AMD OWNS 100% MARKET SHARE OF 64 BIT COMPUTING.

[Noid]

Cray goes AMD

I had a bunch of stock earlier this year. I wish I could have held it ...
(I could have bought a new car or something )

 

[0roo0roo]

aren't most amds sold chips 32bit? basically u have to go 64 bit if u go apple now, probably makes up for the difference of a smaller market.

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
OH MY GOD! AMD has 100% of 64-bit CPU's out there, despite the fact that a 64-bit supporting OS isn't even out yet (the oft-delayed Windows XP 64, which doesn't improve anything btw) let alone 64-bit applications.

Ahem.
Suse 9.0 64 Bit Edition
And:
Kernel.org

Linux was first developed for 32-bit x86-based PCs (386 or higher). These days it also runs on (at least) the Compaq Alpha AXP, Sun SPARC and UltraSPARC, Motorola 68000, PowerPC, PowerPC64, ARM, Hitachi SuperH, IBM S/390, MIPS, HP PA-RISC, Intel IA-64, DEC VAX, AMD x86-64 and CRIS architectures.

And from my current kernel config file:

# CONFIG_MK8 is not set

It is also incredibly inaccurate to say that they've cornered the 64 bit computing market, as there have been other 64 bit processors out there, for quite some time.
DEC's Alpha, which coincidentally NT was capable of running on.
MIPS, which was used primarily in embedded systems.
Sun's UltraSPARC, which should need no introduction.
Apple's G5 (AKA, IBM's PowerPC 970), which is also competing in the desktop market.
That's just what I could come up with off the top of my head.

Intel must be quaking in their boots that thousands of AMD buyers are getting a feature none of them can use yet. Bravo!

Actually, they probably are worried about it. If you start seeing more widespread market adoption of 64bits of precision (and double the registers) before you start seeing widespread multithreading support, they have cause to worry.

Seriously, in 6 months, this might mean something. In 2 years, it probably will, but right now AMD's small quantity of overpriced 64-bit CPU's out there means nothing in the grand scheme of 64-bit computing.

Actually, it means a great deal. It offers PC users the capability of transiting from 32 bits to 64 bits. Eventually a lot more software will be able to make use of more than 4GB of ram -- hell, there are things now that can benefit from it, and this is desktop software. If you look at scientific research firms and engineering firms, which use massive clusters of PCs in order to accomplish their simulations, they will benefit from it as well. Anand mentioned this in a tour of nVidia's engineering plant a while back, IIRC.

Obviously if Intel has no 64-bit mainstream CPU to combat AMD (which will have an abundance of them in a few months) in a few years from now, when 64-bit computing will actually be required, then this is a very significant thing. However, as of now, it means absolutely zilch.

It doesn't mean zilch to the niche markets that can make use of the extra precision NOW. The facts are that they are SELLING these processors, and that people will make use of 64 bits where they can. Remember, in 32-bit mode, the Athlon-FX51 can match up well with a P4EE 3.2GHz. In 32-64 compatibility mode (64bit OS, 32 bit apps), there are double the number of registers available, which offers a good performance boost unto itself.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: oldfart
[Dr. Evil] ONE MILLION CPU's!!! [/Dr. Evil]

LOL!

 

Umm Jiffy, not to nitpick or anything but, your forgetting that Windows isn't the only OS out there. There are Solaris, Linux, Unix (many many flavors of Unix) that can all run 64 bit. You many not think so, but only a small percentage of mainstream corporations use Microsoft Operating systems for their backbone. Most use Linux and Unix. Some even still use Novell (not sure if it is 32,64 or both).

Ticky Boy here is getting really excited over this. Do we know why? Or, do we really want to know what makes Ticky Boy, tick? I'm not goin there.
He hasn't learned from the last few threads he made that worship AMD.

Tick, how many of us do you think actually care about how much market share for 64bit computing AMD owns?
I dont. At least not for another year at least. Quit trying to get everyone drawn into a debate of crap.

Do yourself (and us) a favor since you are obviously waayy ahead of your time. Dont post here for one year. When you come back, you might be right on schedule.

GM

 

[Acanthus]

Again, the primary benefit of 64bit is memory addressing. The end user cannot use more than 2GB (hell the average non-gamer prolly cant even push 512). There is no need for 64-bit now.

Anyone have any proof via linux that you see definitive performance increases running an A-64/AFX in 64 bit mode on the same app?

From what ive read the performance difference will be negligable.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Again, the primary benefit of 64bit is memory addressing. The end user cannot use more than 2GB (hell the average non-gamer prolly cant even push 512). There is no need for 64-bit now.

Anyone have any proof via linux that you see definitive performance increases running an A-64/AFX in 64 bit mode on the same app?

From what ive read the performance difference will be negligable.

What site was it that did tests under Linux to show the difference? If I remember correctly, they came up with about a 40% gain in performance when doing a task optimized to take advantage of the A64's 64-bit architecture. (40% increase over the same thing, but compiled for 32 bit processors)

 

[Fox2k]

Originally posted by: Ticktanium2038
Well its darn close. Itanium and Apple arent even remotely close.

Has anyone seen how many Itanium sold since the Opteron.

This it Intel's nightmare and I am not sure why no one has done a story on it.

You see everyone is comparing it to a 32 bit cpu but no one is realizing AMD is pumping out THOUSANDS of these 64 bit CPU's becasue the 32 bit performance is so spectacular.

Production is ramping up to be in the 100's of thousands before years end. Not only that AMD plans to and has the ability to stay 1-2 steps ahead of Intel throughout 2004 and into 2005.

Tack on another Million or two plus processors over the year 2004 and guess what.

YOU HAVE A MAJOR MARKET BASE IN 64 BIT COMPUTING AND AMD OWNS 100% OF IT. INTEL 0%

CAN YOU SAY CHECKMATE.

It's about time. Remember way back when, like a year or two ago, AMD was almost gone? It's about time the tables turn. As consumers we can't afford to let either Intel or AMD get way ahead of the game, because thta means monopoly, and monopoly means higher prices. It's about time Intel got a taste of their own medicine

 

[Ticktanium2038]

Opteron is the fastest 32 bit processor in most applications and there are a lot of people buying it just for that reason alone. Yes it DOWNWARD compatible. I use the word DOWNWARD because its LEGACY 32 bit supported. LOL and its faster than Intel at LEGACY applications.

64 bit processing power just sitting there waiting to be switched on sometime in the future.

Since the Opteron is priced inline with the Intel chips 64 bit power is a free upgrade you cannot get from an Intel CPU.

Granted today I may not need 4 gigs of ram nor may I need it down the road but its nice to see I can upgrade my PC's power and ability by just upgrading the Operating system and applications without having to rebuy all new hardware.

Its like getting a free upgrade to a 64 bit computer!!! WOW!!!

Where if I bought an Intel chip today I would have to buy another in 2005. Not if I bought the Opteron because it already does 64 bit and it wont cost me a penny more. WooHoo.

And all this 64 bit power will be available to me in 9 Months? Double WooHoo.
But if I wanted to use this power today I could because Linux runs 64 bit. More WooHoo's.

For those who just buy it for its SUPERIOR 32 bit capabilities are just adding to that great big 64 bit Market shared that AMD runs.

 

[Wingznut]

Why do you keep calling it Opteron? Opteron is a workstation/server chip.

 

[Ticktanium2038]

Opteron/Athlon 64. Take your choice.

Athlon 64's might just be Opterons that dont pass as Opterons. When I reference Opteron I am referencing the whole 64 bit line.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Ticktanium2038
Opteron/Athlon 64. Take your choice.

Athlon 64's might just be Opterons that dont pass as Opterons. When I reference Opteron I am referencing the whole 64 bit line.

Then "Hammer" would probably be a more correct term.

 

[Ticktanium2038]

For once you an I agree. What's next World Peace?

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Ticktanium2038
For once you an I agree. What's next World Peace?

I'm just trying to help you get SOMETHING right.

Btw, where'd you get "1 million" Hammers sold within nine months? No theory is solid when the very base is inaccurate.

 

[mrgoblin]

Amd did a crappy job releasing the hammer. WHY didnt they just blow their load and release uber ramped .13 chips? I know they could have if they wanted. WHen .09 comes out I hope they dont let intel outplay them again. They wont get a 3rd chance to recover.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: mrgoblin
Amd did a crappy job releasing the hammer. WHY didnt they just blow their load and release uber ramped .13 chips? I know they could have if they wanted. WHen .09 comes out I hope they dont let intel outplay them again. They wont get a 3rd chance to recover.

Isn't AMD planning on skipping .09 and going straight to .065?

 

[Ticktanium2038]

Never anything positive from an intel spokesperson like you wignutz? Do you work for thier marketing department?

In retrospect I think it may be the first time you got something accurate and made a valid point without spitting out stuff you never back up or hope someone else can backup for you.

-

Dont be surprised if AMD beats Intel to market in FAB9.
IBM is producing the chips for AMD and weve already seen that IBM can deliver.
Intel still seems to be having problems with FAB9 otherwise we would have seen somthing by now and prescott wouldnt be delayed until the second half of next year. If that holds up then AMD could beat them out the door.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Ticktanium2038
Never anything positive from an intel spokesperson like you wignutz?

Sorry, not a spokesman. Even says so in my sig.

Do you work for thier marketing department?

Nope. Work in a fab. But I think you already knew that. You just like to sling mud at me whenever you can't prove any of your BS.

In retrospect I think it may be the first time you got something accurate and made a valid point without spitting out stuff you never back up or hope someone else can backup for you.

Hypocrite is the word that comes to mind when you talk about others "spitting out stuff you never back up..."

Dont be surprised if AMD beats Intel to market in FAB9.
IBM is producing the chips for AMD and weve already seen that IBM can deliver.
Intel still seems to be having problems with FAB9 otherwise we would have seen somthing by now and prescott wouldnt be delayed until the second half of next year. If that holds up then AMD could beat them out the door.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Neither Intel nor AMD has a Fab9. Wait... Are you talking about a .09µ process? If so... Then (yet again) you are making no sense and basing nothing on fact.

 

[Ticktanium2038]

Not entirely. IBM is developing the process that will bring it to .065 as soon as possible but .09 will be very soon. Its thought that the SOI process that will work on .09 will also work on .065. With IBM at the controls AMD is in good hands.

AMD will defiantely beat Intel to .065 with IBM doing the job.

That doesnt matter so much because Intel cant get prescott .09 working with strained silicon at decent speeds and .065 almost certainly wont work with it. I expect the SOI announcement soon for Intel.

Intel is in bad shape here because they wont be able to ramp up speed as fast as AMD will be able to.

 

[Ticktanium2038]

Wingputz. Try working on the topic not your personal attacks on me.

And who might I ask's fab plant do you commend?

AMD would only need the fab plants to make a little more on each proc but outsourcing the process instead of incurring the cost of retooling is a much smarter process right now. All AMD has to do is partner with the best manufacturing company and chips get made. If Intel slips up on a manufacturing process (Ooops Prescott on Strained Silicon) Then they have delays. Like the Prescott 6 monther right now.

IBM right now is significantly farther ahead on the manufacturing process than Intel. Its obvious by the multi core cpu IBM recently produced that Intel doesnt have coming until 2005. IBM is also the leader in SOI manufacturing process a process superior to strained silicon which has yet to be produced in quantity from Intel.

Try Again Wignutz.

 

putz

 

[Wingznut]

It must be nice to be able to post without the constraint of the requirement of accuracy or rational. Unfortunately, I do not have the same luxury as I hold myself to higher standards... But I'll attempt to address your concerns.

Wingputz. Try working on the topic not your personal attacks on me.

And intentionally misspelling my nickname isn't hypocritical? Btw, I won't respond in kind as I think I quit calling people names in the 7th grade.

And who might I ask's fab plant do you commend?

I have no idea what you are asking.

AMD would only need the fab plants to make a little more on each proc but outsourcing the process instead of incurring the cost of retooling is a much smarter process right now.

Again, I'm not sure what you are saying. Retooling a fab and adding fabs are two very different things. I agree that increasing manufacturing capacity is something they strive for. This is hardly anything but obvious. Outsourcing is one way of accomplishing that, but if you don't think that concept brings along its own problems, then you are mistaken.

If Intel slips up on a manufacturing process (Ooops Prescott on Strained Silicon) Then they have delays. Like the Prescott 6 monther right now.

Happen to have any proof... Or are you just slinging these things out as they pass through your head? (And no, "Try Google if you cant find it." isn't proof...

)

IBM is also the leader in SOI manufacturing process a process superior to strained silicon which has yet to be produced in quantity from Intel.

Why are you comparing SOI to SS... It's like apples to oranges. They are very different means to accomplish very different (specific) goals. Do you realize that, eventually/probably, semiconductors will be built on wafers that are BOTH SOI and SS?

 

[Jeff7181]

Do you realize that, eventually/probably, semiconductors will be built on wafers that are BOTH SOI and SS?

I thought that's what Intel planned the whole time... to use SS to wring out what they can, and then start using SOI in combination with it. Since this post is already off topic... Wingznut... as someone who actually has some sort of qualification to provide some insight into this question... what do you think of synthetic diamond being used as a semi-conductor in the future? The physical properties of diamond is superior to silicon in this application, it's ability to withstand much higher temperatures in particular, that's a fact. And I've read that in 10-15 years, it will be possible to use synthetic diamond instead of silicon. So... if that's true, and that happens, do you see CPU's running VERY hot without concern because diamond can hold up to the heat? I know you're not an expert, but from an engineering standpoint, what kind of temperatures would just be too hot to use in a home computer? I mean, obviously, even if the CPU could handle it, ya can't really have a processor that runs 600 degrees C sitting on your desktop.

 

[Ladybug7709]

ticktanium, you are making yourself look like a ignorant fool responding with baseless facts. You remind me of the Iraqi information minister with such quotes like, "AMD will defiantely beat Intel to .065 with IBM doing the job."

"Intel is in bad shape here because they wont be able to ramp up speed as fast as AMD will be able to. "

get a life!

 

[Ticktanium2038]

Winnutz who's fab plant do you work for?

LOL. I will let the next 9 months speak for themselves.