EMT 64 any help for Intel?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
O

Orbs

Member
Mar 25, 2004
97
0
61
Will EMT 64 help Intel come closer to A64 performance? I don't mean in 64 bit specific applications, I mean in general use when compared to an Athlon 64?

Have there been reviewes or benchmarks by a 3rd party (such as AnandTech) on this issue?

Thanks!
Jared
 
S

stevty2889

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 2003
7,036
8
81
64 bit extensions will not affect the Pentium 4 in 32bit applications. The architectural differances are what give the A64 it's edge in gaming, and other programs that run faster on it.
 
Markfw

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
27,429
16,297
136
Originally posted by: stevty2889
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Originally posted by: jose
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16879

Regards,
Jose
Click to expand...

Thats pathetic. Intel just keeps going downhill. Soon they might be the underdog if they keep this up....
Click to expand...

Might be the underdog? Performance wise they seem to be there already...
Click to expand...

Performance wise on 32bit with the extra 1 meg of cache (to 2 meg) they are there in dual mode, but in 4x,8x or 64 bit they either don't even run or get crushed.....I was referrring to the fact that they don't even run the regular 64bit software available today (not compliant) They need special patches to run the software they just added compatability for ? Its not compatable !!!!!!
 
dullard

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,201
4,871
126
Originally posted by: Markfw900
I was referrring to the fact that they don't even run the regular 64bit software available today (not compliant) They need special patches to run the software they just added compatability for ? Its not compatable !!!!!!
Click to expand...
I think you are misunderstanding the article. Of course, I get the impression that the misread answer is the answer that many people were hoping for (jose for example for posting that link in every possible chance). This is a chipset issue, not a processor issue by the way.

AMD's IOMMU is a crude attempt (it isn't a true solution either) to allow a 32-bit device to use DMA to access areas in memory over the 4 GB barrier. I'm sure you all know what devices are: sound cards, printers, scanners, hard drives, etc. This brings up things to think about. Stop reading the bullets when you reach the point where there is no performance problem. Continue reading if you think you will have a performance problem.
[*]Will you actually use more than 4 GB any time soon? If not, don't worry about it.
[*]Any 64-bit device won't have this problem. Some of these are already here and more are on the way. If you have all 64-bit devices, you will have no problem.
[*]So if you are still reading, you have 32-bit devices and more than 4 GB. We now have to think about the chance of running into a problem. Does your 32-bit sound card actually need to address memory areas over 4 GB? Maybe, maybe not. I obviously can't answer this question for everyone. But for my particular usage, I don't forsee that happening.
[*]When your 32-bit device attempts to access over the 4 GB region, is it using DMA? Or does it go through other routes? Probably DMA, but it could be different. If not, you still won't see a performance hit.
[*]Ok now you are in the rare case where you do have 32-bit devices accessing areas in memory >4 GB. Now we have to think about the performance hit. AMD has a crude hardware solution. I say crude since that is what the reviews say. I'll let you search for and read them. Thus AMD will have a slight performance hit. Intel has a VERY crude solution (memory is swapped into the below 4 GB region and then the devices can access it). Thus Intel will have a bigger performance hit. The unanswered question so far is how do the performance hits compare (how much bigger will Intel's performance hit be)? And does it actually matter if your sound card must wait for one extra memory swap?
 
DAPUNISHER

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
32,488
33,585
146
^elite for good reason. FYI, This was just discussed in the comments section of the Opteron vs Xeon article on the front page. If you aren't in the habit of reading them because of the "The message is clear" fanboi crap, you will find some highly knowledgeable cats post up there as well :)

BTW, that Inq article is ancient and the latest RC of XP 64bit supports the Intel implementation which makes that little "1st impression"@the Inq moot. .
 
J

jose

Platinum Member
Oct 11, 1999
2,079
2
81
Some ppl need alot of ram on the desktop, I'm more concerned about the impact it has on the server end. Intel's hack EMT64, is not acceptable for servers.. Imagine enterprise database's performance w/ Intel's approach. :( Why call it 64bit addressing at all ? It has nothing to do w/ performance, it's all about gov. contracts... Specs calling for 64bit capablities,
it doesn't matter how bad it runs so long as it meets the "64bit Processing spec".

I remember long ago , in the late 80's , IBM was claiming 16bit processing w/ a pair of 8bit processors.

64bit computing is here now, it's called AMD64 Linux 64bit...

Regards,
Jose
 
biostud

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
20,254
7,387
136
Originally posted by: jose
Some ppl need alot of ram on the desktop, I'm more concerned about the impact it has on the server end. Intel's hack EMT64, is not acceptable for servers.. Imagine enterprise database's performance w/ Intel's approach. :( Why call it 64bit addressing at all ? It has nothing to do w/ performance, it's all about gov. contracts... Specs calling for 64bit capablities,
it doesn't matter how bad it runs so long as it meets the "64bit Processing spec".

I remember long ago , in the late 80's , IBM was claiming 16bit processing w/ a pair of 8bit processors.

64bit computing is here now, it's called AMD64 Linux 64bit...

Regards,
Jose
Click to expand...

Why is it that Intels solution is utter crap? Maybe it's not as good as AMD's but AMD's SSEx implementations aren't as good as Intels. Isn't it just a matter of programming?
 
DAPUNISHER

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
32,488
33,585
146
Originally posted by: jose
it's all about gov. contracts... Specs calling for 64bit capablities,
it doesn't matter how bad it runs so long as it meets the "64bit Processing spec".
Click to expand...
The U.S. goverment is highly inefficient in every posssible way, so that is simply par-for-the-course brudda ;)
 
dullard

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,201
4,871
126
Originally posted by: jose
Intel's hack EMT64, is not acceptable for servers..
Click to expand...
Real servers will have 64-bit devices and thus don't need Intel's chipset to give 32-bit devices access to >4GB memory addresses. Thus there is no problem at all. What is your point?
 
biostud

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
20,254
7,387
136
Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
it allows > 4 gigs of ram in servers which is a big help for some high end server markets
Click to expand...

The regular Xeons already did that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom