• 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 Responds to AMD by Disclosing New 64-bit Processor with 500 Million Transistors.

A

AGodspeed

Diamond Member
http://www.siliconstrategies.com/story/OEG20020425S0017

In response to Advanced Micro Devices Inc.'s aggressive efforts in the 64-bit microprocessor market, Intel Corp. here today gave a sneak preview of a new, high-end chip line with 500 million transistors.

During a Webcast event here today, Intel disclosed the first public details of its code-named Madison product, a 64-bit processor, based on a 130-nm (0.13-micron) process technology. Madison is a 500-million transistor chip with 6-megabytes of cache.

Madison is the follow-on chip to the company's current 64-bit processor line--code-named McKinley, which is a 220-million transistor chip, based on 180-nm (0.18-micron) technology. McKinley has 3-MB of cache, it was noted.

Intel is currently shipping McKinley to the marketplace. This chip, which is now being called Itanium II, is the follow-on to the company's first 64-bit processor, dubbed Itanium.

Intel has been talking about Madison and other 64-bit chips for months, but has not disclosed the product details (see Feb. 26 story ).

"We have first silicon [for Madison]," said Paul Otellini, president and COO at Intel. "This product will ship next year," he said during a Webcast event here today.

The new 64-bit products from Intel will compete against those from its archrival--AMD. It will also compete against chips from IBM, Mips, Sun, and others.

On Wednesday, AMD received a major boost, as Microsoft Inc. endorsed the company's yet-to-be-announced 64-bit microprocessor line, code-named Hammer.

AMD said that the U.S.-based software giant plans to offer versions of its Windows operating system software for Hammer. Microsoft will reportedly also develop future versions of Windows XP for Hammer.

AMD also today announced that it has selected "AMD Opteron" as the brand name for its high-end, 64-bit processor line, code-named SledgeHammer.
 


<< McKinley has 3-MB of cache, it was noted. >>


🙁 I was hoping for them to keep the 2 MB cache option in the current Itanium. The extra cache is too expensive and provides little benefit for non-servers.


<< 6-megabytes of cache >>


See above.


<< 500 Million Transistors >>


Makes you wonder if Montecito will come near the 1 billion level.


<< This product will ship next year >>


Intel is certainly pushing the Itanium line fast. In just one year Itanium 2 comes out that about doubles the speed of Itanium. Then next year Madison ships with 127% more transitors. This yearly cycle is far faster than Moore's Law of 18 to 24 month cycles.
 
This SEEMS to me like basically another IA64 chip for high high end servers.... I don't think its targetted at all against Hammer, but thats just my opinion.
 


<< I don't think its targetted at all against Hammer. >>


Opteron will compete mainly with Xeon and Barton MP for the 1-2 processor workstations (although I find it overkill here). Opteron will compete mainly with the Xeon MP for 3-4 processor workstations/servers. Opteron will compete mainly with Itanium for the 5-8 processor machines (as well as some other proprietary processors). AMD has nothing that can compete in the high-high end with 512 processor Itaniums.

So it is slightly targetted against the Hammer.
 


<< But, is this Intel chip backwards compatible to 32-bit applications like Hammer? >>



It was never meant to be used much in 32-bit. Anyone who needs 64-bit has virtually no use for 32 bit applications. There is (at this moment) no industry/commercial demand for both. Most people just don't jump on their server/supercomputer to play a game, browse the internet, or write a Word document. Itanium was never meant for home use - and so it has no need for 32-bit.

You current processor might not be "backwords" compatable with 8-bit applications. So it runs them slowly. But by the time most programs use 64-bit, the processors will be so fast that who cares if Quake 5 runs a bit slower - we will all be playing Quake 7. I see a huge number of people on these forums that have the misconception that there will simultaneously be lots of brand new games or programs in both 32-bit and 64-bit so you need a processor that does both - it just doesn't work that way.



<< Bah!, not this again, this compition crap is really starting to get repetitive. Parts have been turning obsolete every 6 months! >>


Luckily there aren't many Itaniums that will be going obsolete. 😉
 
Bah!, not this again, this compition crap is really starting to get repetitive. Parts have been turning obsolete every 6 months!
 


<< But, is this Intel chip backwards compatible to 32-bit applications like Hammer? >>



More then likely it is since the first Itanium was/is backwards compatible. Is it as fast at legacy 32bit code as the Hammer probably not but it doesn't have to be. The companies buying servers and supercomputers based on these chips will uses custom software that Intel will help recompile to run on their new 64bit machines.
 


<< I was hoping for them to keep the 2 MB cache option in the current Itanium. The extra cache is too expensive and provides little benefit for non-servers. >>

Rumors around the time of ISSCC circulated that a 1.5MB variant would be released. I imagine that Deerfield (.13u lower-power variant) will feature a smaller cache size as well.



<< But, is this Intel chip backwards compatible to 32-bit applications like Hammer? >>

Unlike the commonly held misconception, Merced (Itanium) and McKinley (Itanium 2) are fully backwards compatible with 16-bit and 32-bit x86 code via hardware, without any emulation. Both architectures feature an out-of-order IA32 front end that uses the in-order VLIW back end...as you can see from this McKinley die photo (pg. 4), the IA32 front-end takes up an appreciable portion of the die. Merced's IA32 implementation may have been poor (just like everything else 😉), but that doesn't mean future IA64 implementations can't significantly improve x86 performance. In fact, a post by an HP engineer a few months ago (I think it was on comp.arch, or maybe RWT) said that McKinley's x86 performance was completely redesigned over Merced, and would provide 1/2 to 1/3 of the native IA64 performance. Using the projected McKinley SPEC estimates as well as an x86 performance somewhere in the middle of that range, that would place the 1GHz McKinley at the x86 performance level of about a 700 MHz P3 for integer code and the 1700+ Athlon XP for floating-point code.
 
What a bargain... $5000 for a P!!!700 equivalent!
rolleye.gif
 
When Intel comes out with a alpha based 64 bit processor I take the time to look at it, untill then it's just rubish....
Just look at itanium!!
 


<< What a bargain... $5000 for a P!!!700 equivalent!
rolleye.gif
>>



Why would you buy a $5000 64bit chip if planned on running 32bit apps?
 
<<Why would you buy a $5000 64bit chip if planned on running 32bit apps?>>

Hence, the rolling eyes. Pay $500 early next year and run either/or at full speed...
 
How? The 64bit Intel chips won't be $500 for another 2-3 years if ever and a Clawhammer can't run EPIC code.
 
I agree with dullard, I too seem to get the feeling that alot of people around here think that they are going to run out and buy the first 64-bit chip released by AMD/Intel, I don't think people are understanding what all this is about. This is about mid to high end servers and workstations and AMD trying for the first time to compete with the big boys. 64-bit computing is still a few years away from the home user, Microsoft is creating their 64-bit OS for the Corporate market. 64-bit games and the like are not even on the minds of game developers at this point. If your a AMD fan then this is good news and you should be happy about them continuing to grow and compete with Intel, but don't think this is going to affect you anytime soon because it's not.
 


<< What a bargain... $5000 for a P!!!700 equivalent!
rolleye.gif
>>

you just don't get it, do ya?
rolleye.gif


the arrogance that some people have, who think they know everything (when it's painfully obvious that they don't), amazes me sometimes.
 
I wouldn't say that Intel is scared at all. In the past 15 years, AMD has had eight profitable years and seven in the red. Total net earnings for the period, including acquisitions and sell-offs, come to $1.66 billion, including $983 million in 2000. In comparison, Intel earned $1.4 billion including acquisitions during the past two quarters.

-x86
 
I seriously don't think Opteron will be a value chip either... based on the targetted segments of the corporate level, they may run you a few grand just for the chip alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top