Intel to demonstrate 64bit Xeon/P4 in February
- Thread starter Pariah
- Start date
As an AMD fan I am greatly excited by this. I hope the rumor is true and that once Intel has an x86-64 chip in the wild Windows 64 bit edition will be publicly released.
I think it might be a bit more accurate to say:
AMD: 1
Intel: 1.23 E45
This may be a good win for AMD, which is good if it keeps them in business. However, from a technology standpoint, if x86-64 wins over IA64, it may be a loss for the computing world, much like VHS winning over BetaMax, despite BetaMax being the superior technology.
AMD: 1
Intel: 1.23 E45
This may be a good win for AMD, which is good if it keeps them in business. However, from a technology standpoint, if x86-64 wins over IA64, it may be a loss for the computing world, much like VHS winning over BetaMax, despite BetaMax being the superior technology.
Not really a loss except for people that do low-level programming. No one complains about how their x86 machine is so much crappier than a ppc or sparc.
I've found that the crappier technology almost seems to have an *advantage* in more cases than not. There are so many examples of it in the computing world, it's ridiculous.
Cerb
Elite Member
- Aug 26, 2000
- 17,484
- 33
- 86
Intel has the IA64, which is a compeltely different paradigm ofr use. All current benchmarks show that it is outstanding in big ol' servers, but barely competitive with Opterons otherwise, and nothing close with the price. While Intel may move away from x86 (in baby steps), them and HP are about the only companies not just waiting for the Itanic to sink, so they can get some near-equivalent parts that work with what they already have and use. It may take ahold somewhere, but more people want x86-64 than IA64 with good ol' EPIC.
so people don't need 64-bits right now, huh? alright intel, then why the fvck are you introducing a 64-bit x86 processor?!? hypocrites...
anyway, i think itanium will go the way of the alpha: superior technology bested by better advertising and commoditization
anyway, i think itanium will go the way of the alpha: superior technology bested by better advertising and commoditization
SCO -1
IMHO this is no big news. Everyone knew Intel was going to be forced in to this position. Hell Intel obviously knew Intel was going to be forced in to this position or else their x86-64 debut wouldn't be for another year (if not more). I still see no benefit to Average Joe owning a 64bit processor (maybe 2 yrs from now it'll make sense).
Thorin
Ask Andre Agassi. Image is everything. I'm sure Intel still truly believes that people don't need 64-bits now, and they would still be right, but from a public perception standpoint it looks bad that AMD has a consumer level 64bit CPU while market leader Intel doesn't. So whether or not the technology is necessary, Intel is forced to follow just to keep up with the Jones's. It has nothing to do with being hypocritical, companies have to move and react with the market. Intel will still probably pull one over on AMD with this one. MS doesn't seem to be in any hurry at all to release x86-64 Windows. Think they have known about Intel's plans for a while? I would not be surprised if MS has some deal with Intel where they release Windows 64 in conjunction with Intel's release to once again trump AMD.
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 25,913
- 4,506
- 126
My opinion has been and still is that very few people need 64-bit capability now and they won't really need it in 2005 either. Once you reach 2006, many people will start stretching that 4 GB barrier so 64-bit will become necessary then. Intel has publicly stated the same thing. When AMD first announced the Hammer series (mid 2000 if I remember correctly), the announcement was just rediculously early. Most people were buying computers with 128 MB not 4 GB. Intel said the same thing publically - there won't be a 64-bit home processor until the time comes when people need them at home. So I think Intel has just been realistic about the release date. AMD of course had to push forward at full speed since they don't have the name recognition. Which brings me to the quote above. Poll the public and ask them what they think of AMD getting out 64-bit first for the home and you'll get one of two responses: (1) who is AMD? or (2) what is 64-bit? Basically the public doesn't give a damn. Intel will remain the top dog for the time being - their market share won't drop since AMD got there first. The public just doesn't care - and they really don't know.
Hammer has been out for a while, so who here has more that 4 GB in their home computer right now?
gsellis
Diamond Member
- Dec 4, 2003
- 6,061
- 0
- 0
I pooh-poohed Intel in the news section on this one. But, the 64-bit is about to bite (ignoring pun) some of us.
I do video editing for fun and profit. A 1 hr tape dump of DV to DV-AVI yields a 13+GB file. Start to see where better than 4GB address space might improve my attitude? But, it gets worse... HD is coming. Now we are talking towards the range of 50GB.
So, there are some of us that would like to prepare. But having been from 16 to 32 before (I must be old) and knowing we did not have as much to convert then, I am not looking too enthusiastically at it. Hey, job security.
I do video editing for fun and profit. A 1 hr tape dump of DV to DV-AVI yields a 13+GB file. Start to see where better than 4GB address space might improve my attitude?
But, it gets worse... HD is coming. Now we are talking towards the range of 50GB.So, there are some of us that would like to prepare. But having been from 16 to 32 before (I must be old) and knowing we did not have as much to convert then, I am not looking too enthusiastically at it. Hey, job security.
I don't think 4+GB is the main benefit to the average desktop user; the extra registers provided in 64-bit mode are. If 64-bit games/encoding/whatever run faster with those extra registers, then 64-bit computing will be successful.
ViRGE
Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
- Oct 9, 1999
- 31,516
- 167
- 106
You're right, of course, but being right isn't going to change too much in this situation. x86 is antiqudated, and one day needs to go, but the computer industry as it is right now, simply isn't ready for that. x86 will be shelved the day that it's obvious it's holding everyone back, and not a day sooner.:Q
"Poll the public and ask them what they think of AMD getting out 64-bit first for the home and you'll get one of two responses: (1) who is AMD? or (2) what is 64-bit? Basically the public doesn't give a damn."
It's not that the public doesn't give a damn, it's that they just don't know. Once again proving that AMD is its own worst enemy and has failed itself again. They've had the buzzword advantage since the A64 was released, yet have still managed to completely fall on their face because they haven't marketed their product at all in the mass media. How many months did it take a major OEM to release an A64 desktop system after the chip was released? Intel is going to manage to jump into the market before the public learns about the technological "advantage" that AMD had. Intel will have their usual marketing blitz when they release their 64bit CPU, and any advantage AMD had will be gone in a blink. AMD will never really succeed if it doesn't learn how to market better. Apple practically kept the company alive for years on shrewd marketing alone.
It's not that the public doesn't give a damn, it's that they just don't know. Once again proving that AMD is its own worst enemy and has failed itself again. They've had the buzzword advantage since the A64 was released, yet have still managed to completely fall on their face because they haven't marketed their product at all in the mass media. How many months did it take a major OEM to release an A64 desktop system after the chip was released? Intel is going to manage to jump into the market before the public learns about the technological "advantage" that AMD had. Intel will have their usual marketing blitz when they release their 64bit CPU, and any advantage AMD had will be gone in a blink. AMD will never really succeed if it doesn't learn how to market better. Apple practically kept the company alive for years on shrewd marketing alone.
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 25,913
- 4,506
- 126
Still without a 64-bit Windows available, we really don't know the true potential of this though. AMD could have very well provided a Hammer without the 64-bit extensions last year yet ran at the same speed, then updated it with the 64-bit extensions this year. All of these great benchmarks we keep seeing are on 32-bit Windows running 32-bit programs. No one would have been significantly harmed if the first Hammer didn't have 64-bit extensions.
I'm just saying the timing in the real world was early on AMDs part. However in AMDs weaker market position, they had to be early - however as Pariah said, they failed to capitalize on it. They didn't even attempt to capitalize on it.
Since Intel and AMD cross license all technology, it costs Intel nothing to add it on to their chips. Then with perfect timing with 64-bit Windows for home, Intel can jump out with great marketing and retain the marketshare lead.
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter