-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Intel confirms existence of X86-64 Yamhill chip
- Thread starter IPLaw
- Start date
InlineFive
Diamond Member
So, I wonder what's going to go on now. Will Intel have to pay AMD a license fee on each x86-64 processor built, will they sue AMD saying they made it first, or make a deal trading technology.
Let the '04 playing field unfold! 🙂
-Por
Let the '04 playing field unfold! 🙂
-Por
InlineFive
Diamond Member
I think it's good that they got in when they could because a lot of people suspect that Intel's chips already have x86-64 built in. Just like they did with HT.
us3rnotfound
Diamond Member
ok.
Haven't they been saying for a long time they were going to make a 64bit chip for PC users? I mean they said they were just going to wait till after Pentium5's? I swear I kept on reading "64bit for regular users isn't needed quite YET" and "We beleive that there is no real need for 64bit in the immediate future"...
I assumed they ment that they would release 64bit home user chips in the medium distant future....
I always buy AMD because the $ to performance is much better then Intel, so don't think I am a intel fanboy or anything, but wasn't this fairly obvious that this was going to happen?
Or is it just suprising that they would make it x86-64bit compatable?
(The itanium is obviously completely unsutable for home users and was never intended to compete with AMD64.... It has a gigantic core with 400+ million transistors (for the new ones), vs 100+ for opteron, and pentium4's which were less then that... They were ment to compete with IBM power4+/5 stuff and that's a completely different playing feild.)
I assumed they ment that they would release 64bit home user chips in the medium distant future....
I always buy AMD because the $ to performance is much better then Intel, so don't think I am a intel fanboy or anything, but wasn't this fairly obvious that this was going to happen?
Or is it just suprising that they would make it x86-64bit compatable?
(The itanium is obviously completely unsutable for home users and was never intended to compete with AMD64.... It has a gigantic core with 400+ million transistors (for the new ones), vs 100+ for opteron, and pentium4's which were less then that... They were ment to compete with IBM power4+/5 stuff and that's a completely different playing feild.)
Regs
Lifer
Wow, that's some interesting news in-deed. I find that funny how Intel, in one hand, said it was useless. However in the other hand , that was fiddling behind their back, was a developing 64-bit chip. Common sense dictated this to many of us before hand, although there seems to be a lot of ATOT members lacking this sense as they choose to believe every bit of info marketing has to offer.
Every thread that came up about 64-bit processors everyone always says "Intel said it was useless" or "Intel is saying that we don't need 64-bit processors" What everyone is cutting out is the crucial part of that statement, Intel said that 64-bit processors are not needed YET, and I believe their timeframe was something like 5-10 years before it would be NEEDED, not wanted. And I'm also sick of people using that fictitious "No one would ever need 640kb of RAM" quote as their arguement in the Intel 64-bit threads. I bet that started out just like this 64-bit/Intel thing that everyone keeps repeating, someone misreads the actual statement and spreads their version around as if it was the original direct quote.
Everyone repeat after me, if someone says something isn't needed yet, that doesn't mean it is useless or that it will never be needed, it just means exactly what it says. People need to take some reading comprehension classes or something.
Furthermore, if everyone stopped and thought about it for a second, Intel was completely right with their statement. The vast majority of today's Desktop PCs have no need for 64-bit processors and they won't have a need for them for some time to come. But people are too busy with their "AMD is God. Death to Intel." zealotry that they can't stop and look at things from an unbiased perspective.
Everyone repeat after me, if someone says something isn't needed yet, that doesn't mean it is useless or that it will never be needed, it just means exactly what it says. People need to take some reading comprehension classes or something.
Furthermore, if everyone stopped and thought about it for a second, Intel was completely right with their statement. The vast majority of today's Desktop PCs have no need for 64-bit processors and they won't have a need for them for some time to come. But people are too busy with their "AMD is God. Death to Intel." zealotry that they can't stop and look at things from an unbiased perspective.
Every thread that came up about 64-bit processors everyone always says "Intel said it was useless" or "Intel is saying that we don't need 64-bit processors" What everyone is cutting out is the crucial part of that statement, Intel said that 64-bit processors are not needed YET, and I believe their timeframe was something like 5-10 years before it would be NEEDED, not wanted. And I'm also sick of people using that fictitious "No one would ever need 640kb of RAM" quote as their arguement in the Intel 64-bit threads. I bet that started out just like this 64-bit/Intel thing that everyone keeps repeating, someone misreads the actual statement and spreads their version around as if it was the original direct quote.
Everyone repeat after me, if someone says something isn't needed yet, that doesn't mean it is useless or that it will never be needed, it just means exactly what it says. People need to take some reading comprehension classes or something.
Furthermore, if everyone stopped and thought about it for a second, Intel was completely right with their statement. The vast majority of today's Desktop PCs have no need for 64-bit processors and they won't have a need for them for some time to come. But people are too busy with their "AMD is God. Death to Intel." zealotry that they can't stop and look at things from an unbiased perspective.
so how do you get 64-bit programs if the hardware doesn't exist? a lot of features aren't needed yet but they should come out now so that developers get a chance to work and become familiar with what's new. when the 386 came out, no one really needed a 32-bit processor at the time. the average person didn't really need one until windows 95 came out. and even before then, dos games were being written to utilize the features that a 32-bit processor provides. take a look at usb. it was pretty irrelevant when it was first introduced, and now usb devices are mainstream. while it is true 64-bit computing isn't needed now, it is also true that the groundwork must be laid down now in order to make use of this advance.
the conflict with intel's comment about not needing 64-bit processors for the consumer is that they have a deep investment in itanium, and the rise of a 64-bit x86 processor would likely put this investment in jeapordy.
Everyone repeat after me, if someone says something isn't needed yet, that doesn't mean it is useless or that it will never be needed, it just means exactly what it says. People need to take some reading comprehension classes or something.
Furthermore, if everyone stopped and thought about it for a second, Intel was completely right with their statement. The vast majority of today's Desktop PCs have no need for 64-bit processors and they won't have a need for them for some time to come. But people are too busy with their "AMD is God. Death to Intel." zealotry that they can't stop and look at things from an unbiased perspective.
so how do you get 64-bit programs if the hardware doesn't exist? a lot of features aren't needed yet but they should come out now so that developers get a chance to work and become familiar with what's new. when the 386 came out, no one really needed a 32-bit processor at the time. the average person didn't really need one until windows 95 came out. and even before then, dos games were being written to utilize the features that a 32-bit processor provides. take a look at usb. it was pretty irrelevant when it was first introduced, and now usb devices are mainstream. while it is true 64-bit computing isn't needed now, it is also true that the groundwork must be laid down now in order to make use of this advance.
the conflict with intel's comment about not needing 64-bit processors for the consumer is that they have a deep investment in itanium, and the rise of a 64-bit x86 processor would likely put this investment in jeapordy.
Actually this is GOOD news.... when AMD first launched their 64FX many of the "launch partners" and reviewers received a beta WinXP 64. Not very useful for benchmarks as it did not include DX9 drivers and so most of the usual benchmark programs didn't really work. However, it was stated "What AMD needs now is for Microsoft to develop the same zeal towards a 64 bit OS as AMD is exhibiting". AMD alone might not have been enough to push the release of WinXP 64... but AMD + Intel might be another story.
Needed or not (so who really needs the systems that we are putting together just for gaming for example .... ) what was once "out there" and not needed (my apple II had no hard drive.... why would you need one anyway, if people only would learn to write tight code....) is now mainstream and then some.
Why would I want a 64bit chip and an OS to run it on? If nothing else.... just to benchmark it and watch it run.
Needed or not (so who really needs the systems that we are putting together just for gaming for example .... ) what was once "out there" and not needed (my apple II had no hard drive.... why would you need one anyway, if people only would learn to write tight code....) is now mainstream and then some.
Why would I want a 64bit chip and an OS to run it on? If nothing else.... just to benchmark it and watch it run.
You guys are completely missing the point of my post. Intel said that 64-bit processors aren't needed yet and won't be needed for another 5-10 years (I believe that was their timeframe that they gave, but I could be wrong). That statement, like it or not is the truth. Then you have these zealots coming out and taking their own meanings out of that quote and bashing Intel for something they never said and using that to make their arguments for AMD.
I didn't make that post to try to promote Intel over AMD or vice versa, or to say anything about whether putting out 64-bit chips NOW is a good or bad thing. The entire and only point of that post was to try to put a stop to the people that completely misrepresent what Intel said and use their lies to further their arguments.
I didn't make that post to try to promote Intel over AMD or vice versa, or to say anything about whether putting out 64-bit chips NOW is a good or bad thing. The entire and only point of that post was to try to put a stop to the people that completely misrepresent what Intel said and use their lies to further their arguments.
Yeah, you can also get a $400 or so AMD64 3200+, which is almost twice the price and not really any better than the $215 3000+. It's not only Intel that are like that.
Hence the "unable to look from an unbiased perspective" point. You've just illustrated it.
We could look at the $700+ FX-51 which isn't much faster than the 3.2c either, if you really want. It's called the CPU market, and markup for the highest end.
IIRC, MS said they would only do one OS with x86-64 support, so Intel would have to adhere to MS standards I believe. An x86-64 alternative could just mean an alternative chip to the x86-64 offered by AMD (ie: Intel's own x86-64 processor). Might not be "terrible" news just yet, just competition.
Exactly. I doubt the majority of people buying a A64 or AFX arent pre-ordering Windows XP x86-64 Edition from Microsoft.
Intel and AMD has had cross license agreements for more than the last 2 decades. Anything AMD develops, Intel can use and anything Intel develops AMD can use freely.
For some reason people like scrambling other people's quotes to suit their own purpose. Bill Gates didnt say 640KB of memory was enough for all time, he said that 640KB was enough for the time being. Remember that well into the Pentium era (where machines had up to 128MB memory), the base memory was still 640KB; everything on top of that was just extended. Some random Intel exec says that 64bit procs arent needed for another 5 years. By the time they're needed your product line is probably 100% 64bit CPUs.
According to Gates himself, he never made any statement even related to that.
"QUESTION: "I read in a newspaper that in l981 you said '640K of memory should be enough for anybody.' What did you mean when you said this?"
ANSWER: "I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time."
Gates goes on a bit about 16-bit computers and megabytes of logical address space, but the kid's question (will this boy never work at Microsoft?) clearly rankled the billionaire visionary.
"Meanwhile, I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says 640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just floats like a rumor, repeated again and again."
Silly quotations do have a way of floating like rumors."
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,1484,00.html
I also don't understand why the Intel bashers keep bringing up this quote that Intel said no desktop user will ever need 64bit CPU's. That's simply stupid, the official line was that they didn't think it would be needed for a few more years. And judging by the "flood" of 64bit x86 software we have seen since the Opteron was released 8 months ago and the A64 more recently, they appear to still be absolutely correct. The fact they may have a 64 bit chip ready to go in the near future no way implies that they are hedging on their original statement. You don't wait until the market already requires the product before you release it, you wait until there is sufficient demand to make it profitable. Intel doesn't think that point has been reached yet. With the financial situation AMD has been in, they don't have the luxury of waiting for more appropriate market conditions, so they have jumped out first, hoping the headlines and press will generate general consumer interest that as of yet is no where to be seen.
64 Bit has been around awhile now.. I point you to Alpha.
Thats an assinine statement to stand by Intels quote and state 64 bit technology isnt necessary... 64 Bit in a *Nix environment is productive and may, just may, in a large cluster form, help to develop a cure for a disease faster then what is technically available today.
If i can land a 64 capable chip for less then $250, equals the performance damn near clocked 1 gig slower then its competitor and allows me to freely install a 64 Bit OS such as Linux, sign me the hell up.
I get more for less.. This is what its about.. Not being brainwashed by marketing bs bud.
Thats an assinine statement to stand by Intels quote and state 64 bit technology isnt necessary... 64 Bit in a *Nix environment is productive and may, just may, in a large cluster form, help to develop a cure for a disease faster then what is technically available today.
If i can land a 64 capable chip for less then $250, equals the performance damn near clocked 1 gig slower then its competitor and allows me to freely install a 64 Bit OS such as Linux, sign me the hell up.
I get more for less.. This is what its about.. Not being brainwashed by marketing bs bud.
NightCrawler
Diamond Member
The Pentium 3.2 is 1200mhz faster then the Athlon 64 3000+ and it doesn't beat it in benchmarks...but that inflated clock does market well.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
