now i cant find the right one. should have bookmarked it!

 

[OddTSi]

Originally posted by: Wingznut
That sure doesn't sound like what people are posting about.

Yeah, like I said, people were exaggerating things (or at the least regurgitating exaggerated info).

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: OddTSi

Originally posted by: Wingznut
That sure doesn't sound like what people are posting about.

Yeah, like I said, people were exaggerating things (or at the least regurgitating exaggerated info).

Yeah, but that's not exaggerating... That's saying the total opposite of what the article says.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Wingznut
Yeah, but that's not exaggerating... That's saying the total opposite of what the article says.

No. Exaggerating? Quite true. Total opposite? Hardly. Consider the quote, in a short context:

"Our operating system will run as long as (Intel) doesn't change the instruction set" from their existing 64-bit Itanium chip architecture, he said. "We will release versions of desktop operating systems for both Intel and AMD."

 

[thorin]

Originally posted by: jliechty

Originally posted by: Wingznut
Yeah, but that's not exaggerating... That's saying the total opposite of what the article says.

No. Exaggerating? Quite true. Total opposite? Hardly. Consider the quote, in a short context:

"Our operating system will run as long as (Intel) doesn't change the instruction set" from their existing 64-bit Itanium chip architecture, he said. "We will release versions of desktop operating systems for both Intel and AMD."

As people have already pointed out:
http://www.forbes.com/home/newswire/2003/09/23/rtr1089274.html
"Microsoft Corp. Tuesday announced a version of its Windows XP operating system for Advanced Micro Devices Inc.'s new Athlon 64 processor and said it would also develop an operating system for an eventual 64-bit desktop chip from Intel Corp."

Now read it over and over and over again until the words "would" and "enventual" sink in, they're future tense (not past or present).

Also note your quote only says they can't change IA64 it DOES NOT say they can't come up with something new.

Thorin

 

[ST4RCUTTER]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: OddTSi
I couldn't find it on Reuters, but I found the same article on Forbes.

Click Me

Thanks for the link, OddTSi...

Microsoft Corp. Tuesday announced a version of its Windows XP operating system for Advanced Micro Devices Inc.'s new Athlon 64 processor and said it would also develop an operating system for an eventual 64-bit desktop chip from Intel Corp.

That sure doesn't sound like what people are posting about.

Wingz

Read a little further down. It does indicate that Microsoft is not willing to implement a third and incompatible instruction set:



Analysts have speculated that Microsoft would choose to support AMD's 64-bit PC architecture since its chip is available first.

But Jones said it would not be difficult to optimize a version of Windows for Intel's architecture.

"Our operating system will run as long as (Intel) doesn't change the instruction set" from their existing 64-bit Itanium chip architecture, he said. "We will release versions of desktop operating systems for both Intel and AMD."
"

thorin,

That sounds pretty much like it's IA-64, X86-64 or nothing else. I think you're being a little generous.

 

[thorin]

Originally posted by: ST4RCUTTER

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: OddTSi
I couldn't find it on Reuters, but I found the same article on Forbes.

Click Me

Thanks for the link, OddTSi...

Microsoft Corp. Tuesday announced a version of its Windows XP operating system for Advanced Micro Devices Inc.'s new Athlon 64 processor and said it would also develop an operating system for an eventual 64-bit desktop chip from Intel Corp.

That sure doesn't sound like what people are posting about.

"Our operating system will run as long as (Intel) doesn't change the instruction set" from their existing 64-bit Itanium chip architecture, he said. "We will release versions of desktop operating systems for both Intel and AMD."[/i]

thorin
That sounds pretty much like it's IA-64, X86-64 or nothing else. I think you're being a little generous.

Not being generous at all, just reading what it says.

Thorin

 

[Wingznut]

ST4RCUTTER...I'm not sure how you are reading that MS would be unwilling to create a 64-bit OS for Intel's eventual desktop platform. You're quote says that their current project will work on the IA-64 architecture and if Intel's future desktop offering doesn't change the instruction set. It does not say that they wouldn't create another if Intel's 64-bit desktop offering is different.

And actually, the quote that I provided says that they WOULD develop one if/when the need arises.

 

[Jumpem]

I hope AMD and Intel come to a consensus. It wouldn't be cool if I had to get a new OS just because I changed my CPU.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

If this is true, it would be a pain for Microsoft to make two versions, making it more confusing for the average customer. I would think that if Intel does go with 64bit extensions, then they will do something similar in terms of compatibility with AMD. This is what Microsoft would probably pressure them to do as well because it is saving Microsoft from future pains regarding different OS versions. Although they would want some compatibility, I think that there may be slight differences in both CPU's, and so it would be the same version of Windows, with some different parts in the OS for each CPU. Imagine if a third CPU company was to create a 64bit cpu...