3GIO Wins! Hypertransport loses!

[AaronP]

I guess the moral of the story is, Intel is still King.

news.com article

 

[ToBeMe]

Yeah, read that too......kinda' figured after last weeks info. that 3GIO had it in the bag. Hypertrans. will still be used in some comm offerings and by AMD.........but, the really strange part to me is, in all honesty, AMD never even put Hypertrans. on the table! Intel walked in with 3GIO and no competition from everything I've read, and both are on the board!:Q Wonder why????

 

[Sohcan]

I don't think AMD ever intended Hypertransport to be used for peripheral input/output, as PCI has been used...it's meant to connect internal components, such as northbridge <-> southbridge on the motherboard. Then the southbridge can have a PCI, PCI-X, or 'Arapaho' bridge for external peripheral connections. That seems to be why they never even approached the commission.

Based on this article, it seems like we won't see 3GIO/Arapaho in peripheral cards for a while...they mentioned that it is intended to be a successor to PCI-X, not PCI.

 

[NFS4]

Ummm, how can HyperTransport &quot;lose&quot; if it wasn't even on the table? Maybe you should change your thread title. That's kinda misleading.

 

[AaronP]

well, there was a thread yesterday where all the amd fanboys came out and said how hypertransport was gonna kill 3GIO for whatever thats worth.

 

[mchammer187]

&quot;AMD, which could not immediately be reached for comment, is a member of the PCI-SIG board of directors, as are Intel, Compaq, IBM, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Texas Instruments, Phoenix Technologies and Broadcom's ServerWorks division.&quot;


&quot;The opportunity has been available&quot; for AMD to propose HyperTransport as a PCI successor, but they didn't approach PCI-SIG, &quot;despite my entreaties,&quot; Tipley said.

i did think they were competing standards until today
but hypertransport still lives on!

 

[NFS4]

But what I'm saying is how can it lose if there was only a one person match? Doesn't make sense.

And I don't think that anyone knew before today that AMd hadn't put HT on the table to compete with 3GIO

 

[GrumpyMan]

Yawn....so what.

 

[AaronP]

okok, I didn't actually read the article, I thought it was sort of a competition. Hey, besides who's to say it wasn't a competition. What they say and do behind closed doors, and what they announce to the media are two different things.

 

[crt1530]

Didn't read the article, huh? WHAT A SURPRISE!:Q

Start a thread first, then figure out what you're actually talking about later. ALWAYS a good plan.

 

[MikeO]

Just dont become a news reader... then you would HAVE to read it before you shout out the shocking news or it would be embarrassing.

 

[Pabster]

ROFLMAO.

It's amazing how a zealot from either side can take a bit of news and title it. Reminds me of after Intel announced Q2 profits, we had the Intel zealots starting threads &quot;Intel beats estimates...&quot; and the AMD zealots starting threads &quot;Intel profits down 76% ...&quot; Same thing here.

I suggest only that the author read the proposed HyperTransport spec and kindly rethink his title. HT was never designed nor intended to replace PCI. 3GIO? Yeah, whatever. HT has massive industry support and will be used in a WIDE, WIDE variety of applications. HT was designed more towards embedded devices and for creating a point-to-point connection. PCI is a horse of a different color, as is/will be 3GIO. Time to do a little research, my friend.

 

[Gunbuster]

Does AMD even own HT? I thought they just renamed LDT

 

[AGodspeed]

Frankly, I find it VERY strange that AMD wouldn't directly propose HyperTransport to PCI-SIG (something up AMD's sleeve, who knows). If you guys think about it, 3GIO is just an idea, all Intel executives can do is say &quot;it's promising&quot; or something like. HyperTransport has already been at least described in detail and implemented, and is showing its face for the first time in August as the nForce. So it seems weird that 3GIO would be adopted by PCI-SIG. Maybe they have a lot of faith in Intel, who knows. Intel hasn't released any specifics yet.

Listen to what this idiot, Insight 64 analyst Nathan Brookwood, had to say about the two technologies. &quot;There's little doubt in my mind that 3GIO is at least as good a solution as HyperTransport,&quot;

What a MORON. Not to be overly critical, but how can he say anything about 3GIO if it's ONLY an idea. 3GIO is not going to come out until the middle of 2003. It's pure speculation on Brook's part. It's like saying &quot;there's no doubt in my mind that the next AMD processor will be better than the next Intel processor.&quot; He's using pure speculation. He might know something we don't, but that quote certainly doesn't prove it.

However, from reading what HyperTransport and 3GIO are, it seems they aren't competing for the same standard. &quot;HyperTransport technology is a way for one chip to communicate with another. For example, a CPU to communicate with a memory controller or a PCI subsystem.&quot; That's directly from the CNET article. &quot;The intent of 3GIO is to be the one unifying input-output technology of the future.&quot; I guess they're slightly different technologies.

 

[WetWilly]

I think the moral of the story is BFD. Like Intel would ever adopt AMD's technology. What are their next headlines? &quot;Intel Rejects EV6/7 Even Though They Bought Alpha&quot; or &quot;Intel Rejects 3DNow!&quot;