Intel to demonstrate 64bit Xeon/P4 in February

[DarkMadMax]

Originally posted by: SSibalNom

Originally posted by: thorin

but if it's 64-bit or not, the current amd 64-bit setup is cheaper and outperfoms mosts p4's at a much lower cost as far as gaming goes, and most average joes are just playin games on the pc

IMHO the only place where it really matters is games . I do a lot on my home rig - audio /video center (all those divx movies and mp3) , database developing , MSVS.NEt, regular MS Office junk , p2p, tons of internet explorer windows - regular power user setup. But the fact that Intels netburst architecture may do media encoding a bit faster matters absolutely jack crap to me - as its already as fast as I need ( I don't give a damn if its 1 hour or 1 hour and 5 minutes -I not gonna sit with stopwatch around it) .

I ran all that on my antiquated amd XP 1800+ Palomino core and I am 100% content with performance. But the time I want waste my time in smthing like far cry is the only time I notice that my pc old. Then when I shop for my next upgrade I pull up the benches from anandtech/ixbt and see which cpu perfroms the best when it matters. And what I see???- I see that intel's overpriced CPU constantly falling behind -sometime its 5% , sometimes its 30% - but nevertheless always behind.

Average joe though wont notice any difference ever - as he uses it to check mail on his yahoo ( with outlook if he is "advanced user") , play Sims a bit , maybe do some stuff in ms office . he can do it on Dell's celerons ,he can do it on A64 3200 - he will be content in either case. All that matters is marketing and AMD have none

 

[felixmanos]

There is another development that could blow this whole argument away. I read as much on the news on nanotechnology as possible. A primitive working circuit has be demonstrated recently, so they are making progress toward the development of the quantum computer. Probably years away. But what might not be years away is the successful development of nano-sized memory modules. The possibility of creating a memory device small enough to put several gigabytes of impossibly fast memory on the cpu die itself seems to draw closer. Just last week I read of Intel entering into partnership with Nanosys for something like this to happen. Intel has the money to make this happen, AMD doesn't. Just dreaming...

felix

 

[MadRat]

Or it could be, like I said, a bypass of the decoder so that IA64 runs either emulated or natively through the RISC structures of Intel's CISC design. Intel probably hasn't had time to do anything along the nature of AMD64, else it would be enabled prior to this big event. Expect something more along the lines of IA64. They have too much invested in IA64 to throw it away.

 

[thorin]

Originally posted by: DarkMadMax

Originally posted by: SSibalNom

Originally posted by: thorin

but if it's 64-bit or not, the current amd 64-bit setup is cheaper and outperfoms mosts p4's at a much lower cost as far as gaming goes, and most average joes are just playin games on the pc

IMHO the only place where it really matters is games . I do a lot on my home rig - audio /video center (all those divx movies and mp3) , database developing , MSVS.NEt, regular MS Office junk , p2p, tons of internet explorer windows - regular power user setup. But the fact that Intels netburst architecture may do media encoding a bit faster matters absolutely jack crap to me - as its already as fast as I need ( I don't give a damn if its 1 hour or 1 hour and 5 minutes -I not gonna sit with stopwatch around it) .

I ran all that on my antiquated amd XP 1800+ Palomino core and I am 100% content with performance. But the time I want waste my time in smthing like far cry is the only time I notice that my pc old. Then when I shop for my next upgrade I pull up the benches from anandtech/ixbt and see which cpu perfroms the best when it matters. And what I see???- I see that intel's overpriced CPU constantly falling behind -sometime its 5% , sometimes its 30% - but nevertheless always behind.

Average joe though wont notice any difference ever - as he uses it to check mail on his yahoo ( with outlook if he is "advanced user") , play Sims a bit , maybe do some stuff in ms office . he can do it on Dell's celerons ,he can do it on A64 3200 - he will be content in either case. All that matters is marketing and AMD have none

For the record that is NOT my post.

Thorin

 

[KillaKilla]

Originally posted by: jhu
so people don't need 64-bits right now, huh?

[rant]
Most poeple don't need a P4 or AthlonXP but they still buy 'em...

With regards to the 'most' in that sentence, as it will draw flames:

Some people might need 64-bit. Didn't Sun, IBM, or other server Mfg. have 64-bit for many, many years now? I'm not really sure, don't pay attention to servers much...

Originally posted by: SSibalNom

Originally posted by: thorin

Originally posted by: Lonyo
MS: 1
AMD: 1/2
Intel: 0

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

but if it's 64-bit or not, the current amd 64-bit setup is cheaper and outperfoms mosts p4's at a much lower cost as far as gaming goes, and most average joes are just playin games on the pc

Average joe playin PC games has integrated graphics. Face it, america doesn't know $#!7 about computers, or about 32-bit vs 64bit, or even that it out-performs intel ones. See: dell; They don't have any 64-bit machines, and sell celerons buy the busload.

 

[Zinn2b]

Intel well best AMD and I feel great about it, they always have they always well MAN everybody has a right to there opion in the USA thank god BUT people let us not forget were americans and intel is an american company thats why I am gunho on them I guess I am a patriot at heart now AMD is a german company and a pray there not little nazies at heart

 

[MadRat]

AMD and Intel are both multinational corporations, not German nor American. Both are headquartered in America: AMD in Austin, TX and Intel in Santa Clara, CA.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: Zinn2b
Intel well best AMD and I feel great about it, they always have they always well MAN everybody has a right to there opion in the USA thank god BUT people let us not forget were americans and intel is an american company thats why I am gunho on them I guess I am a patriot at heart now AMD is a german company and a pray there not little nazies at heart

What in God's name are you talking about?

Intel = USA?
AMD = Nazis?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: Zinn2b
Intel well best AMD and I feel great about it, they always have they always well MAN everybody has a right to there opion in the USA thank god BUT people let us not forget were americans and intel is an american company thats why I am gunho on them I guess I am a patriot at heart now AMD is a german company and a pray there not little nazies at heart

What in God's name are you talking about?

Intel = USA?
AMD = Nazis?

You are zee enemy!
FIRE ZEE MISSLES!

 

[PetNorth]

Originally posted by: Accord99
Except that Longhorn is supposedly delayed till 2005, or 2006 and is primarily a 32-bit OS

Wrong. Microsoft is developing Longhorn as 32bits and x86-64 AMD64 too, same package:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1368465,00.asp

The Longhorn preview also shipped with a 64-bit version that supports AMD's line of 64-bit processors. We were able to install it on our Athlon64 FX-51 system, though we didn't have much time to characterize performance. Any attempt to measure performance on such an early release is pretty meaningless anyway. At any rate, it looks and behaves just like the 32-bit version

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: PetNorth

Originally posted by: Accord99
Except that Longhorn is supposedly delayed till 2005, or 2006 and is primarily a 32-bit OS

Wrong. Microsoft is developing Longhorn as 32bits and x86-64 AMD64 too, same package:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1368465,00.asp

The Longhorn preview also shipped with a 64-bit version that supports AMD's line of 64-bit processors. We were able to install it on our Athlon64 FX-51 system, though we didn't have much time to characterize performance. Any attempt to measure performance on such an early release is pretty meaningless anyway. At any rate, it looks and behaves just like the 32-bit version

Which in no way invalidates my statement, Longhorn is primarily targetted at the 32-bit market. Sheer numbers of installed 32-bit PCs and limited production capabilites of AMD will dictate that the 32-bit sales of Lonhorn will far exceed 64-bit. Nor is there any guarantee that 64-bit Longhorn will be ready at the same time.

 

[Nyati13]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Cerb,

I should have simply referred to 64-bit CISC or RISC, rather than AMD64 or IA64, in that last statement. When it comes down to it, there will be two camps here in the next few years, IA64 and the rest. The rest will be so fractured and require so much more support than IA64 that they won't matter as far as the mainstrean goes for 64-bit programming. I was referring to Longhorn being less platform specific than its predecessor, therefore it won't matter if its ran on an x86 compatible platform or one native to IA64, it will run as good as the compiler allows it to run.

On a side note, has anyone contemplated what could happen if Prescott had AMD64 support and IA64 support in separate modes? What would it take to bypass the CISC decompiler so that their code could run in the RISC-like architecture as native IA64?

IA64 (VLIW) is the exact opposite of RISC, VLIW uses very long instruction strings, RISC uses short instruction strings.

Jeremy

 

[Sohcan]

Originally posted by: MadRat
AMD and Intel are both multinational corporations, not German nor American. Both are headquartered in America: AMD in Austin, TX and Intel in Santa Clara, CA.

Actually, AMD is based in Sunnyvale, CA, though both companies do have design centers in Austin.

IA64 (VLIW) is the exact opposite of RISC, VLIW uses very long instruction strings, RISC uses short instruction strings.

VLIW is orthogonal to CISC/RISC, in the sense that VLIW is an independence architecture whereas traditional RISC/CISC architectures are sequential. Instruction length doesn't define RISC; after all, x86 instructions range from much shorter to much longer (10 bits to 120 bits, IIRC, with an average of 3.5 bytes) than the 32-bit instructions of most RISC architectures. The features that typically set RISC apart from CISC are fixed-length and easy-to-decode instructions, fewer number of addressing modes, large number of registers, and orthogonal register usage (and arguably atomic, ie simple, instructions, though in practice this isn't strictly followed...see PA-RISC and POWER). IA64 shares all of these features with RISC, and takes some of them (large number of registers and fewer number of addressing modes) to an extreme.

 

[iBold]

woot AMD!

-------------------------
Web Host Reviews
iPowerWeb Review : StartLogic Review : LunarPages Review

 

[InlineFive]

HAHA! They make the "shift" as soon as Microsoft releases a 64-Bit AMD Beta for the general public.

-Por