Intel 64 or AMD 64 POLL & comments...

[cm123]

When Intel releases there Intel 64 CPU, do you feel Intel may have the better CPU than AMD 64?

Do you feel AMD or Intel almost always has the better product? If so which company and why?

Better yet, does any here know anything about Intels 64 bit desktop product/project?

Link below to Intel comments on the releasing a Intel 64 (for those who may not have seen) & AMD 64/XP 64 links etc...

more here in this thread

 

[mamisano]

Intel's 64-bit processor needs to be X86-64 compliant. Microsoft has stated that they will not make 2 different versions of Windows X86-64....can you blame them?

I think that Intel going 64-Bit will help AMD. It shows that AMD is becoming a technological leader in the x86 processor market. They were the first to implement x86-64, on-die memory controller (on an x86 chip), Hypertransport and a NUMA memory architecture.

Also, Intel will need to release x86-64 bit compiliers which are usually better than other commercial compilers. This will also speed up 64-bit software development.

But simply adding x86-64 to current processors will not do much if anything at all for current 32-bit platforms.

 

[labrat25]

Intel's 64-bit processor needs to be X86-64 compliant. Microsoft has stated that they will not make 2 different versions of Windows X86-64....can you blame them?

especially considering the preview edition came out today and only AMD procs are supported (only x86-64)

I doubt Microsoft would re-write all their code to work with a late Intel chip

 

[hytek369]

Originally posted by: labrat25

Intel's 64-bit processor needs to be X86-64 compliant. Microsoft has stated that they will not make 2 different versions of Windows X86-64....can you blame them?

especially considering the preview edition came out today and only AMD procs are supported (only x86-64)

I doubt Microsoft would re-write all their code to work with a late Intel chip

me too, but intel has capital to influence large corporations like microsoft (not that they need the money). it is all about synergy and benefits.

 

[sandorski]

AMD has had years to develop their current X86-64 chips, I doubt Intel has had enough time to come out with a better implementation.

 

[OddTSi]

Originally posted by: mamisano
Intel's 64-bit processor needs to be X86-64 compliant. Microsoft has stated that they will not make 2 different versions of Windows X86-64....can you blame them?

How quickly people change stories to what they want them to be and then spread the lies all around the internet.

"Our operating system will run as long as [Intel] does not change the instruction set" from their existing 64-bit Itanium chip architecture, he said. "We will release versions of desktop operating systems for both Intel and AMD," assuming Intel eventually develops a 64-bit desktop processor.

Source I couldn't find the link on Reuters, but this is the Reuters article reprinted here. And Reuters is not like the Inq that you AMD-lovers like to quote, Reuters is a well respected/trusted news agency.

So to recap, what Microsoft said is that they won't support a THIRD version, not a second. They will make a 64-bit version for A64, and a 64-bit version using IA64 when and if Intel comes out with a desktop 64-bit chip. So Intel does have a choice, x86-64 or IA64.

I for one hope that they choose IA64 since that is a FAR FAR FAR superior architecture than x86 and it's well time we transition away from x86.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: mamisano
Intel's 64-bit processor needs to be X86-64 compliant. Microsoft has stated that they will not make 2 different versions of Windows X86-64....can you blame them?

They've never officially said anything about the matter, merely lots of uncited quotes and rumors. As it is Windows NT 5+ is already available for 2 64 bit architectures, and given its relatively portable nature (earlier versions of NT could run on a variety of platforms) and the massive combined software resources of Microsoft and Intel, it wouldn't be too hard to support a third 64-bit architecture if they wanted to.

 

[VIAN]

Intel is all about the GHz. Everything that they do is to increase the GHz so that they can fool people into buying their product. If they had nothing to hide, then they would have taken AMD's proposal on Performance Ratings. A unified Performance Rating for CPUs. They will only implement 64-bit if their sales start to slide because of their lack of it.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: VIAN
Intel is all about the GHz. Everything that they do is to increase the GHz so that they can fool people into buying their product. If they had nothing to hide, then they would have taken AMD's proposal on Performance Ratings. A unified Performance Rating for CPUs.

And how do you propose performance ratings when Intel and AMD's CPUs all have different strengths and weaknesses? Who decides which benchmarks should be included, what their weight is? How are you going to combine the benchmarks into a meaningful rating, or will all CPUs end up with 10 numbers?

 

[Peter D]

Originally posted by: sandorski
AMD has had years to develop their current X86-64 chips, I doubt Intel has had enough time to come out with a better implementation.

 

[VIAN]

And how do you propose performance ratings when Intel and AMD's CPUs all have different strengths and weaknesses? Who decides which benchmarks should be included, what their weight is? How are you going to combine the benchmarks into a meaningful rating, or will all CPUs end up with 10 numbers?

Idk, AMD is the one who made it up. But if they did take that performance rating scheme. Their Celeron sales would drop like flies. And that's where they make a large chunk of their money.

 

[cm123]

It would not surprize me if in fact Intel was/has been working on a desktop 64 bit a long time ago.

Question I have is, since PCIX is a 64 bit slot, will we see a speed increase with the AMD 64 over the P4/32 bit?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: cm123
It would not surprize me if in fact Intel was/has been working on a desktop 64 bit a long time ago.

Question I have is, since PCIX is a 64 bit slot, will we see a speed increase with the AMD 64 over the P4/32 bit?

No, totally different situation, not directly interconnected.

 

[Corporate Thug]

who knows. its not unreasonable to think they will and its not unreasonable to think they wont

 

[cm123]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: cm123
It would not surprize me if in fact Intel was/has been working on a desktop 64 bit a long time ago.

Question I have is, since PCIX is a 64 bit slot, will we see a speed increase with the AMD 64 over the P4/32 bit?

No, totally different situation, not directly interconnected.

True, however increase in size data path in both vs just PCI bus? At some point data moving from a 64 bit bus through to a 64 bit cpu vs 32 bit CPU, there has to be a change in the bus or for AMD in hyper transport, at least you would think it so?

Good link to a review withVIA K8T800 map

With both a larger PCI bus & cpu, could it not be possible to increase HT to 32 bits from 16 bits?

 

[Boonesmi]

without native 32bit support, intel first x86-64 will probably be very slow in 32bit apps

making the athlon64 by far the superior cpu

 

[Tom]

Yea, of course Intel's might be better, but I think the more likely thing to be better is the motherboards and chipsets.

Not that the motherboards and chipsets for Athlons have improved quite a bit, but so far I still see that area as the biggest difference between the two platforms.

 

[nick1985]

13 for AMD forever
0 for Intel forver

:beer::beer:

 

[Pistolero]

Screw Intel... they weren't going to make 64 bit a mass public thing until AMD showed them that it's something people are interested in.

 

[Viditor]

A lot of hypotheticals there...

1. Intel will almost certainly NOT use IA64 for the desktop. The conversion to EPIC and vastly reduced x86 speed are the main reasons that Itanium sales remain quite dismal.

2. Based on lead times required, it's inconceivable that Intel will have an x86-64 CPU before Tejas. Given that, it will probably be multi-core, SOI, and 65nm (as will AMD's K9, due out near that time as well).

3. As Tejas will be the next generation, there are even more questions...
a.) Will it use Hypertransport? (they are licensed to use it...)
b.) Will it have an onboard memory controller?
c.) Will they increase the Trace Cache?

IMHO, there is far too little info available to answer the questions...
We probably won't have even a glimmer of an idea for at least 12-18 months...

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: nick1985
13 for AMD forever
0 for Intel forver

:beer::beer:

that just shows stupid fanboism

i personally buy whatevers better. i have a 2.8C now but my next chip will prolly be a A64

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Viditor
A lot of hypotheticals there...

1. Intel will almost certainly NOT use IA64 for the desktop. The conversion to EPIC and vastly reduced x86 speed are the main reasons that Itanium sales remain quite dismal.

And that most desktop apps are very much not parallel, where many many many many server apps are, so even if you could get over the emulation thing, most apps would need to be rewritten.

2. Based on lead times required, it's inconceivable that Intel will have an x86-64 CPU before Tejas. Given that, it will probably be multi-core, SOI, and 65nm (as will AMD's K9, due out near that time as well).

However, if they have 64-bit address space on the way anyhow, they might be able to make some instruction converter of some kind (arg...I know there is a nice word for that), and basically add the registers and such, then tack the hardware emulator whatever (after this post I'm googling for a bit on that!), and go for it. If they had 64-bit on the way and it was IA64...yeah, nothing until then.

3. As Tejas will be the next generation, there are even more questions...
a.) Will it use Hypertransport? (they are licensed to use it...)

Seems a prestige thing for them not to use it for the CPU's bus.

b.) Will it have an onboard memory controller?

They used the i850 mess to show why they weren't bothering, and they have good performance without it. I wouldn't be at all suprised if the whole long pipeline thing helps make up for it and gove the memory controller time to do its job, where AMD is heavy on speedy branching. Know any good places to read up on such things?

c.) Will they increase the Trace Cache?

Why not? if it is needed, they will .

IMHO, there is far too little info available to answer the questions...
We probably won't have even a glimmer of an idea for at least 12-18 months...

Nope. I'd hate to be one of their engineers in that stuff...having the tech for years in advance and keeping my mouth shut.

 

[Excelsior]

You really need to change the question in the poll to "Do you think Intell will release a better 64bit chip?"

OF course they may release a better one. In fact, why would anyone vote no? That's saying no, there is no chance Intel will come out with a better chip. I find that hard to believe.

 

[nemesismk2]

Intel are playing catchup because AMD has a huge advantage with their excellent 64bit cpu. The question should be how long will it take Intel to release a 64bit chip which is equal to AMD's?

I noticed that nobody has voted for "intel forever", where are you intel owners?

 

[cm123]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Yea, of course Intel's might be better, but I think the more likely thing to be better is the motherboards and chipsets.

Not that the motherboards and chipsets for Athlons have improved quite a bit, but so far I still see that area as the biggest difference between the two platforms.

You are right, at all the systems builder meetings, thats always a hot topic (has been since the K7 came into the picture). As a AMD 64 owner, I do have to say although the AMD 64 setup is far better than past AMD MB/Chipsets, as an employee at a system builder, some of the low cost AMD 64 boards are the best (less issues) to work with we are finding this time around (Shuttle/nvidia & the ECS(A2)/sis), even over MB like the Asus & MSI.

Just maybe we will see this change with the AMD 64, at least improve accross the board a fair amount.

Just my thinking, I feel AMD as Intel does, should release chipsets along with set the standards some with there own main boards. We sell to many VARS that will ONLY buy a Intel MB, as it always works. Like the Intel market, there still would remain all the other MB companies. Many other system builders bring this point up as well. The new AMD 64 memory controller helps in this area, yet more needs to happen/improve.