Intel 64 or AMD 64 POLL & comments...

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: 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.

NVidia got bitten with the NForce and took too long to get it working well and right.
VIA was sh!t, but grew because nobody had anything in the price range.
VIA then got their act together with the KT266A, and peaked at the KT333. Finally, VIA cost w/ no downsides.
And SiS, slipping in just as the door closed, whispering softly, released the 735, equal in performance to the VIA, cheap and aside from being picky on the RAM and PSU, had near the compatibility and stability of AMD's own chipset, and a chipset worthy of low-end servers (and now the 746/748).

Overall, AMD chipsets have come a long way, with blazing speed, since the much-reviled KT133. My last three systems have been plug in and go (AMD760, KT333, NF2 Ultra 400). Overall, I think everything needed is there, but businesses don't move quickly. VIA still carries their old stigma with them, and with massive sales, SiS is about the only one able to quickly change their reputation. IMO, if they can keep up the current standards of quality, it's only a matter of time before more business stop caring about being Intel/Intel (or AMD/AMD, but few to no moderate desktop boards use the AMD chipset).

BTW, my vote is no. AMD has been competetive since the first K7, and in the last two years has narrowed the gap between big ol' Intel, got a a good foothold with the AMD 760, and is milking Opterons for all they are worth (a lot, apparently). AMD seems to be getting better and better business sense--now all they need is an effective marketting campaign.

 

[beyoku]

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.

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...

what he said amout IA64

 

[uncleX]

>When Intel releases there Intel 64 CPU, do you feel Intel may have the better CPU than AMD 64?
I know Intel COULD do a better x86 extension than the limited improvements AMD chose... if they wanted to. Exactly why they don't want to can only be a guess. But, likely they thought the Itanium was going to work itself out before now, and they thought obsoleting x86 completely was the best way to get a fabulous price for an IA64 chip, and leave AMD with nothing but an orphan instruction set an obsolete CPU.

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

AMD is always better. Good performance for less. Admittedly the Celerons of a certain era were an exception, provided you bought the cheapest clock grade and OCed the p*ss out of them. Under those circumstances, they represented good value. I owned a couple.

Chipsets for Athlons have always been OK (VIA included), except with some sound cards, AFAIK. I don't know what kind of absolute crap "system assemblers" like to stick their customers with, but if they stuck with mobos recommended on this forum instead, they should have done well.

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

Probably a lot of people do, but it is under NDA. If you have signed an NDA and you find out the info through "other" channels, you are sort of out of luck.

 

[Brucmack]

I've seen a lot of people saying stuff like how Intel is way behind with development so AMD will keep a large lead even if Intel decides to go 64-bit... really, I don't buy this argument, because I can't imagine Intel not having some way to (relatively) quickly move to 64-bit if they are getting burned.

It's even possible that they have some kind of 64-bit support build into Prescott, waiting to be turned on. Remember how a long string of P4s had HyperThreading in them before anyone found out about it? I wouldn't put it past Intel to pull a surprise on us again.

 

[Jeff7181]

AMD was the first to bring 64-bit to the desktop, so that's what all the developers have been working with.

One of two things will happen with Intel 64-bit desktop CPU's. They'll either have to follow suit and use AMD's x86-64 design, or they'll have to create their own and get software companies to back them instead of AMD and drop AMD's 64-bit design and force AMD to change their's to match Intel's. Which is more likely? My opinion is that the first scenario is more likely.

 

[Viditor]

Brucmack - "I've seen a lot of people saying stuff like how Intel is way behind with development so AMD will keep a large lead even if Intel decides to go 64-bit"

It's not that intel made a development or research or even a manufacturing error, they appear to have made a strategic error 5 years ago...
Some things you should know when evaluating the situation...
1. It takes 5 years to produce a next-generation CPU, even for Intel
2. It takes 1-3 years to revamp an existing design (the greater the change, the longer it takes).
3. x86-64 requires a LOT of changes (new registers, cache design, etc...)
4. Opteron hasn't even been out for a year
5. Because of the time it takes to develop ANY CPU, Intel's 64-bit strategy was created before even the first Athlon was released

There are a lot of misconceptions out there about how quickly and easily a semiconductor can "change horses"...
Quoting from Anand's article on the Prescott:
"Despite the conspiracy theorist view on the topic, a 31-stage Prescott pipeline was a calculated move by Intel and not a last-minute resort. Whatever their underlying motives for the move, Prescott's design would have had to have been decided on at least 1 - 2 years ago in order to launch today (realistically around 3 years if you're talking about not rushing the design/testing/manufacturing process). The idea of "adding a few more stages" to the Pentium 4 pipeline at the last minute is not possible"

As you can see, what many people assumed was a "last minute" change to the Prescott really couldn't have been...
The same is true for x86-64. There is far too much to change before Tejas is released in mid-late 2005, no matter HOW much money you can spend on it...

 

[TerryMathews]

If Intel releases a desktop processor utilizing any instruction set except x86-64, it will have marketed itself out of business.

 

[nowayout99]

Originally posted by: uncleX
> AMD is always better. Good performance for less. Admittedly the Celerons of a certain era were an exception, provided you bought the cheapest clock grade and OCed the p*ss out of them. Under those circumstances, they represented good value. I owned a couple.

Price makes a product more accessible, not better. Realistically Intel has an R&D and QA process that's second to none. Intel CPUs go through several processes that AMD products simply lack. While AMDs products are generally good enough in the end for average consumers, they don't undergo near the same QA routine of Intel chips. If I were buying a product needing mission-critical dependability, I'd go with Intel. If I'm building something for the home, AMD will suffice.

 

[cm123]

Originally posted by: nowayout99

Originally posted by: uncleX
> AMD is always better. Good performance for less. Admittedly the Celerons of a certain era were an exception, provided you bought the cheapest clock grade and OCed the p*ss out of them. Under those circumstances, they represented good value. I owned a couple.

Price makes a product more accessible, not better. Realistically Intel has an R&D and QA process that's second to none. Intel CPUs go through several processes that AMD products simply lack. While AMDs products are generally good enough in the end for average consumers, they don't undergo near the same QA routine of Intel chips. If I were buying a product needing mission-critical dependability, I'd go with Intel. If I'm building something for the home, AMD will suffice.

As a AMD fan, I would have to agree with you. This is what happens as a systems builder selling into certain markets, people will not buy AMD over/for this reason/thoughts.

AMD really needs to address this issue (somehow) true or not. Yes AMD with the AMD 750/760 chipset had a chipset that started to change this (as someone started to point out AMD does stable products). VIA just is not as stable or compatible as Intel products, Nvidia could be, however they yet have to prove they can be counted on as a stable supplier of chipsets on a timely basis as well. This all comes back to AMD needs to make great mainboards & chipsets as Intel, if they are to want to be in the same market place, including holding the same quality image to the public.

Hopefully the AMD 64 will provide the cash AMD needs to do what it needs to, so as to address issues like above post.

This may not be a very popular thing to say here, but I would love to see Nvidia & AMD merger. It could really assist AMD R&D & QA programs, its not like the two companies have never talked about that happening neither.

Also for the Intel Fans, is not Fox Conn a Intel sub comapny? We sold Casedge cases in the past which is a Fox Conn company, the rep. once said that Intel owns all or most of Fox Conn.

If so, its very interesting to see Fox Conn manufacturing a AMD 64 Main Board then!

 

[Wolfdog]

Intel has already spoken on this. They probably won't release any 64-bit desktop chip anytime soon. It does make sense that they would extend the xeon to 64-bit to compete, since in the mean time it really doesn't make much sense on the desktop. Every single last piece of current software out there has exactly no support for any 64-bit extensions, and by the time that there is software out there that takes advantage of it there will be far better chips out there. Especially coming from both camps. Which will make the first generation of a64 look archaic. I for one hope that Intels 64-bit extensions are NOT compatible with amd's 64-bitness. Letting the better of the two win out, instead of the first man getting all the spoils. If intels implementation is superior, no matter how much later it comes, it needs to win out. The other way around the same thing still goes. With the better of the two becoming the standard. Although it would be hell for the developers having to support one more platform. Oh well though, it is why they make the big bucks.

 

[Viditor]

Wolfdog - "Every single last piece of current software out there has exactly no support for any 64-bit extensions"

Huh?
Check out Anandtech's WinXP-64 article
Epic (for example) has already converted all of their game tools to AMD64...
Most every database is already converted to AMD64...etc, etc...

 

[Wolfdog]

That statement was meant for the consumer level desktop segment. Workstation stuff on up are available. Even though there has been a prerelease review of MS xp 64, you can't exactly buy it online, or retail. Being able to download it is one thing, but being able to purchase a retail/oem version on cd is another. Neither is there really any retail products that take advantage of it in the here and now for the consumer. Future releases will start to, like the tools for HL2. Albeit in six months to a year when stuff finally starts coming out then there will finally be a reason for consumers to finally start some uptake for the product. In that time there will surely be several more speed steppings and revisions that will make the current a64 obsolete.

 

[Viditor]

nowayout99 - "If I were buying a product needing mission-critical dependability, I'd go with Intel"

There would have been many times I'd agree with that. However, after seeing Prescott I would probably not.
Because of the high temps of Prescott, even with exorbitant cooling solutions I reckon that the lifetime of the chip will be drastically reduced.

 

[Viditor]

Wolfdog -

If your point is that upgrading from a 2.8 P4 or a 2600+ Barton to an A64 right now would be silly, then I agree with you 100%!
But for those who need an upgrade ANYWAY (like people who have a 1.3 P4 or a 1200+ Duron), the A64 seems to be the (by far) best choice.
It all depends where you are in your own upgrade cycle...

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: shady06

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

I think Nick is the leader of them!!!!

And in case you think I voted INtel forvever you are mistaken...I buy what is best for me and my uses....I used AMDs for 3 years before I migrated to the northwood chips and who knows if the prescott doesn't get better and 64bit helps in apps I use I will be going to an opteron or FX setup....

I have built 5 systems in the last year besides upgrading mine (always in a state of upgrading) and I recommended and built all of them AMD.....3 because of budget, 1 for best for the office use, and 1 very nice gaming system for my buddy.....

So anybody who thinks I am a blind fanboy zealot like Nick and his crew need to take a look at themselves.

 

[hytek369]

i am really surprised that intel votes are so low. in reality, intel rules the industry. i guess amd guys like myself rule this forum

 

[batmanuel]

Originally posted by: nowayout99

Originally posted by: uncleX
> AMD is always better. Good performance for less. Admittedly the Celerons of a certain era were an exception, provided you bought the cheapest clock grade and OCed the p*ss out of them. Under those circumstances, they represented good value. I owned a couple.

Price makes a product more accessible, not better. Realistically Intel has an R&D and QA process that's second to none. Intel CPUs go through several processes that AMD products simply lack. While AMDs products are generally good enough in the end for average consumers, they don't undergo near the same QA routine of Intel chips. If I were buying a product needing mission-critical dependability, I'd go with Intel. If I'm building something for the home, AMD will suffice.

There seem to be a lot of mission-critical Opteron servers being sold right now. If IBM thinks AMD has what it takes now to compete in the enterprise sector, that's a pretty big vote of confidence that surely has gotten a lot of IT managers thinking AMD now. If the Opteron servers continue to sell well and no major bugs crop up, and if Prescott continues to run hotter than the fires of hell and damnation, I see a lot of business turning to the Athlon 64s for desktops and Opterons for workstations. It'll get really embarrasing for Intel if at the end of the year the Prescotts are running at 4GHz and requiring huge heatsinks to run stable, but are only barely able to outperform Athlon 64s running below 3GHz. Intel will probably embrace x86-64, but when they do it may be too late to do anything slow down the Athlon 64.

Intel looks to be in a pretty bad position right now. Before they always had the server market to guarantee profitability now matter what happens in the consumer desktop sector. Now the Opteron is enroaching on that market and has the backing of some of heavyweights in the server industry like Sun and IBM, which is gonna hit Intel really hard in the pocketbook. Things could get really bloody on the low end as well later this year when sub-$100 Athlon 64s start duking it out with Prescott-based Celerons (which will probably perform very slow for their high clock speeds because their long pipelines will be starved for data if Intel doesn't do something about their cache, their FSB, or both). I probably really doesn't matter all that much if Intel does anything with x86-64, because it won't come soon enough to keep them from losing market share this year (assuming AMD doesn't run into any major disasters, that is).

 

[cm123]

Originally posted by: batmanuel

Originally posted by: nowayout99

Originally posted by: uncleX
> AMD is always better. Good performance for less. Admittedly the Celerons of a certain era were an exception, provided you bought the cheapest clock grade and OCed the p*ss out of them. Under those circumstances, they represented good value. I owned a couple.

Price makes a product more accessible, not better. Realistically Intel has an R&D and QA process that's second to none. Intel CPUs go through several processes that AMD products simply lack. While AMDs products are generally good enough in the end for average consumers, they don't undergo near the same QA routine of Intel chips. If I were buying a product needing mission-critical dependability, I'd go with Intel. If I'm building something for the home, AMD will suffice.

There seem to be a lot of mission-critical Opteron servers being sold right now. If IBM thinks AMD has what it takes now to compete in the enterprise sector, that's a pretty big vote of confidence that surely has gotten a lot of IT managers thinking AMD now. If the Opteron servers continue to sell well and no major bugs crop up, and if Prescott continues to run hotter than the fires of hell and damnation, I see a lot of business turning to the Athlon 64s for desktops and Opterons for workstations. It'll get really embarrasing for Intel if at the end of the year the Prescotts are running at 4GHz and requiring huge heatsinks to run stable, but are only barely able to outperform Athlon 64s running below 3GHz. Intel will probably embrace x86-64, but when they do it may be too late to do anything slow down the Athlon 64.

Intel looks to be in a pretty bad position right now. Before they always had the server market to guarantee profitability now matter what happens in the consumer desktop sector. Now the Opteron is enroaching on that market and has the backing of some of heavyweights in the server industry like Sun and IBM, which is gonna hit Intel really hard in the pocketbook. Things could get really bloody on the low end as well later this year when sub-$100 Athlon 64s start duking it out with Prescott-based Celerons (which will probably perform very slow for their high clock speeds because their long pipelines will be starved for data if Intel doesn't do something about their cache, their FSB, or both). I probably really doesn't matter all that much if Intel does anything with x86-64, because it won't come soon enough to keep them from losing market share this year (assuming AMD doesn't run into any major disasters, that is).

Thanks for sum great points (servers/IBM/etc...), your right, IBM is a major sell point for corp. markets. Make Intel think a bit more is better for all of us in the end anyways.

 

[jm0ris0n]

Lets not forget Sun's adoption of the Opteron.

And Cray Supercomputer (is building/has built?) a 10,000 opteron grid.

I don't see how AMD can make faulty chips when IBM, Cray, and Sun stand behind them in insanely mission critical environments.

(These forums right now are running on AMD chips, and so is this computer I am typing on...)

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: jm0ris0n
Lets not forget Sun's adoption of the Opteron.

And Cray Supercomputer (is building/has built?) a 10,000 opteron grid.

I don't see how AMD can make faulty chips when IBM, Cray, and Sun stand behind them in insanely mission critical environments.

(These forums right now are running on AMD chips, and so is this computer I am typing on...)

And lets not forget the even advertising in the sale flyers. HP POS 2.7 celery vs. POS HP 3000+ vs. POS HP 2.8E vs. POS HP 2.6 celery vs POS HP 2600+ vs. POS HP 3.2E vs. alright eMachine 3000+.

 

[OddTSi]

Originally posted by: batmanuel
There seem to be a lot of mission-critical Opteron servers being sold right now. If IBM thinks AMD has what it takes now to compete in the enterprise sector, that's a pretty big vote of confidence that surely has gotten a lot of IT managers thinking AMD now. If the Opteron servers continue to sell well and no major bugs crop up, and if Prescott continues to run hotter than the fires of hell and damnation, I see a lot of business turning to the Athlon 64s for desktops and Opterons for workstations. It'll get really embarrasing for Intel if at the end of the year the Prescotts are running at 4GHz and requiring huge heatsinks to run stable, but are only barely able to outperform Athlon 64s running below 3GHz. Intel will probably embrace x86-64, but when they do it may be too late to do anything slow down the Athlon 64.

Intel looks to be in a pretty bad position right now. Before they always had the server market to guarantee profitability now matter what happens in the consumer desktop sector. Now the Opteron is enroaching on that market and has the backing of some of heavyweights in the server industry like Sun and IBM, which is gonna hit Intel really hard in the pocketbook. Things could get really bloody on the low end as well later this year when sub-$100 Athlon 64s start duking it out with Prescott-based Celerons (which will probably perform very slow for their high clock speeds because their long pipelines will be starved for data if Intel doesn't do something about their cache, their FSB, or both). I probably really doesn't matter all that much if Intel does anything with x86-64, because it won't come soon enough to keep them from losing market share this year (assuming AMD doesn't run into any major disasters, that is).

IBM is co-developing the x86-64 processors with AMD, therefore their own profits (and reputation of being a good outsourcing partner for manufacturing processors) are at stake in the sales of Opteron-based servers. So them selling these servers is not the ringing endorsement that you make it seem. Of course a company is going to sell/hype a product that they helped make.

As for Sun being a "heavyweight in the industry". I assume that you haven't read their financial reports or seen the predictions that many are making that Sun will be out of business in a couple of years. However, if you meant heavyweight in the sense that it's sinking like a stone then I'll agree with you.

Now as for the heat output of P4 and A64 processors. Let's take a look at this through facts provided by each company. "Thermal Design Power" is the value to look at.
Pentium 4 power output (scroll to the bottom).
A64 power output (scroll to page 8).

Every AMD-fanboy on this planet is always saying "A64 runs at 35W". This is only true when the processor is running at 800mhz and 1.3v. At the default speed their TDP is 89W, not 35W. Before the Prescott even came out AMD-fanboys were saying how the A64s run even cooler than the Northwood P4s, well, let's take a look shall we. Whoops, wrong again. Looks like the hottest Northwood P4s are the 3.2 and 3.4GHz and their TDP is 82W. What about the Prescott? The 2.8 and 3.0 GHz are 89W (same as the A64s) and the 3.2 and 3.4GHz are 103W (only 15% higher than the A64s, definately not "hotter than the fires of hell and damnation").

Couple this with the AMD roadmap pic showing A64s reaching 105W(?) by the end of this year and it just goes to show you that the heat thing is 10% truth and 90% myth perpetuated by AMD-fanboys. Processors are getting hotter, it's happening to Intel and AMD. They are roughly neck and neck as far as heat is concerned and will remain that way for some time to come.

 

[Tom]

Viditor-

113 posts in 4 years, most of them in this thread..

 

[Cerb]

The A64 specs are maximum possible output EVER (hence the 3000+ and 3400+ are the same). I am currently unable to find anything to back this claim, but I'm pretty sure on it...off to bed I go.
The Pentium 4 specs, as usual, appear to be maximum EXPECTED output. Big difference.

...however, whoever was spouting the 35w number needs a mallet upside the head. A squeaky rubber one for extra humiliation.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: OddTSi

Originally posted by: batmanuel
There seem to be a lot of mission-critical Opteron servers being sold right now. If IBM thinks AMD has what it takes now to compete in the enterprise sector, that's a pretty big vote of confidence that surely has gotten a lot of IT managers thinking AMD now. If the Opteron servers continue to sell well and no major bugs crop up, and if Prescott continues to run hotter than the fires of hell and damnation, I see a lot of business turning to the Athlon 64s for desktops and Opterons for workstations. It'll get really embarrasing for Intel if at the end of the year the Prescotts are running at 4GHz and requiring huge heatsinks to run stable, but are only barely able to outperform Athlon 64s running below 3GHz. Intel will probably embrace x86-64, but when they do it may be too late to do anything slow down the Athlon 64.

Intel looks to be in a pretty bad position right now. Before they always had the server market to guarantee profitability now matter what happens in the consumer desktop sector. Now the Opteron is enroaching on that market and has the backing of some of heavyweights in the server industry like Sun and IBM, which is gonna hit Intel really hard in the pocketbook. Things could get really bloody on the low end as well later this year when sub-$100 Athlon 64s start duking it out with Prescott-based Celerons (which will probably perform very slow for their high clock speeds because their long pipelines will be starved for data if Intel doesn't do something about their cache, their FSB, or both). I probably really doesn't matter all that much if Intel does anything with x86-64, because it won't come soon enough to keep them from losing market share this year (assuming AMD doesn't run into any major disasters, that is).

IBM is co-developing the x86-64 processors with AMD, therefore their own profits (and reputation of being a good outsourcing partner for manufacturing processors) are at stake in the sales of Opteron-based servers. So them selling these servers is not the ringing endorsement that you make it seem. Of course a company is going to sell/hype a product that they helped make.

As for Sun being a "heavyweight in the industry". I assume that you haven't read their financial reports or seen the predictions that many are making that Sun will be out of business in a couple of years. However, if you meant heavyweight in the sense that it's sinking like a stone then I'll agree with you.

Now as for the heat output of P4 and A64 processors. Let's take a look at this through facts provided by each company. "Thermal Design Power" is the value to look at.
Pentium 4 power output (scroll to the bottom).
A64 power output (scroll to page 8).

Every AMD-fanboy on this planet is always saying "A64 runs at 35W". This is only true when the processor is running at 800mhz and 1.3v. At the default speed their TDP is 89W, not 35W. Before the Prescott even came out AMD-fanboys were saying how the A64s run even cooler than the Northwood P4s, well, let's take a look shall we. Whoops, wrong again. Looks like the hottest Northwood P4s are the 3.2 and 3.4GHz and their TDP is 82W. What about the Prescott? The 2.8 and 3.0 GHz are 89W (same as the A64s) and the 3.2 and 3.4GHz are 103W (only 15% higher than the A64s, definately not "hotter than the fires of hell and damnation").

Couple this with the AMD roadmap pic showing A64s reaching 105W(?) by the end of this year and it just goes to show you that the heat thing is 10% truth and 90% myth perpetuated by AMD-fanboys. Processors are getting hotter, it's happening to Intel and AMD. They are roughly neck and neck as far as heat is concerned and will remain that way for some time to come.

Umm, no. Every AMD fanboy is not claiming 35watt dissipation. You made a good "Strawman" arguement.

 

[OddTSi]

Originally posted by: Cerb
The A64 specs are maximum possible output EVER (hence the 3000+ and 3400+ are the same). I am currently unable to find anything to back this claim, but I'm pretty sure on it...off to bed I go.
The Pentium 4 specs, as usual, appear to be maximum EXPECTED output. Big difference.

Both values are TDP (Thermal Design Power; which is an industry standard way of representing thermal output) which if I'm not mistaken is the absolute worst case for the thermal output for that particular chip design. It doesn't mean anything different for the P4 than it does for the A64.