FRIENDLY discussion on Processors.

[Platypus]

I swear if any AMD or Intel fanboys come in and start blasting their faux gospel I'm requesting this thread locked, but I just wanted to see what Off-Topic thought about the future of processors, mainly 64bit architecture. I was considering building another workstation in the next year, closer towards xmas, but I am wondering with the new 64 bit chip AMD is supposed to drop by then will be embraced yet? Do you think the home market will pick it up and run with it, or do you think Intel pretty much leads what happens when? Another good point, when will a Windows OS drop that will run 64 bit effciently (I know 2k3 does, but this is a home market question). Is it worth waiting for this chip? Personally I see no reason to rush to 64 bit in the home market, I think it's a few years off still so companies can catch up..etc.

Anyway what are your thoughts on this?

 

[silverpig]

I think only the benchmarks and pricetags will determine if the Athlon 64 gets into people's houses or not.

As for windows, I think that MS will have win64 on the shelves the day before the Athlon 64 hits.

Is it worth waiting for? Depends on how badly you need a new system. If you're running a P200, then no, I wouldn't suggest anyone run with that system any longer than they absolutely had to, but if you've got a decent system now, then you might as well wait.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Given that home users mostly get 256MB now and hardcore gamers need "only" 1 GB of memory even for resource hogs like BF1942 I expect it will be several more years before there is any real benefit to 64 bit memory addressing for home and office-desktop users.

The extra registers are nice, but just give a bit of optimization like with SSE2, and have to compete against 32bit CPUs just increasing their overall MHz speed.

 

[IamDavid]

Remember the software has to support it too..

 

[Glitchny]

i think that 64 bit will be accepted into the market with support from microsoft. Nvidia is already making a single slot workstation board for the cpu and other companies have started as well. So they have accepeted it and i assume the general public will

 

[Platypus]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Given that home users mostly get 256MB now and hardcore gamers need "only" 1 GB of memory even for resource hogs like BF1942 I expect it will be several more years before there is any real benefit to 64 bit memory addressing for home and office-desktop users.

The extra registers are nice, but just give a bit of optimization like with SSE2, and have to compete against 32bit CPUs just increasing their overall MHz speed.

I would tend to agree with this, that's why I asked in the first place whether it's even worth having at this step of the game

 

[Glitchny]

Originally posted by: IamDavid
Remember the software has to support it too..

only to gain benifits, 32bit progies will run native on the athlon64

 

[notfred]

I wonder how many more years we're going to be stuck with wierd hacks for x86 just to avoid recompiling some old code that no one uses anymore. They should really come up with something more modern. We really don't need to keep compatability with processors designed in 1978.

 

[LeeTJ]

i did a thread in GH a while back about how in my opinion, it will be extremely difficult for AMD to keep up with Intel.

here it is.

it stayed reasonably civil and might contain some posts that your interested in.

 

[jonmullen]

I think without a 64bit OS you might aswell go with the 800mhz FSB 1MB cache chips that INTEL should be offering around that time. The other problem I see with the AMD chips is upgrading memory. True you get some speed incress with the on-die controller but your stuck with that. I think your right to not want to rush 64bit to the home market, there is not much need for it. I personally think INTEL's offering at about that time will most likely fit your needs better. The real question is going to be what are you going to be doing on this work station and how much do you want to spend, then you need to look a the pro's and con's of each chip and see which on fits your needs.

 

[Platypus]

Originally posted by: jonmullen
I think without a 64bit OS you might aswell go with the 800mhz FSB 1MB cache chips that INTEL should be offering around that time. The other problem I see with the AMD chips is upgrading memory. True you get some speed incress with the on-die controller but your stuck with that. I think your right to not want to rush 64bit to the home market, there is not much need for it. I personally think INTEL's offering at about that time will most likely fit your needs better. The real question is going to be what are you going to be doing on this work station and how much do you want to spend, then you need to look a the pro's and con's of each chip and see which on fits your needs.

Well for the most part it will actually be a true workstation. I do a lot of coding/rendering with it but I also want something that will have a long lasting lifeline so I can sit with the same chip for a few years. I also want it to be able to handle the new breed of gaming (half life2/doom3) that will be hitting the market around that time too. Gaming is probably my least concern though, I just want something that I can push to the limits and still smile with results. I was considering running dual chips in the box, but I really can't say that software is really "there" yet in making this sort of technology worth doing. I hope in the next few years it is though.

 

[jonmullen]

Originally posted by: notfred
I wonder how many more years we're going to be stuck with wierd hacks for x86 just to avoid recompiling some old code that no one uses anymore. They should really come up with something more modern. We really don't need to keep compatability with processors designed in 1978.

I totaly agree, but moving to a new instruction set would be a massive undertaking. I really doubt AMD has the resources to spearhead it. The big factor is going to be when Microsoft is ready to make the move.

 

[Ameesh]

i think we need to scrap the current x86 architecture and start from scratch, maybe itanium had the right idea i m not sure i think they executed it correctly.

 

[Platypus]

Originally posted by: Ameesh
i think we need to scrap the current x86 architecture and start from scratch, maybe itanium had the right idea i m not sure i think they executed it correctly.

yes.

 

[Ionizer86]

It seems that as of the Clawhammers produced now, they've had to mark up the PR very high. For example, Clawhammer at 1.6ghz was marked as Athlon 64 2800+ according to one article, but the chip is not an extraordinarily amount faster than a 1.6ghz tbred/palomino (athlon xp 1900+)

SSE2 is also pretty slow on the hammer

As for 64 bit architecture, one prediction said that in next year, maybe 15% or so of software will be 64 bit, and then that will increase to 80% by 2010 or so.
From what I've found with technology, buy what you need for now. By the time 64 bit software is rampant, a large number of ordinary people will be getting 64 bit computers, and that's what drives software, not the small amount of geeks out there.

IE for example, if you are building a computer today, get an athlon xp 2500+ barton, because that's a sweet spot: the chip is under $100, and you're getting a lot of speed. Going higher would start costing quite a bit more while going down some speeds is only going to save you small $.

 

[jonmullen]

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation

Originally posted by: jonmullen
I think without a 64bit OS you might aswell go with the 800mhz FSB 1MB cache chips that INTEL should be offering around that time. The other problem I see with the AMD chips is upgrading memory. True you get some speed incress with the on-die controller but your stuck with that. I think your right to not want to rush 64bit to the home market, there is not much need for it. I personally think INTEL's offering at about that time will most likely fit your needs better. The real question is going to be what are you going to be doing on this work station and how much do you want to spend, then you need to look a the pro's and con's of each chip and see which on fits your needs.

Well for the most part it will actually be a true workstation. I do a lot of coding/rendering with it but I also want something that will have a long lasting lifeline so I can sit with the same chip for a few years. I also want it to be able to handle the new breed of gaming (half life2/doom3) that will be hitting the market around that time too. Gaming is probably my least concern though, I just want something that I can push to the limits and still smile with results. I was considering running dual chips in the box, but I really can't say that software is really "there" yet in making this sort of technology worth doing. I hope in the next few years it is though.

If you dont think the software is quite there for dual processors, what makes you think it is any closer for 64bit stuff. The reason I asked what you were going to be doing is to try and decide if you were going to take too much of a proformance hit that comes with the long INTEL pipeline, and I doubt you will. From what I have seen the short pipeline that AMD tries to stick with really helps in Content Creation Office type stuff. I dont know how much the 64bit helps AMD out with rendering stuff, but I would think an INTEL solution with the high FSB is still prospering here. One thing you might want to keep in mind, is if you want to do any 64bit developing, it would sure be nice to test your code on a 64bit processor.

 

[manly]

Intel's roadmap for 64-bit CPUs for desktop PCs is something like 5 years out.

Face the reality; AMD wasn't even able to make much of a dent in low-end SMP servers with Athlon MP. They certainly aren't going to get home users to benefit much from the extra address space.

I'm not knocking Athlon 64. It's certainly necessary for AMD to compete with Pentium4 going forward because the Athlon design is apparently reaching its process scalability limits. But I'd be surprised if Opteron is even a mild "hit" in commodity x86 servers (the fact that Dell is Intel-exclusive basically dooms AMD). 64-bit computing for home users is completely an oxymoron at this point. Enthusiasts should heartily continue to support AMD if Athlon 64 is competitive with Pentium4.

 

[Platypus]

Originally posted by: Ionizer86
It seems that as of the Clawhammers produced now, they've had to mark up the PR very high. For example, Clawhammer at 1.6ghz was marked as Athlon 64 2800+ according to one article, but the chip is not an extraordinarily amount faster than a 1.6ghz tbred/palomino (athlon xp 1900+)

SSE2 is also pretty slow on the hammer

As for 64 bit architecture, one prediction said that in next year, maybe 15% or so of software will be 64 bit, and then that will increase to 80% by 2010 or so.
From what I've found with technology, buy what you need for now. By the time 64 bit software is rampant, a large number of ordinary people will be getting 64 bit computers, and that's what drives software, not the small amount of geeks out there.

IE for example, if you are building a computer today, get an athlon xp 2500+ barton, because that's a sweet spot: the chip is under $100, and you're getting a lot of speed. Going higher would start costing quite a bit more while going down some speeds is only going to save you small $.

I am pretty new to overclocking, but that doesn't mean I don't want to try it. The new 2.4c from Intel I've read can be overclocked a ridiculous amount and still run cool. Is this where I should reside, in the lower priced but higher performing market that has the ability to overclock? What about running dual chips? Is it even worth it...

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

I think AMD is tying up a lot of their future with this chip because what if the market doesn't want it? I mean, there isn't that big of a need for more than 4GB of ram for home use right now and it'll probably be many years before it actually is needed. If AMD doesn't have these chips perform as well as they are expected, then that will be bad not only for people who were waiting for the chip but also for any looking for a new processor because if AMD doesn't show well, then Intel will have the monopoly in the area and they can then set their prices to whatever they want.

You know, I was typing this hole thing with my head horizontally against my chair, it makes my typing look faster for some reason, or maybe I'm just acting weird right now... hmmm

 

[jonmullen]

Originally posted by: manly
Intel's roadmap for 64-bit CPUs for desktop PCs is something like 5 years out.

Face the reality; AMD wasn't even able to make much of a dent in low-end SMP servers with Athlon MP. They certainly aren't going to get home users to benefit much from the extra address space.

I'm not knocking Athlon 64. It's certainly necessary for AMD to compete with Pentium4 going forward because the Athlon design is apparently reaching its process scalability limits. But I'd be surprised if Opteron is even a mild "hit" in commodity x86 servers (the fact that Dell is Intel-exclusive basically dooms AMD). 64-bit computing for home users is completely an oxymoron at this point. Enthusiasts should heartily continue to support AMD if Athlon 64 is competitive with Pentium4.

I think companies like Dell being INTEL exclusive is one of the main reasons AMD needs to try and branchout into the server market. IMO Athlon64 was never ment to compeat too much in the home market, but if they can breakinto the server market they may have a chance.

 

[Platypus]

Originally posted by: jonmullen

Originally posted by: manly
Intel's roadmap for 64-bit CPUs for desktop PCs is something like 5 years out.

Face the reality; AMD wasn't even able to make much of a dent in low-end SMP servers with Athlon MP. They certainly aren't going to get home users to benefit much from the extra address space.

I'm not knocking Athlon 64. It's certainly necessary for AMD to compete with Pentium4 going forward because the Athlon design is apparently reaching its process scalability limits. But I'd be surprised if Opteron is even a mild "hit" in commodity x86 servers (the fact that Dell is Intel-exclusive basically dooms AMD). 64-bit computing for home users is completely an oxymoron at this point. Enthusiasts should heartily continue to support AMD if Athlon 64 is competitive with Pentium4.

I think companies like Dell being INTEL exclusive is one of the main reasons AMD needs to try and branchout into the server market. IMO Athlon64 was never ment to compeat too much in the home market, but if they can breakinto the server market they may have a chance.

This is a very valid point.

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: jonmullen

Originally posted by: manly
Intel's roadmap for 64-bit CPUs for desktop PCs is something like 5 years out.

Face the reality; AMD wasn't even able to make much of a dent in low-end SMP servers with Athlon MP. They certainly aren't going to get home users to benefit much from the extra address space.

I'm not knocking Athlon 64. It's certainly necessary for AMD to compete with Pentium4 going forward because the Athlon design is apparently reaching its process scalability limits. But I'd be surprised if Opteron is even a mild "hit" in commodity x86 servers (the fact that Dell is Intel-exclusive basically dooms AMD). 64-bit computing for home users is completely an oxymoron at this point. Enthusiasts should heartily continue to support AMD if Athlon 64 is competitive with Pentium4.

I think companies like Dell being INTEL exclusive is one of the main reasons AMD needs to try and branchout into the server market. IMO Athlon64 was never ment to compeat too much in the home market, but if they can breakinto the server market they may have a chance.

You miss the point. AMD has been trying with Athlon MP. But until major OEMs are willing to ship SMP servers with AMD CPUs, and corporate IT managers are willing to get past their Intel bias, AMD can't break into the server market. They have competitive technology; they just can't get people to ditch the Wintel bias. And Dell is the most important OEM, so that's why it's so devastating for AMD that Dell's alliance with Intel is unbreakable.

My point is that if AMD can't succeed as a rough drop-in replacement for Intel SMP, then they have even smaller chance of getting 64-bit computing to make a difference on the desktop. Those transitions literally take years, and AMD simply does not have the clout to pull it off. That's not to say Athlon 64 won't be popular, but that customers will be using it as a 32-bit CPU for the foreseeable future.

And you're wrong, Athlon 64 will directly compete with Pentium4 on the desktop. It just remains to be seen if it can be as strong an alternative as Athlon 32-bit has been to date (and note that from a business standpoint, Athlon won the early battles, but lost the war).

 

[jonmullen]

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation

Originally posted by: jonmullen

Originally posted by: manly
Intel's roadmap for 64-bit CPUs for desktop PCs is something like 5 years out.

Face the reality; AMD wasn't even able to make much of a dent in low-end SMP servers with Athlon MP. They certainly aren't going to get home users to benefit much from the extra address space.

I'm not knocking Athlon 64. It's certainly necessary for AMD to compete with Pentium4 going forward because the Athlon design is apparently reaching its process scalability limits. But I'd be surprised if Opteron is even a mild "hit" in commodity x86 servers (the fact that Dell is Intel-exclusive basically dooms AMD). 64-bit computing for home users is completely an oxymoron at this point. Enthusiasts should heartily continue to support AMD if Athlon 64 is competitive with Pentium4.

I think companies like Dell being INTEL exclusive is one of the main reasons AMD needs to try and branchout into the server market. IMO Athlon64 was never ment to compeat too much in the home market, but if they can breakinto the server market they may have a chance.

This is a very valid point.

I mean look at every thing the chip has going for it is geared toward a server market. First and formost 64bit, no home user really needs anything close to this now. The on-die memory controller. Servers have never demanded the fastest and newest memory, but they do need stability. Notice how you have to user ECC ram with the Athlon64. Haveing the memory controller on-die also makes it really easy to build chipsets and motherboards, and having good chipset support is something the Athlon MP was really missing. Last but not least it bridges the gap between Xeon 32bit and itanium 64bit. It offers companies a solution that will work now and down the road something I think alot of big companies look at, they are not like home users who upgrade every few months they buy a technology for the long run and the 64bit with backwards compatibility with 32bit lets them upgrade now and the move their software over as they wish.

 

[WarmAndSCSI]

*WARNING* flamewar inevitable

 

[ndee]

INTEL TEH BEST BUT AMD IS TEH BETTHAR!

btw, dead horse anyone?