Intel exec sees 64-bit irrelevant for Home PCs now

[cm123]

A top Intel executive said 64-bit technology, which gives computers greater memory capacity and more powerful data crunching abilities, would not become relevant to home PC users until sometime in 2006, later than anticipated by Intel's rival, AMD.

Siu, however, did not say that Intel would necessarily wait until 2006 to introduce the feature into its desktop computer chips. Intel has held that it will offer the feature when it determines that an "ecosystem" of operating systems and software to support the feature has developed.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=569&ncid=738&e=1&u=/nm/20040219/tc_nm/tech_intel_computing_dc

Hard to believe that given the fact even MS with XP64, we are sure to see office apps from MS and games (both home use) I'm sure to follow...

 

[jswjimmy]

the news is a little old but thanks anyway

 

[cm123]

Originally posted by: jswjimmy
the news is a little old but thanks anyway

old? less than 24 hours... this happened after Intel gave thumbs up to 64... (look at the date Intel exec. released his comments).

I think it layes the ground work for Intel NOT to come out with the desktop 64 ver. as soon. If they are not able to, as they say they already can, this is a way to say not a product delay, but no need?

 

[hans007]

i suppose 64bit is irrelavent since most users do not need it. it does give a speed boost if only for the extra GPRs.

then again, you can also say that 3.4 ghz p4s are irrelavent since no one needs that much speed and would probably be ok with a 2.0 ghz.

so in effect, all speed increases are irrelavent unless intel tells us we need them.

basically all this press release says is "we are intel, and our CPUs didnt have 64bit, so we didnt do as good a job but thats ok since we will tell you you dont need it"

 

[Sid59]

64 bit? im still surfing the internet from my P1 133 =\

 

[Overkast]

Originally posted by: hans007
basically all this press release says is "we are intel, and our CPUs didnt have 64bit, so we didnt do as good a job but thats ok since we will tell you you dont need it"

Precisely!

Who do they think they're fooling???

 

[Sahakiel]

Originally posted by: cm123

Originally posted by: jswjimmy
the news is a little old but thanks anyway

old? less than 24 hours... this happened after Intel gave thumbs up to 64... (look at the date Intel exec. released his comments).

I think it layes the ground work for Intel NOT to come out with the desktop 64 ver. as soon. If they are not able to, as they say they already can, this is a way to say not a product delay, but no need?

ROFLMAO.. someone's been under a rock for a whiles now. Intel's been saying 64-bit isn't required on the desktop ever since AMD's Opteron campaign made significant headlines. Note this is well before the actual introduction of Opteron hardware.

 

[pspada]

Gee, Intel - maker of the crappiest selling 64 bit processors known to man - says that AMDs 64 bit chips are irrelevant. Shocking - if you are as dumb as a bag of rocks.

 

[JimRaynor]

If athlon 64 wasn't plain faster than p4s, the whole 64 bit issue would be bashed. But since it is the fastest chip out there, it can get away with it.

 

[batmanuel]

"No one will ever need more than 640k of memory"-Bill Gates,1985

Intel execs should underestimate what resources computer users need at their own peril, or else wind up with quotes like these following them around for the rest of their lives.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: batmanuel
"No one will ever need more than 640k of memory"-Bill Gates,1985

Intel execs should underestimate what resources computer users need at their own peril, or else wind up with quotes like these following them around for the rest of their lives.

The problem with that quote is the fact that Bill Gates never said that.

 

[Sahakiel]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: batmanuel
"No one will ever need more than 640k of memory"-Bill Gates,1985

Intel execs should underestimate what resources computer users need at their own peril, or else wind up with quotes like these following them around for the rest of their lives.

The problem with that quote is the fact that Bill Gates never said that.

lol... if anything, Bill Gates is the one who would be most likely to quote the exact opposite.

 

[Creig]

Well of course 64 bit processors are irrelevent for now. Because Intel doesn't have one suitable for mainstream use yet. But you can bet that the minute they do that Intel will suddenly decide that the world is now ready for 64 bit.

 

[Ronin]

Considering how the A64's performed on the WinXP 64bit build released on desktop applications (gaming performance was abysmal), I'd say Intel thrust their foot into their mouth on that comment. Sadly, Intel at this point in time is doing their best to cover their @ss after the massive failure that was Itanium.

 

[uncleX]

No one will ever need more than 16 exabytes of memory.

5 exabytes created in 2002

1 exabyte = 1,152,921,504,606,846,976 = 2 to the 60th, or 60 bits.

In general, we don't need most of what we have. Most people in the world get by on what a few dollars a year will buy, as did our ancestors, although it once took a year of their hard labor to obtain the equivalent. Few Americans would care to live like that, I'm sure. We don't think the average American lives a posh life. The way we have progressed is not so much that needs existed which we found a means of satisfying, as that we developed greater and greater capabilities based on what has already gone before, for which some application was found, mostly for our amusement, and only later has some part of it turned out to be directly applicable to a previously perceived need. Most of the needs being satified are needs no one thought existed before, while long-standing needs are unsatified because no means of satifying them are known. Memory makers are going to make memory with greater capabilty because they know how. CPU makers are going to make CPUs with greater capability because they know how. When the capability is here, people will find ways to make use of it. Actually, there are people at work right now finding uses for the capability just knowing that it is about to arrive. That's one of the advantages of a technology which has been so predictably advancing. There does not seem to be any limit to the amount of information we would like to make use of, provided it is cheap enough, or any limit to the CPU power that can be put to good use to process it.

The question of when people will "need" 64 bit processors is really a question of when over 4G of memory will be cheap. For some people and some purposes, it is cheap already. When computers routinely have 16G of memory, processing the amount of data they will then be using will need to be done 64 bits at a time rather than 32 in order be done fast enough, or so it will be perceived. If the capability is developed faster, the perceived need will come faster.

 

[WobbleWobble]

Originally posted by: batmanuel
"No one will ever need more than 640k of memory"-Bill Gates,1985

That quote is just an urban legend.

 

[SneakyStuff]

Intel is going to lose big time on this one, I know my next CPU will be an AMD64, just for future upgrade reasons, you're exactly right, Intel dictates "what we need, and what we dont need" at their own accord. The AMD FX clearly outperforms even the fastest P4's so it proves something.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: SneakyStuff
Intel is going to lose big time on this one, I know my next CPU will be an AMD64, just for future upgrade reasons, you're exactly right, Intel dictates "what we need, and what we dont need" at their own accord. The AMD FX clearly outperforms even the fastest P4's so it proves something.

You might want to read Anand's latest benchmarks... Link
The FX definitely does not "clearly outperform even the fastest P4's". Seems to me that they both win often, although I don't feel like adding up all the tests right now.

At any rate, 64-bit has nothing to do with the A64's performance.

 

[SneakyStuff]

i suppose, although for a gamer, the athlon 64 series looks very appealing right now.

 

[videoclone]

I see intel exec's irrelevant for humanity !!!! :disgust:

 

[RobK]

the itanium is a pretty big success these days. you guys need to get out from under your respective rocks.

 

[batmanuel]

Originally posted by: Ronin
Considering how the A64's performed on the WinXP 64bit build released on desktop applications (gaming performance was abysmal), I'd say Intel thrust their foot into their mouth on that comment. Sadly, Intel at this point in time is doing their best to cover their @ss after the massive failure that was Itanium.

I think it is still to early to really read too much into the bad game scores under 64-bit, however. I'm sure a LOT of that is due to very immature 64-bit graphics and AGP drivers at this point. Heck, ATi is still a ways off from having a 64-bit Cats. Game performance always kinda sucks on a preview OSes. For now, it is the applications that are more processor and memory bound that interest me under Win XP 64. The game thing could be a sticking point for the eventual adoption of 64-bit OSes in the long run, though (I remember how long game developers held on to DOS when Direct X and Open GL were in their infancy, and how hard it was to find games that would run under Win 2000 before XP came out).

What really hold promise under 64-bit is media encoding. Divx encoding jumped up 15% under 64-bit Windows in Anand's tests, even with an encoder that was still optimized for 32-bit. I could see video encoding being the real killer app for the 64-bit Windows, especially when fast dual format DVD burners hit cheap and free after rebate prices in a year or two. With lots of DV footage to edit and encode (especially if HD DV cameras start filtering down to the consumer level) I could easily see a home user needing over 4GB of RAM.

And I did not know the Gates quote was BS. Learned something new today. Sad thing is that I'm usually up on those urban legends.

 

[Avalon]

Rocks are comfortable.

 

[batmanuel]

Originally posted by: RobK
the itanium is a pretty big success these days. you guys need to get out from under your respective rocks.

Maybe if you are building a supercomputer. Even then, you'd probably be better off getting a thousand or so Apple Xserve G5s and clustering them.

 

[pspada]

Come on, no one is developing for the I-Lame-ium anymore. Why the heck you think Intel is talking about adding "64-bit extentions" into future Pentium chips?