64bit Prescott, intel's answer to the athlon64

[butch84]

Check out think link boys and girls. I would linkify it, but alas i dont remember how to do it.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11668

Cheers!!


Me hopes it will work in my asus p4p800!!

 

[mechBgon]

To linkify, do like this, except with square brackets: {L=text you want displayed}www.yoururl.com{/L}

or just click the http button above the text window

edit: LOL, Forum software is too smart for its own good!

 

[Jeff7181]

Or just ignore everything The Inquirer publishes =)

Intel would have some explaining to do if they released a 64 bit CPU soon since pretty much their only response to the Athlon-64 has been "you don't need it."

Or maybe because AMD beat Intel to the punch, it's going to take Intel a while to get 64 bit support from software companies since AMD has been pushing companies to use x86-64.

Or... maybe Intel has been saying "you don't need it" just so it would be a surprise when they release one only months after AMD. Doesn't seem possible though... it would take too much effort to hide that unless they'll be using the same x86-64 instructions as the Athlon-64, which they probably wouldn't do cause it would be like Intel saying "AMD had a good idea, we can't survive unless we copy them."

 

[MDE]

I read somewhere that Intel has already licensed AMD64, so it's a possibility, but take the Inq with a grain (or two) of salt.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Inquirer = Bag of shite.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
Inquirer = Bag of shite.

I agree....This would have amounted to one big secret, and I can't believe it wouldn't have been linked long ago....

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Or just ignore everything The Inquirer publishes =)

Intel would have some explaining to do if they released a 64 bit CPU soon since pretty much their only response to the Athlon-64 has been "you don't need it."

Or maybe because AMD beat Intel to the punch, it's going to take Intel a while to get 64 bit support from software companies since AMD has been pushing companies to use x86-64.

Or... maybe Intel has been saying "you don't need it" just so it would be a surprise when they release one only months after AMD. Doesn't seem possible though... it would take too much effort to hide that unless they'll be using the same x86-64 instructions as the Athlon-64, which they probably wouldn't do cause it would be like Intel saying "AMD had a good idea, we can't survive unless we copy them."

"you don't need it" is exactly what Intel said about bus speeds above 66MHz when Cyrix was using 75/83MHz and AMD started pushing 100MHz. The BX chipset with 100MHz bus from Intel was only about 1 year later.

 

[glugglug]

I still think all you folks bashing the Inquirer have them confused with the Enquirer supermarket tabloid. I would say Inquirer is certainly a more reliable source than C-Net, Maximum PC, PC World, and a lot of the other popular sources out there.

 

[NFactor]

The Inquirer is not an extremely reliable source but they did predict HT on the P4 die before it came out and if you look at some analysis of the Prescott die it is possible that there are hidden 64 Bit extensions on it, but even if there are the capabilities I doubt you will see it for a few years.

 

[Goi]

So is this Yamhill technology?

 

It kind of makes sense why Intel didn't say anything. They were worried about all the R&D that went into the Itanium would be wasted if a Pentium Class CPU can run 64 bit. No one would buy an Itanium if they could get a 64 bit P4(Prescott). I cant say whether I trust or distrust the inquirer, but I will say that, even rumours contain the smallest amounts of truth to them, or they would never have an origination.

What will be will be. I will just buy the fastest most affordable cpu for myself. Intel or AMD does not matter. They both do the same exact thing.

GM

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: glugglug
I still think all you folks bashing the Inquirer have them confused with the Enquirer supermarket tabloid. I would say Inquirer is certainly a more reliable source than C-Net, Maximum PC, PC World, and a lot of the other popular sources out there.

Rubbish, see my thread about an Inquirer story stating that more package pins = more bits.

More reliable than any of the other sorces you mention? I don't think even they would state pins=bits.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: NFactor
The Inquirer is not an extremely reliable source but they did predict HT on the P4 die before it came out and if you look at some analysis of the Prescott die it is possible that there are hidden 64 Bit extensions on it, but even if there are the capabilities I doubt you will see it for a few years.

Who can 'see' extensions of anything in a leaked core photo?

Oh look, here are some transistors. I don't know what they could be for, must be yamhill

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: NFactor
The Inquirer is not an extremely reliable source but they did predict HT on the P4 die before it came out and if you look at some analysis of the Prescott die it is possible that there are hidden 64 Bit extensions on it, but even if there are the capabilities I doubt you will see it for a few years.

Who can 'see' extensions of anything in a leaked core photo?

Oh look, here are some transistors. I don't know what they could be for, must be yamhill

Well there's SO many transistors and SO many pins... it MUST be 64-bit

 

[KF]

I don't know that there is any more to this other than that people like these sorts of stories, therefore the Inquirer will manufacture them.

But it seems like a pretty good strategy, true or not. Even if untrue the FUD brigade has it covered from both ends. "64 bits is un-needed" and "Intel will soon have it." If true, once Intel's commits to a consumer 64 bit instruction set, it will abort any development for AMD64, and developers will switch to the Intel implementation. AMD will be behind until they can get a new revision of their chip into the market supporting Intel instructions.

"Prescott has 64-bit compatibility built in"

This is the meat of the article: sombody supposedly said to a reporter 'Guess what I just heard a senior Intel executive say'. But there is no quote about what that was. Instead, the copy writer says on his own that Prescott has 64-bit functionality in it. If that is what "somebody" said, why not quote it? IAC 64 bit functionality is something present CPUs from Intel and AMD already have, although incomplete. So the copy writer is fabricating a story to seem to say something which it really doesn't say. If readers didn't recognize the technique, then they were taken in. One post said don't confuse the Inquirer with the Enquirer, but if they looked at the Enquirer they might get an education on how these types of stories are constructed.

>I read somewhere that Intel has already licensed AMD64

I keep on seeing this. In reference to other things, people have previously mentioned that Intel and AMD have standing cross-licenses. So they automatically have licenses whether or not they ever intend to use what the other invents. Intel being licensed for AMD64, if they are, doesn't indicate anything one way or the other about their intentions.

Serious competitors like cross-licensing for the following reason: They are both working out the same technology at the same time. Therefore their patents will inter-twine, making it hard to bring out a product that doesn't involve conflicting patents. So they work out a settlement in advance, and are able to take the most advantageous technological course as a result. They aren't going to extend cross-licensing to lesser competitors.

 

[glugglug]

The pin argument is majorly faulty.

Actually there is no way in hell a 64-bit address bus would account for the additional number of pins by itself (only 28 extra address lines, already have 36 from a P4)

A 128-bit/64-bit dual channel data bus is a far more realistic use for so many extra pins. But that has nothing to do with the chip going to 64-bit registers, and 64-bit data buses have been on all PCs since the original Pentium 66, it's about time to upgrade that.