intel and win64

[draggoon01]

will intel have to license 64bit extensions from amd? is win64 written specifically for amd or for general 64bit processors?

for comparison, what does amd license from intel for win32 os (98, 2k, xp)? is stuff like mmx, sse required to run windows, or does amd just license to keep up with game/app optimizations?

 

[MDE]

AMD licenses the x86 instruction set, MMX, SSE, and SSE2 from Intel among other things I'm oblivious to. Intel (to the best of my knowledge) HAS already licensed AMD64, which means that Intel is at least studying it. Also, Microsoft has reportedly told Intel to not even try making their own x86 compatible 64 bit instruction set, and if they do, don't expect a version of Windows to follow it.

 

[draggoon01]

Originally posted by: MonkeyDriveExpress
AMD licenses the x86 instruction set, MMX, SSE, and SSE2 from Intel among other things I'm oblivious to. Intel (to the best of my knowledge) HAS already licensed AMD64, which means that Intel is at least studying it. Also, Microsoft has reportedly told Intel to not even try making their own x86 compatible 64 bit instruction set, and if they do, don't expect a version of Windows to follow it.

why would msft make an OS for amd and not intel, when amd has ~10% of the market and intel has ~80%?

 

[JBT]

because AMD's x86 is already out and intels isn't so why would they want to make another OS just for intel that would be stupid. MS is just saying either use AMD's64 bit extensions or ur screwed.

 

[BenSkywalker]

why would msft make an OS for amd and not intel, when amd has ~10% of the market and intel has ~80%?

He was saying if Intel came up with a different x86-64 standard then the one that already exists. AMD has already set the standard, what he was talking about was that that standard has been adopted and Intel can't come in and try to change it. MS already has a 64bit OS for Intel, but it is based on IA64, not x86-64.

 

[ST4RCUTTER]

That's it in a nutshell. If Intel introduces an incompatible 64-bit standard with Prescott or (more likely Tejas) Microsoft would be put in the situation where it would have to write a third separate OS type....NOT gonna happen. The expense of creating IA-64 and x86-64 was enough, a new instruction set would be over the top. Intel is better off conforming to x86-64 and using their better R&D to implement it even better than AMD can...IMO.

 

[thorin]

Originally posted by: JBTele
because AMD's x86 is already out and intels isn't so why would they want to make another OS just for intel that would be stupid. MS is just saying either use AMD's64 bit extensions or ur screwed.

Actually MS supported Intel's IA-64 (EPIC) instruction set long before they even thought about supporting AMDs x86-64 instruction set.

Mind you since Intel still holds 90% of the CPU market MS can "say" whatever they want but if Intel decides to switch (to a 3rd 64bit instruction set) then MS is gonna support them whether they really want to or not.

Thorin

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: thorin

Originally posted by: JBTele
because AMD's x86 is already out and intels isn't so why would they want to make another OS just for intel that would be stupid. MS is just saying either use AMD's64 bit extensions or ur screwed.

Actually MS supported Intel's IA-64 (EPIC) instruction set long before they even thought about supporting AMDs x86-64 instruction set.

Mind you since Intel still holds 90% of the CPU market MS can "say" whatever they want but if Intel decides to switch (to a 3rd 64bit instruction set) then MS is gonna support them whether they really want to or not.

Thorin

Exactly. MS is going to go in whichever direction will make them money.

Back to the original question... AMD and Intel have a cross-licensing agreement, as (believe it or not) it benefits both companies to work on the same standards.

 

[Alkaline5]

Originally posted by: thorin
Mind you since Intel still holds 90% of the CPU market MS can "say" whatever they want but if Intel decides to switch (to a 3rd 64bit instruction set) then MS is gonna support them whether they really want to or not.

Intel has 90% of the 32-bit home/business market,yes. But if Intel were to release a 64-bit home/work classed processor w/o some version of Windows that worked on it, then they would have 0% of the 64-bit home/work market.
As was already mentioned, there are two existing 64-bit architectures with MS' support. MS probably just told Intel to pick one or the other of the existing standards and run with it.

 

[thorin]

Originally posted by: Alkaline5

Originally posted by: thorin
Mind you since Intel still holds 90% of the CPU market MS can "say" whatever they want but if Intel decides to switch (to a 3rd 64bit instruction set) then MS is gonna support them whether they really want to or not.

Intel has 90% of the 32-bit home/business market,yes. But if Intel were to release a 64-bit home/work classed processor w/o some version of Windows that worked on it, then they would have 0% of the 64-bit home/work market.
As was already mentioned, there are two existing 64-bit architectures with MS' support. MS probably just told Intel to pick one or the other of the existing standards and run with it.

So you honestly believe that if Intel decided to switch to a third 64bit IA for their home/work processors that MS would just say "fine Intel find some other OS to service your 90% share of the market".....I don't so.

Thorin

 

[Alkaline5]

Originally posted by: thorin
So you honestly believe that if Intel decided to switch to a third 64bit IA for their home/work processors that MS would just say "fine Intel find some other OS to service your 90% share of the market".....I don't so.

Thorin

You missed my point entirely. That "90% share of the market" you keep mentioning is meaningless because we're effectively talking about an entirely different platform from the current standard.

Edit: A third standard is entirely within the realm of possibility. All I'm saying is that MS is in the drivers seat on this issue more-so than Intel. W/o MS support a third architecture would be nearly useless.

 

[JBT]

that would suck to have to buy 2 different versions of windows just because of a different processor....

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: JBTele
because AMD's x86 is already out and intels isn't so why would they want to make another OS just for intel that would be stupid. MS is just saying either use AMD's64 bit extensions or ur screwed.

MS WONT do that. They may talk tough now, but in reality, MS needs Intel and Intel needs MS. MS may appear to be in the drivers seat, but its navigator is Intel. Intel is the 800lb gorilla of the CPU biz, without Intel backing MS and vice versa, both are screwed. MS wont give up its relationship with Intel, which is what it would do if it sticks to the stance of "We wont create another 64bit OS, specifically for Intel".

To sum it up. MS and Intel are in the front seat, while AMD and everyone else is in the back of the station wagon.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Alkaline5

Originally posted by: thorin
So you honestly believe that if Intel decided to switch to a third 64bit IA for their home/work processors that MS would just say "fine Intel find some other OS to service your 90% share of the market".....I don't so.

Thorin

You missed my point entirely. That "90% share of the market" you keep mentioning is meaningless because we're effectively talking about an entirely different platform from the current standard.

Edit: A third standard is entirely within the realm of possibility. All I'm saying is that MS is in the drivers seat on this issue more-so than Intel. W/o MS support a third architecture would be nearly useless.

And when this new Pentium5 64bit processor comes out, do you think the consumer will choose to forgo it over Athlon64? Highly doubtful.

BTW, theres already Windows for IA64. The bulk of Windows 64bit for x86-64 is borrowed from the IA64 version. The IA64 version was Microsoft's learning experience for making a 64bit OS.

 

[MDE]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: JBTele
because AMD's x86 is already out and intels isn't so why would they want to make another OS just for intel that would be stupid. MS is just saying either use AMD's64 bit extensions or ur screwed.

MS WONT do that. They may talk tough now, but in reality, MS needs Intel and Intel needs MS. MS may appear to be in the drivers seat, but its navigator is Intel. Intel is the 800lb gorilla of the CPU biz, without Intel backing MS and vice versa, both are screwed. MS wont give up its relationship with Intel, which is what it would do if it sticks to the stance of "We wont create another 64bit OS, specifically for Intel".

To sum it up. MS and Intel are in the front seat, while AMD and everyone else is in the back of the station wagon.

Didn't Microsoft tell Intel to license MMX to AMD or else they wouldn't find MMX used in Windows98?

 

[magomago]

Well lets say Intel does do that and create their own 64bit set of instructions and M$ backs it...assuming it grows faster than the AMD64 version then I see AMD as dead since its not they can just switch all of the sudden...

Though in the 64bit market for home and desktop users AMD currently is the dominant leader (not including G5 😉 I wonder if more G5s or Athlon64s have been sold) and if Intel wanted to "join in" they would also have to start at square 0.

But assuming that Intel liscenses AMD's instructions wouldn't that mean that AMD makes royalties off of every Intel chip sold? Or would this be "one lump sum" type of deal...

 

[EeyoreX]

because AMD's x86 is already out and intels isn't so why would they want to make another OS just for intel that would be stupid. MS is just saying either use AMD's64 bit extensions or ur screwed.

MS WONT do that. They may talk tough now, but in reality, MS needs Intel and Intel needs MS. MS may appear to be in the drivers seat, but its navigator is Intel. Intel is the 800lb gorilla of the CPU biz, without Intel backing MS and vice versa, both are screwed. MS wont give up its relationship with Intel, which is what it would do if it sticks to the stance of "We wont create another 64bit OS, specifically for Intel".

To sum it up. MS and Intel are in the front seat, while AMD and everyone else is in the back of the station wagon.

Will Microsoft stick to it's guns on this issue? Whi can say for sure except Microsoft. I, personally doubt, however, that Intel would bother. By the time they rolled out their own x86-64 bit CPUs of a differeing architecture than AMDs, they would be behind (some might argue they are already behind in the 64-bit desktop arena. Technically, they are. I don't agree completely as I feel 64-bits on the desktop are not needed at this time). After the time spend developing their own, different-from-AMDs architechture, Microsoft will then need to spend time developing a seperate OS for the Intel-based processor. Now that all this time has been added, and AMD has (hopefully) become entrenched in the 64-bit desktop market, tell me, who sounds like the winner? Why AMD of course. They should have established a huge market lead (by 1, being the only game in town and 2, as soon as Intel announces it's plans for a seperate 64-bit architecture, the consumer will say "Oh. Now Intel says we need it, so we must need it now. Let's buy AMD's cuz it's already out - of course some will wait for Intel's product). So, and this is my speculation, it doesn't benefit Intel to go ahead and foist a new standard on us, it just allows AMD to gain more and more marketshare in this arena. I for one wouldn't mind that really. I doubt AMD would mind terribly either. Microsoft could care less I suppose. Either way, they still make money.

Also, I am not so sure Intel is as in charge as people seem to imply here. If Microsoft doesn't back a new x86-64 architechture, what's Intel going to do? Go with Linux? Sure, that sounds great for all you Linux fans. How many Joe Consumers are going to run out and buy a system that requires Linux in the day of the Window? 90% of the world's desktops use a Windows based OS. I somehow don't see Joe Consumer running out to be a part of the remaining 7% (Apple has 3%, I am just assuming Linux in some flavor makes up the rest as I discount most other OSes for this example). Microsoft is pretty firmly in charge in this case, if you asked me.

\Dan

 

[OddTSi]

I'm not sure what Intel's plan would be when it comes to implementing a 64-bit processor (personally I hope it's based on the EPIC ISA since I've heard nothing but praise about it) but I'm pretty sure that if Intel DID decide to go with their own ISA, I doubt Microsoft would risk things by denying to make an OS for that ISA.

Look at it this way, Microsoft already is panicky about Linux starting to eat into its market share, if they were to deny making a new OS for Intel, that might just be the straw that breaks the camels back. 10-20 years from then it'll be taught in CS classes how Microsoft did themselves in and paved the way for Linux.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, wasn't Steve Jobs the guest of honor on a recent (read: within half a year or so) Intel conference, and the Intel CEO the guest of honor at an Apple convention? Seems like there's the beginnings of a "friendship" there. If Microsoft were to deny Intel a new OS, I'm sure that Intel with it's tremendously large market presence could certainly get either Apple or Linux (or both) to make an OS for them. In fact, I'm sure that Apple AND Linux would be HIGHLY interested in that since it would be their gateway to the big top, and about the only chance they'll get to strike a major blow to Microsoft. I can see the marketing opportunities now...what with the recent highly publicized holes in Windows, the much cheaper price of Linux-based computers, and the fact that everyone knows what a Pentium is and wants one in their computer.

So to summarize, I'm sure that when Microsoft told Intel that they either need to pick EPIC or x86-64 it wasn't an ultimatum, more like a strongly worded suggestion. And here's one vote for Intel using the EPIC ISA, we need to move away from the old x86 architecture and into something new, improved, and ready for the future.

 

[Rectalfier]

Yeah, If Intel releases a 64 bit processor only supported by linux and apple, I'm going to rush out and buy that crap. Give me a break. Linux and Apple are a joke. I believe that Microsoft holds all the power here. The only problem is that AMD wouldn't be able to supply enough processors for the entire market, but then again, the whole market will still be 32 bit, and slowly migrate to 64. Intel can supply the 32 bit chips, and AMD can ramp up their production to take over the 64 bit world.

My take, flame on.

 

[OddTSi]

I'm not saying Intel has all the power, nor that Microsoft does. What I am saying is that if MS refused to make an OS for Intel's chip, it would hurt them both, more-so MS than Intel. MS would only have AMD to fall back on. Intel has several OSes that they can fall back on, albeit they're not all that popular. Intel would lose plenty of market share, but so would Windows. It would mean a lot of lost money on both sides, but in the end Intel seems to be sitting on the better hand and would be hurt less.

So like I was saying, I doubt MS will refuse to make a new OS for Intel. They wouldn't like it, but they would do it. Because not doing so would mean "mutual destruction".

It's like with the USA and the USSR back in the day. Both of them talked tough on their own end, but they knew that crossing the other meant mutual destruction.

When two giants go up against each other, one may end up a "winner". But it's almost a guarantee that even the "winner" will be severely injured (perhaps unrepairably).

 

[vegetation]

Also, if I'm not mistaken, wasn't Steve Jobs the guest of honor on a recent (read: within half a year or so) Intel conference, and the Intel CEO the guest of honor at an Apple convention? Seems like there's the beginnings of a "friendship" there. If Microsoft were to deny Intel a new OS, I'm sure that Intel with it's tremendously large market presence could certainly get either Apple or Linux (or both) to make an OS for them. In fact, I'm sure that Apple AND Linux would be HIGHLY interested in that since it would be their gateway to the big top, and about the only chance they'll get to strike a major blow to Microsoft. I can see the marketing opportunities now...what with the recent highly publicized holes in Windows, the much cheaper price of Linux-based computers, and the fact that everyone knows what a Pentium is and wants one in their computer.

Not going to happen, for one thing because of agreements with Motorola, and also that it completely goes against everything Steve Jobs has ever believed in.

 

[MDE]

Jobs did take a Bill Gates bailout... (yes I know Gates had to do it to save Microsoft from the Feds)

 

[solofly]

Originally posted by: draggoon01

Originally posted by: MonkeyDriveExpress
AMD licenses the x86 instruction set, MMX, SSE, and SSE2 from Intel among other things I'm oblivious to. Intel (to the best of my knowledge) HAS already licensed AMD64, which means that Intel is at least studying it. Also, Microsoft has reportedly told Intel to not even try making their own x86 compatible 64 bit instruction set, and if they do, don't expect a version of Windows to follow it.

why would msft make an OS for amd and not intel, when amd has ~10% of the market and intel has ~80%?

I wonder how much of that 80% is integrated office junk.

 

[orion7144]

Originally posted by: solofly

Originally posted by: draggoon01

Originally posted by: MonkeyDriveExpress
AMD licenses the x86 instruction set, MMX, SSE, and SSE2 from Intel among other things I'm oblivious to. Intel (to the best of my knowledge) HAS already licensed AMD64, which means that Intel is at least studying it. Also, Microsoft has reportedly told Intel to not even try making their own x86 compatible 64 bit instruction set, and if they do, don't expect a version of Windows to follow it.

why would msft make an OS for amd and not intel, when amd has ~10% of the market and intel has ~80%?

I wonder how much of that 80% is integrated office junk.

I don't think that has much effect on the 80% our 60,000+ computers are not integrated. I do think however that once IT groups start upgrading their workstations (most of the company I work for are still using PPro 200 and PPro 133 and we are a Furtune 500 company) once this downturn is over, Intel's profits will sky rocket. There are not too many big companies out there that will try the AMD route for workstations.

 

[solofly]

The only thing I like about Intel is their chipsets. Pound for pound CPU crown belongs to AMD by far. Right now I'm building an A64 3200 (2000mhz) rig and suspect it will beat my P4 at 3.6... (and that's using 32bit OS)