disturbing thought about Athlon64 release date

[glugglug]

The first 32-bit x86 (80386) came out in 1983.

The first 32-bit windows was in 1993 or 1994 (NT), maybe a little earlier if you count win32s.

So if AMD is waiting on 64-bit windows to release the hammer does this mean we won't see it until 2013?

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: glugglug
The first 32-bit x86 (80386) came out in 1983.

The first 32-bit windows was in 1993 or 1994 (NT), maybe a little earlier if you count win32s.

So if AMD is waiting on 64-bit windows to release the hammer does this mean we won't see it until 2013?

NO b/c servers already use 64bit, and back then that was the only processor

 

[Tab]

How did they come up with the name x86?

 

[SithSolo1]

Originally posted by: glugglug
The first 32-bit x86 (80386) came out in 1983.

The first 32-bit windows was in 1993 or 1994 (NT), maybe a little earlier if you count win32s.

So if AMD is waiting on 64-bit windows to release the hammer does this mean we won't see it until 2013?

by that logic wouldn't it come out in 2003? I guess I'm missing some information but 1983-1993 = 10, 1993-2003 = 10 😕

 

[paralazarguer]

How did they come up with the name x86?

The intel 8bit processor was called the 80-86 which was very buggy and then revised as the 80-88. Then came the 2-86, 3-86, and 4-86 thus chips with this ISA became known as X-86. The X is just a variable.
Also, I may be remembering incorrectly, but didn't the 386 have only a 16 bit bus and was therefore not a true 32 bit processor? Maybe that was just the SX's. I'm not too sure.

 

[McCarthy]

Thought that was just the SX's, but now I'm wondering too.

 

[jjyiz28]

all 386 run internally at 32 bits. the sx has a 16 bit bus , while the dx has a 32 bit. internally is what counts to make it a pure 32 bit chip.

glugglug: i believe there is a windows xp 64 bit version for the itaniam processors. now they just have to make a 64 bits version for amd, since opteron and itaniam are not interchangable like the pentium and athlons. you are right when you say 32bit OS took 10 years after first 32 bit chip came out, but that is not true nowadays.
ie: long time ago, 286 and 386 processors came out, but the motherboards and chipsets that would support it would take a year to come out. of course nowadays cpu and chipsets come out pretty much the same time.

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: paralazarguer

How did they come up with the name x86?

The intel 8bit processor was called the 80-86 which was very buggy and then revised as the 80-88. Then came the 2-86, 3-86, and 4-86 thus chips with this ISA became known as X-86. The X is just a variable.
Also, I may be remembering incorrectly, but didn't the 386 have only a 16 bit bus and was therefore not a true 32 bit processor? Maybe that was just the SX's. I'm not too sure.

Actually, the 8088 & 8086 differed only in packaging. The 8086 had 16 data bus leads whereas 8088 only had 8 (it took 2 "passes" to get a 16 bit value into the chip). There may also have been a difference in memory addressing, but I can't remember. The Motorola 68000, 68008 and 68020 were the same concept, it was how costs were cut at the time.

 

[thorin]

Originally posted by: SithSolo1

Originally posted by: glugglug
The first 32-bit x86 (80386) came out in 1983.

The first 32-bit windows was in 1993 or 1994 (NT), maybe a little earlier if you count win32s.

So if AMD is waiting on 64-bit windows to release the hammer does this mean we won't see it until 2013?

by that logic wouldn't it come out in 2003? I guess I'm missing some information but 1983-1993 = 10, 1993-2003 = 10 😕

His point was 1983 processor 10 year delay then OS. So we'd have 2003 processor 10 year delay then OS (2013).

Thorin

 

[SUOrangeman]

Isn't there already a 64-bit version of XP? If you look at some patches, you'll see 64-bit versions.

-SUO

 

[thorin]

Originally posted by: SUOrangeman
Isn't there already a 64-bit version of XP? If you look at some patches, you'll see 64-bit versions.

Ya that's for Intel's IA64/EPIC instruction set (Itanium), not AMD's x86-64 instruction set (Opteron or Athlon64).

Thorin

 

[IPLaw]

Fortunately, since Hammer runs 32/64 bit software, AMD does not have to wait for MS to release a 64 bit version of XP. In fact, the primary selling point of Hammer is that is runs existing 32 bit software faster (higher IPC) than existing Athlons at the same clock speed. IMHO they are waiting because they want Hammer to enter the market with a bang (MS support) and not with a whimper (no explicit MS support).