Athlon 64 - Intel is jealous?

[metroplex]

I read a CBS market watch report that said something along the lines of:
there was a engineer talk to engineer conference in the past 3 days in San Fancisco, CA, Intel says AMD will launch Athlon 64 next week, they expect negative reaction from market because PC market is not ready for 64 bit computing and lack of application support/etc...

But why would the market readily accept Itanium instead of Athlon 64??

Am I missing something here?

 

[Corporate Thug]

you know intel isnt gonna say "Athlon 64 is a great chip and AMD has done a great job"

i know there are a lot of people salivating over A64 already

 

[cow123]

Itanium was meant for a niche market. Intel disagrees with 64bit computing in standard desktop PC's.

 

[metroplex]

I heard rumors Itanium 2 (maybe its out already, please correct me if i'm wrong) is supposed to deal with 32-bit (legacy) software a LOT better than itanium, but AMD's 64-bit processors are supposed to be much better in dealing with 32-bit software.

 

[bgeh]

Originally posted by: metroplex
I heard rumors Itanium 2 (maybe its out already, please correct me if i'm wrong) is supposed to deal with 32-bit (legacy) software a LOT better than itanium, but AMD's 64-bit processors are supposed to be much better in dealing with 32-bit software.

actually the I2 1.5GHz has a new compiler that enables its 32-bit performance to be as much as a 1.5GHz P4

 

[User1001]

u r comparing products that are meant for way different purposes.

 

[metroplex]

That's what an Intel engineer was doing - stating that the AMD Athlon 64 is no good for the market but what is he comparing it to???? And why would thje market accept the Itanium and not AMD's Athlon 64?

 

[sandorski]

This is what is called FUD(Fear, Uncertainty, Deceit). Just plant doubts into the minds of consumers and you can keep them from rushing out and buying competitors products. The Athlon 64 doesn't need a 64bit OS, drivers, or software to work, it'll work fine and fast on whatever software or OS people are using right now. The only issue that comes up is when people begin using a 64bit OS, then the need for 64bit drivers becomes an issue, but the 32bit Software will still work as if its' on a 32bit OS.

Do people(Home Users, Gamers) need a 64bit cpu? Not really, not now, but it doesn't matter as the Athlon64 is still a step up in performance and usability from the current Athlon cpu line, IOW, besides the increased bitness the Athlon64 is nothing more than the extension of the current Athlon family. There is nothing about it that will cause problems to current Windows users.

 

[pspada]

Originally posted by: bgeh

Originally posted by: metroplex
I heard rumors Itanium 2 (maybe its out already, please correct me if i'm wrong) is supposed to deal with 32-bit (legacy) software a LOT better than itanium, but AMD's 64-bit processors are supposed to be much better in dealing with 32-bit software.

actually the I2 1.5GHz has a new compiler that enables its 32-bit performance to be as much as a 1.5GHz P4

Anotherwords, the standard sucky performance you'd expect from Intel. :disgust:

 

[INemtsev]

I just started learning about cpu.ocing...etc.....I am confused why.....is Intel such a popular cpu...and how come there's so many intel-fan boys around?

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: pspada
Anotherwords, the standard sucky performance you'd expect from Intel. :disgust:

Of course, its 64 bit performance in integer and especially floating point is top of the line.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: INemtsev
I just started learning about cpu.ocing...etc.....I am confused why.....is Intel such a popular cpu...and how come there's so many intel-fan boys around?

I think it started with the Pentium and Intels' marketing campaign as well as its' FPU unit. Add in the timely release of Quake and the early days of the Internet and voila. The Pentium 2 and specidfically the Celeron 300As' overclocking capability just reinforced Intels' place in many hearts. Of course it goes beyond just that, Intel has always dominated the Marketshare in the x86 world, justifiably so since they originally established it.

OTOH, Intels' competitiors had always been behind the curve. When the Pentium came out, AMD was a eneration behind making 486 class cpus, Cyrix had a Pentium class cpu, but it was very weak in the FPU unit and it suffered from CPU ID problems which caused incompatibilities with much software(games mostly). When the Pentium 2 came out, Cyrix pretty much couldn't compete at all and eventually faded away to nothing(VIA now owns them and they still make cpus, but finding them is next to impossible in North America). AMD fared much better with their K6 and K6-2/3 lines, but with the k6-2/3 AMDs' FPU was still weak and needed 3DNow in order to compete head-head with the Pentium 2. Due to AMDs small size though, 3DNow was only able to make up for some of the shortcomings in the k6-2/3s' FPU unit(some games like Quake 2 were able to surpass Intels FPU, but most implementations of 3DNow only made a slight dent in the Pentium 2s' lead) due to a lack of widespread support.

 

[pspada]

Originally posted by: Accord99

Originally posted by: pspada
Anotherwords, the standard sucky performance you'd expect from Intel. :disgust:

Of course, its 64 bit performance in integer and especially floating point is top of the line.

As long as you don't mind recompliing your OS and apps to take advantage. Otherwise they have to pass data through the emulator, and that spells poor performance.

 

[Accord99]

So what? Most IA64 systems will be used with IA64 compiled applications, especially any applications that require high performance, especially given the high level of vendor support it already receives. Its not in the same situation as Opteron/A64 which will live or die based on its 32 bit performance.

 

[Jeff7181]

Yeah, that was kinda ignorant to say Intel processors are poor performers...

 

[OddTSi]

Originally posted by: metroplex
That's what an Intel engineer was doing - stating that the AMD Athlon 64 is no good for the market but what is he comparing it to???? And why would thje market accept the Itanium and not AMD's Athlon 64?

No, the Intel engineer is not the one comparing two different markets, YOU are. The Athlon 64 is a desktop processor. Itanium is a high-end server processor. Even the Opteron isn't technically in the same niche as the Itanium, it's one step down in the workstation class (going up against the Xeon). 64-bit processing is very much needed in high-end servers, 64-bit processing however is NOT needed for desktop processor.

Hell, for the majority of desktop users, most of the AthlonXP and P4 processors aren't needed.

 

[metroplex]

No, the Intel engineer is not the one comparing two different markets, YOU are. The Athlon 64 is a desktop processor. Itanium is a high-end server processor. Even the Opteron isn't technically in the same niche as the Itanium, it's one step down in the workstation class (going up against the Xeon). 64-bit processing is very much needed in high-end servers, 64-bit processing however is NOT needed for desktop processor.

Uh no. The Intel engineer is making the comparison by stating no one needs the Athlon 64. Does GM go around saying that no one needs the Ford Crown Vic???? You just don't do that.

Now that I have a good idea of what's going on, I think AMD is safe and Intel is just trying every way to keep their hold on the market.

If the AMD Athlon 64 can do what the Itanium 2 does and still work better in the desktop environment, all the more power to AMD.

 

[Necrolezbeast]

err...the A64 can't do what teh Itanium can do... The A64 is a desktop/workstation processor, not a server. The Opteron could be put in the same category as the Itanium to a point, but still the Opteron is behind in performance and a hell of a lot cheaper. The A64 will be an awesome processor and I will have one, hopefully by christmas! But please don't start posting all this crap about how the A64 is better than any Intel product because it can run 32-bit and 64-bit at high speeds...the Itanium had no need to run 32-bit stuff as they are made for high end servers (that probably will rarely ever see any form of Windows) and they have their own 64-bit software to use....since most people who have an Itanium aren't trying to play UT2003 or CS all day long and probably having it sit in a rack running some mad-whack server applications!

 

[digitalsm]

Intel is right, there is no real need for a consumer desktop 64bit chip. There really isnt going to be a market for one for several years.

 

[Falloutboy]

but if AMD is sucessful in getting a large number of 64bit processors on the market then things that could take advantage of it albeit a year or two from now will be more aped to be used. This is the same situation when ATI released thier latest and greatest. Thier are a crap load of features that won't be used for atleast a year to come but no one complains its not needed.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: metroplex
I read a CBS market watch report that said something along the lines of:
there was a engineer talk to engineer conference in the past 3 days in San Fancisco, CA, Intel says AMD will launch Athlon 64 next week, they expect negative reaction from market because PC market is not ready for 64 bit computing and lack of application support/etc...

But why would the market readily accept Itanium instead of Athlon 64??

Am I missing something here?

Those of you who are comparing the A64 to the Itanium... Please stop. You're giving me a headache.

They are in two totally different markets... The Itanium is intended for the Enterprise segment (high end servers), while the A64 is destined for the desktop.


That being said, what part of "PC market is not ready for 64 bit computing" do you disagree with? How do you think could you benefit (on the desktop) from a 64bit cpu?

Even still... Don't think that 64bit will make or break the A64. The A64's strength will be it's 32bit performance (along with price, availability, and all of the other things that go along with a successful business model.)

 

[pspada]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Yeah, that was kinda ignorant to say Intel processors are poor performers...

I meant in compaison to AMD chips at the same clockspeed.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: pspada

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Yeah, that was kinda ignorant to say Intel processors are poor performers...

I meant in compaison to AMD chips at the same clockspeed.

I thought that clockspeed doesn't matter. (Or is it only relevant when it reinforces your AMD fanboy argument?)

Maybe you should compare prices of the Athlon and P4 at the same clockspeed.

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Intel is right, there is no real need for a consumer desktop 64bit chip. There really isnt going to be a market for one for several years.

Actually, that's untrue, there are many many niche markets that can make use of > 4GB memory addressability and certainly any app that relies heavily on 64-bit integer and floating point operations. Why do you think that the Operton's preliminary performance numbers put it on par with a similarly configured Xeon system clocked upwards of 1GHz higher?

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Yeah, that was kinda ignorant to say Intel processors are poor performers...

True, however, it is accurate to say that the performance of a 1.5GHz Pentium 4 is poor. The original comparison was bad.

Originally posted by: Wingznut
That being said, what part of "PC market is not ready for 64 bit computing" do you disagree with? How do you think could you benefit (on the desktop) from a 64bit cpu?

Anyone requiring more than 4GB of ram on their system for one. Anything that can use it from Games to 3D Rendering to Video Editing to whatever uses you can find for it. The thing is, there is already a market out there for it.

It's good of Intel to speak on behalf of the market, but obviously Microsoft disagrees, otherwise they would not have invested the money in developing a version of XP that will run on it. Microsoft expects some kind of ROI, and it's very telling what Microsoft sees the market as wanting or ready for and what Intel insists the market wants. Intel's comments on 64 bit on the desktop have been strikingly similar to AMD's comments on Hyperthreading. It's typical marketing, and nothing more.

 

[mechBgon]

That being said, what part of "PC market is not ready for 64 bit computing" do you disagree with? How do you think could you benefit (on the desktop) from a 64bit cpu?

Are you saying that there will be zero performance improvement from 64-bit desktop OS and code, Wingznut? The interview with Epic's Tim Sweeney quotes him as saying that he expects to see some improvements in the effective processing power available. He also seemed to be foaming at the mouth to get a 64-bit x86-compatible platform for his development team, but that's due to the ability to address more RAM.