64bit intel is here folks watch out

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
N

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
With some recent benchmarks on AMD64 (that apply to me and maybe no one else on the board), I can't see going with anything else at the moment. Intel's been too tight lipped about the whole thing.
 
E

ExcaliburFX

Junior Member
Jun 11, 2004
18
0
0
I think its a good thing that intel releases their 64 but cpus as sooon as possible and they probably will issu a call back but i dont care , as soon as they release it microsoft will release xp64 and in the end amd users will benefit more. so its a good thing what intel is doing bring more presscots intel :)
 
DrMrLordX

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
22,706
12,663
136
This article is odd. They make no mention of the fact that the EM64T 64-bit extensions on Nocona are highly derivative of AMD's x86-64 extensions. They also claim that EM64T was "previously known as CT and Yamhill". Now, I know that Intel had started calling their x-86 64 ripoff Yamhill back in January of this year, but didn't the term Yamhill first crop up years ago as a side-project to provide an alternative to IA64 and Itanic? It seems to me that Intel co-opted the term Yamhill and slapped it onto their x-86 64 clone effort.

I'd like some info one what the original Yamhill really was. I know it was pushed aside/neglected in favor of Itanic, but I know little else. I'll bet that Yamhill, at least before January, had little if nothing to do with x-86 64.

Edit: This

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/25/1747239&mode=nested&tid=118

is the oldest reference to Yamhill I could find. Hmm, I coulda sworn it was older than that, but oh well. Even still, the logic that EM64T = Yamhill seems flawed. That would imply that they had started reverse-engineering/ripping-off x-86 64 back in January of 2002, if not earlier.
 
V

Vee

Senior member
Jun 18, 2004
689
0
0
Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
I'd like some info one what the original Yamhill really was. I know it was pushed aside/neglected in favor of Itanic, but I know little else. I'll bet that Yamhill, at least before January, had little if nothing to do with x-86 64.

Edit: This

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/25/1747239&mode=nested&tid=118

is the oldest reference to Yamhill I could find. Hmm, I coulda sworn it was older than that, but oh well. Even still, the logic that EM64T = Yamhill seems flawed. That would imply that they had started reverse-engineering/ripping-off x-86 64 back in January of 2002, if not earlier.
Click to expand...
You're quite right. Yamhill is almost as old as AMD's AMD'86-64 specification. But that is exactly what it was: Intel's AMD'86-64 cpu project. It was secret (so as not to harm Itanium credibility) and occasionally 'cancelled' by the now discredited and dethroned Itanium&P4GHz-pipeliner crowd at Intel. The Prescott extensions are not really Yamhill, rather a desperate late resurrection measure. It was called CT, for either "Compatibility Technology" or "Clackamas Technology". If anything deserves to pick up the Yamhill heritage it's probably Prescott's successor: "Conroe" (Which is possibly also the "Pentium 5").
 
C

clarkey01

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2004
3,419
1
0
I cant see these new xeons being great, Intel has been quite about them, just like the were with prescott so dont expect huge performance leaps, I remember a AMD worker joking that "Clackamas Technology" was "Crack In My Ass" technology, which is more or less true.

If AMD hand't brought out AMD64 Intel wouldnt be doing this till 07/08.
 
I

imported_michaelpatrick33

Platinum Member
Jun 19, 2004
2,364
0
0
Until we see benchmarks we just don't know? Until windoze 64 appears the masses won't know. Since the tejas is dead why bring this out now? Are they not reviving their prescott to future campaign or are they going to use the (I never remember its name) mobile PIII derived core for future desktop use? Just asking becuase i don't know and don't feel like researching this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom