Intel Exec Sees 64-Bit Irrelevant for Home PCs Now

[Czar]

Sounds like 3dfx saying people dont need 32bits and bigger textures than 256x256 just because current software doesnt need it. New hardware features leads to software developers using those features, thats the whole point.

 

[WackyDan]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: WackyDan

Originally posted by: Dulanic
Intel may make some good chips but man do their guys make dumb statements...

"The question you have to ask yourself is will 64-bit be compelling and relevant three years from now?" Siu said, referring to the average gap of three years that passes before old computers are replaced. "You end up spending more money for a feature you don't need to use."

Siu held out 2006 as the year when 64-bit would make good sense for home users.

No you may end up spending the SAME or LESS amount of money for a feature that will gradualy get more use over the next few years. I just find it funny Intel is talking about spending more money hehe.

Intel's Siu said it did not yet make sense to introduce 64-bit computing for home users, long before supporting software -- including Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT.O: Quote, Profile, Research) next-generation Windows operating system, expected at the end of 2005 or early 2006 -- becomes widely available.

And the only reason supporting software will be there is because AMD released a 64-bit chip... we all know the software doesn't come around till the hardware does. Intel needs to say, we will let AMD be the people to put it out first, so that the software will be there when we decide to do so. And we all know Intel will release a 64-bit mainstream chip for home users long before 2006, at which point they will forget they ever said this and all of a sudden say 64-bit is great!

Excuse me.....

You seem to forget about Itanium, and Itanium2... Both of which are 64bit and long before AMD released theirs.

And also EXTREMELY expensive. We're talking < $300 for an Athlon 64 processor and thousands for an Itanium. Not to mention that the Itanium is pretty crummy at x86 code (not that it needs to run that anyway).

Regardless...we're talking about the desktop market and "Xeon Class" processors here. Itanium is more enterprise level.

"And the only reason supporting software will be there is because AMD released a 64-bit chip... we all know the software doesn't come around till the hardware does. "

And my point was to that statement directly above. I wasn't talking about price.

 

[mamisano]

Some people here are confused on what AMD64 has to offer. It allows higher performance on all applications as well as being able to address more the 4GB of RAM. AMD has added registers to the A64 processors that allow it to perform more work per clock in 64-bit mode (ie increase the IPC). This has been shown recently time and time again with the latest 64-bit game demos. Increases in speed of 30% are the norm when running the games in 64bit mode compared to 32bit mode.

So, you go out and buy an A64 now, and gaurantee yourself a possible 30+% increase in power when XP-64 hit the streets, or get a P4 and then have to upgrade again to AMD64/IA32e compatible processor later on.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: mamisano
AMD has added registers to the A64 processors that allow it to perform more work per clock in 64-bit mode (ie increase the IPC). Increases in speed of 30% are the norm when running the games in 64bit mode compared to 32bit mode.

So, you go out and buy an A64 now, and gaurantee yourself a possible 30+% increase in power when XP-64 hit the streets, or get a P4 and then have to upgrade again to AMD64/IA32e compatible processor later on.

That all has to do with the extra registers - and NOT 64-bits. Thus you just reinforced the opposing side that 64-bit part could be cut out (saving money) and still perform great. Plus we still haven't actually seen any game with 30% increase. We have to wait and see if this will or will not materialize.

 

[menads]

Unfortunately Dullard there is no way to include (or properly to adress) these new registers with IA-32 so like it or not AMD64 is the solution to use these registers. It is part of the specs for the new x86-64 so give what is due to AMD for trying to fix x86 architecture for all (and I don't want to switch to architecture for which I have no software).
And for all these ramblings whether 64bit is needed or not - this is a pure marketing (bullshit) talk from Intel execs. I agree that a very small people from desktop users need this feature now (people like me, 3D designers, CAD users and so on) but none of these would have happened if there is nobody to start it. If AMD didn't introduced it in the first place there would have never been Win64/Linux64 and none of the software development houses would have ported/porting anything to it. And finally when you can get the fastest 32bit CPU now from AMD and getting 64bit capability as a free bonus it is just no brainer. For all these people that would prefer to spend the same amount of money to buy Intel CPU that cost the same, produce twice heat (not TDP but average usage vs C&Q), and not get 64 bit as a bonus - fine, it is your money to burn. But do not try to tell us whether we need 64bit or not - it is our call!

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: menads
Unfortunately Dullard there is no way to include (or properly to adress) these new registers with IA-32 so like it or not AMD64 is the solution to use these registers. It is part of the specs for the new x86-64 so give what is due to AMD for trying to fix x86 architecture for all (and I don't want to switch to architecture for which I have no software).

I'm just arguing from a purely theoretical standpoint here. It is true that the x86-32 is limited. And those limitations will not be changed (due to practical reasons). But the fact is, the 64-bit part isn't what is helping in the vast majority of cases where the Athlon 64 shows good performance. Theoretically it would be possible to fix x86-32 to get this extra performance without going to 64-bits. AMD has done multiple changes with their x86-64 plan and it is the other changes that give the great performance now. So theoretically 64-bit isn't needed at home in 2004.

 

[JayMassive]

Allow me to act as one of the representatives of those who know little about computing hardware, but I'm still thinking Intel is just trying to play down the success AMD will have with their 64's. They basically say it's not a good thing to act for the future, but they made an extremely big deal about future processing with this:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,62317,00.html?tw=wn_techhead_7

I know that's a ways off, and will be hella expensive. And it's not supposed to affect CPU's alone. However, I'm hoping that's why AMD released their chip early, too. When Windows does come full steam with their 64-bit platforms, the entry-level chips will have become a bit cheaper for PC consumers to buy. I don't think I would be buying a 64, even if the price drops. I happened to win one at a gaming festival, so I'll get to test it out. I know some of the numbers for the a64, but I figure I'll only notice a performance difference because I'm currently running a 2.4b on a Dell motherboard with zero overclocking capabilities that I'm aware of. I'm a bit more of an AMD fan than I was because they decided to release their 64's.

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: Rectalfier
3dfx: You do not need 32 bit, untill we say you do.

Hey you almost killed me today, i chocked on my food this is so funny 😀

 

[mamisano]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: menads
Unfortunately Dullard there is no way to include (or properly to adress) these new registers with IA-32 so like it or not AMD64 is the solution to use these registers. It is part of the specs for the new x86-64 so give what is due to AMD for trying to fix x86 architecture for all (and I don't want to switch to architecture for which I have no software).

I'm just arguing from a purely theoretical standpoint here. It is true that the x86-32 is limited. And those limitations will not be changed (due to practical reasons). But the fact is, the 64-bit part isn't what is helping in the vast majority of cases where the Athlon 64 shows good performance. Theoretically it would be possible to fix x86-32 to get this extra performance without going to 64-bits. AMD has done multiple changes with their x86-64 plan and it is the other changes that give the great performance now. So theoretically 64-bit isn't needed at home in 2004.

Well, define what is needed in the home in 2004? You can get on fine in the average home with processors and platforms that are 1 and 2 generations old (PII, P3 class). Just because Intel doesn't think it will be necessary doesn't mean people won't want it. That's where AMD steps in, they give you a CHOICE...

AMD can come out with a similar statement saying that SSE3 is not needed at home until 2006. Lord knows there are NO applications to take advantage of the added extensions....

 

[beyoku]

yep its just like when people buy GFX cards even though the games will be supported withthe next directx version. If they can be used NOW and be the fastest thing ever.............at the SAME price then dig in.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: mamisano
Well, define what is needed in the home in 2004? You can get on fine in the average home with processors and platforms that are 1 and 2 generations old (PII, P3 class). Just because Intel doesn't think it will be necessary doesn't mean people won't want it. That's where AMD steps in, they give you a CHOICE...

AMD can come out with a similar statement saying that SSE3 is not needed at home until 2006. Lord knows there are NO applications to take advantage of the added extensions....

Yes AMD can say that and it will be true - it isn't NEEDED. I think people here are confusing WANTED and NEEDED. Sure I want a 15% boost on my car's horsepower, but it isn't a necessity. The definition of a CPU need is something that you cannot do your computer work without. No one here can honestly say the home user needs 64-bit at this point. Sure it may be helpful in some rare workstation cases - but that isn't a home computer.

The average new home computer is approaching 512 MB. Double that for enthusiasts. Thus we are at 1 GB. Some extreme enthusiasts may be at 1.5 GB or 2 GB at home but even then they aren't at the 4 GB system memory limit (ok we could say 3.5 GB due to Windows limitations). My personal definition: as soon as the extreme enthusiast is pushing that 3.5 GB limit at home, then something more than 32-bits is NEEDED for a home computer. So the question comes: as enthusiasts are you pushing 3.5 GB in 2004 in your home computer?

64-bits has other benefits - memory isn't the only thing. Someone posted benchmarks of a program that took 2 seconds to encrypt data instead of 3 seconds when in 32-bit mode. Again I ask is that 1 second savings a true need? I say it is a want - not a need.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: mamisano
Well, define what is needed in the home in 2004? You can get on fine in the average home with processors and platforms that are 1 and 2 generations old (PII, P3 class). Just because Intel doesn't think it will be necessary doesn't mean people won't want it. That's where AMD steps in, they give you a CHOICE...

AMD can come out with a similar statement saying that SSE3 is not needed at home until 2006. Lord knows there are NO applications to take advantage of the added extensions....

Yes AMD can say that and it will be true - it isn't NEEDED. I think people here are confusing WANTED and NEEDED. Sure I want a 15% boost on my car's horsepower, but it isn't a necessity. The definition of a CPU need is something that you cannot do your computer work without. No one here can honestly say the home user needs 64-bit at this point. Sure it may be helpful in some rare workstation cases - but that isn't a home computer.

The average new home computer is approaching 512 MB. Double that for enthusiasts. Thus we are at 1 GB. Some extreme enthusiasts may be at 1.5 GB or 2 GB at home but even then they aren't at the 4 GB system memory limit (ok we could say 3.5 GB due to Windows limitations). My personal definition: as soon as the extreme enthusiast is pushing that 3.5 GB limit at home, then something more than 32-bits is NEEDED for a home computer. So the question comes: as enthusiasts are you pushing 3.5 GB in 2004 in your home computer?

64-bits has other benefits - memory isn't the only thing. Someone posted benchmarks of a program that took 2 seconds to encrypt data instead of 3 seconds when in 32-bit mode. Again I ask is that 1 second savings a true need? I say it is a want - not a need.

OK, all of thisbickering is now getting down to semantics and wording which generally means someone is trying to blow smoke up someone else's ass 😉

How 'bout I make this easy?😛

(1) AMD has a 32/64-bit processor that costs about the same as an Intel 32-bit processor and offers equal or greater performance with lower heat levels
(2) AMD's chip can TODAY handle 64-bit code
(3) Microsoft has an operating system in beta that can handle the processor/instructions and should release it with the next 6 months
(4) Intel does NOT have an x86-64 processor on the market now
(5) Intel says you don't need it.

Bottom line: Intel doesn't have a product on the market now to compete with Opteron/Athlon FX/Athlon 64 feature for feature so of COURSE they are going to downplay things.

Sure, we may not NEED 64-bit right now (just like I don't NEED a 3.4GHz processor), but AMD at least got the ball moving and we now have OS's in the works (and apps being ported) to support the standard. The fact that it may or may not be needed is irrelevant. It doesn't cost you anything extra, it's as fast as Intel's best, and you CAN run 64-bit apps/OS's if you choose to right now.

 

[NFS4]

Intel 64-bit plan baffles AMD

Seems as though the AMD rep is misinformed on the positioning of the Xeon:

John Robinson, Australia and New Zealand country manager for AMD, said his understanding was that the Xeon was only aimed at the server workstation end of the market.

Then he goes on to say:

This seemed an about-face for Intel, he alleged. ?Last year, they said they were never going to come out with 64-bit on the personal end, but I find it a bit baffling now that they come out and say something like this,? Robinson said.

😕

 

[Cerb]

1. Look at benches of anything ported properly. Not hype. Sure, the 64-bitness is, but not the changes themselves.
2. Opteron niche? Then why is it selling so well?
64-bit Unix?
Try 32-bit or 64-bit Linux, Windows XP Pro and Windows 2003 server.
LAMP alone makes the Opteron a good buy.
3. Could be done with a tweaked XP core? Um...unless I'm mistaken, running in 32-bit, that's all the Opteron is. Tweaked to hell and gone, but performs many tasks (mainly pure number crunching) the same as XPs and MPs do. When it comes to heavy I/O is where the changes come in.
4. Here, I agree. X86 won't die right off. Hopefully, though, something relatively commonplace, like PPC, will begin to take over, and a nice migration will take place. Even Windows is gradually becoming hardware-agnostic.
5. IA64 is and was a niche solution. It makes short work of heavily parallel tasks, making it great for large databases and such, but costs too much (including to make).
6. We know intel had their own 64-bit extensions to current CPUs on the way, and then went about redesiging for x86-64. They were going to do the same thing as AMD, basically.
7. I say the consumer does benefit. Without all the hype behind the Opteron and Athlon64, we wouldn't see P4C and A64 high-end CPUs at $400!
M$ is trying to fix those mistakes for good. I hope they succeed. x86-64 allows them to rather easily port things over. However, there's a lot more than just that going on, hence we're still waiting. M$ would benefit, however, no matter what happened. They hold the souls of Solitaire-playing office workers in their hands. Even the great and inuitive Apple can't beat that.
8. I agree about M$. The only ones going to desktop Linux are companies that don't want MS in spite, and most of the good things done to windows were done for major business users, and the rest was left alone. Hopefully they will have enough new, and also good, portable, code for Longhorn to end all of this. Linux will start giving them corporate competition very soon.
9. MS should go platform-agnosticism ASAP. X86 isn't dead, but it is on its last legs--even if those legs can take it another 20 years. But nobody can really tell at this point. Office, DirectX, and several other bits and pieces prove that MS clearly has good people working there, and could could compete with Linux in all areas that it excells, while maintaining the user-friendliness of Windows (like not having to reboot or go into text files when you screw up hardware settings) they already have.
10. If anything totally new takes off, and Intel has no part of it initially, it won't go x86. I imagine even AMD could welcome such a change. They have these very powerful CPUs, currently proven to be marginally crippled by newer Intel compilers. Now imagine they can really sell a PPC chip. It'd take time to design one, but with the raw power of the current CPUs, and an ISA that has fewer tacked-on bits and pieces, AND could either use 3rd-party compilers for all OS platforms, or 2nd-party non-CPU specific ones (let's say IBM did something big-bluish, leaving the desktop and low to mid range server arenas to AMD and Intel, getting royalties from both, while only competing in the form of Apple computers)...they'd probably have an even better powerhouse, and everyone would likely benefit.

Applications? Games. A64 2800+ is under $200, offering far more performance for it's 1.8GHz speed than an XP at almost that speed. If the kind of gains seen by UT become common, it will mean I can get more value. Given I recently upgraded to an OC'd 1800+/NF2, believe me when I talk about value 🙂.