Poll: Does Intel's x86-64 "Yamhill" Project Really Exist?

[AGodspeed]

Just recently The Mercury News revealed that Intel has been secretly working on a x86-64-type project as a backup plan in case their Itanium architecture isn't a big hit. Anandtech has now posted this news on their front page. This is a sign to me that Anandtech believes this news to be fairly credible, since Anandtech doesn't post rumor-ridden news.

What's everyone's thoughts on this news?

Btw, for anyone who really cares, The Inquirer broke this very same story about 6 weeks.

 

[Dulanic]

Of corse they are, Intel sees that x86-64 is the way PCs are going and that IA64 isnt doing so hot. Intel doesnt want to let AMD take ahold of a whole market segment.

 

[JellyBaby]

It's hard to say because Intel can be so slow to react to market desires and they seem to make dumb mistakes. I'd like to believe they're now more consumer focused as I'm sure they realize AMD's x86-64 plan is a Good Thing and potentially hurtful to them in the future. Intel has been rather ego-driven lately, force-feeding us things we do not want (*cough* rambus). Perhaps finally they're starting to listen to the market.

Itanic has been slowing sinking over a long stretch of time. AMD's x86-64 plan has been known for a long time. Intel is realizing AMD is a pesky competitor and may want to crush them now just as Hammer was supposed to crush them. So I'd say Yamhill is likely given all that.

 

[MisterDuck]

I would have to say a resounding "yes," simply because I think the slower progression to a 64 bit architecture makes a lot more sense. I remember thinking that AMD was going to slap them down a year or two ago when I saw their road map, and also that they were planning a 32/64 bit architecture. The progression to that format, and *then* a 64 bit platform makes more sense to me.

 

[BFG10K]

I'd say it's very likely but Intel is keeping a very tight lid on the issue.

Let's face it: Itanium really is a complete failure.

 

[Degenerate]

I'd say yes. BUt i dont know because the Mickliny (sp) might be able to offer something. I also think that INtel might opt to design a completly different CPU. I know that is less likely, but i might be a better idea to stay in the sever market. But still better see the results of the new Itaniums.

 

[Pabster]

Whether "Yamhill" is the right codename, and no matter where this "secret" development is being done, it most certainly does exist. As I've said previously, I don't pay much mind to the quasi-specifics various sites post on the issue. But I'm 100% certain Intel is designing a hybrid (32/64) processor, which, not coincidentally, will be 100% x86-64 compatible. They make some bad choices, but they're not stupid

 

[AGodspeed]

But I'm 100% certain Intel is designing a hybrid (32/64) processor, which, not coincidentally, will be 100% x86-64 compatible.

I wonder if this will turn out to be true. This would certainly put Intel in an awkward position. Intel would have to license x86-64 from AMD!

 

[Adul]

what i find more amusing is that intel has to license this tech from AMD. Who following who now.

 

[jeffrey]

Yes, they have a R&D budget in the billion$. It would be bad business management not to build it, even if it won't see the light of day.

 

[Gstanfor]

Paul DeMone dubbed Yamhill "Imitanium" in a thread @ ars technica. ROFLMAO!

Greg

 

[imgod2u]

It would be disappointing. Not in the sense of who's following who, but in the sense that x86 will indeed be be stretching beyond 32-bit. One thing I hate is how old technology gets stretched so long simply because people (and developers) are too lazy to switch to something new.

 

[AGodspeed]

One thing I hate is how old technology gets stretched so long simply because people (and developers) are too lazy to switch to something new.

I don't think it's "laziness". It would take a HUGE effort for everyone to dump the x86 ISA in favor of something very different (like EPIC).

 

[FlippyBoy]

maybe. but i think the question is, what if it does? who do you think would be first to market with it, and who will be more successful? what if amd is first to market, and does a good enough job marketing it that intel is left with a tiny share? will amd ever become intel the 2nd? i hope amd doesnt forget its humble beginnings.

 

[NFS4]

It's quite amusing if they do...AMD has been touting x86-64 while Intel has been screaming just 64-bit.

I'm ready to see some fancy Moonwalking now

 

[AGodspeed]

who do you think would be first to market with it, and who will be more successful?

I very much doubt that Intel could release a 32/64 bit processor before AMD's Hammer this year. Experts and analysts think it'll be more like 2003/2004, and that's the best case scenario. But even if Intel does release a Pentium 4 32/64 bit processor in late 2003/early 2004, it will still be 1 whole year behind Hammer (ClawHammer is supposed to debut before December of this year).

If Intel ever does release a 32/64 bit processor, I'm betting it won't be until the later half of 2004.

As to which one will be more successful, that's anyone?s guess.

Paul DeMone dubbed Yamhill "Imitanium" in a thread @ ars technica. ROFLMAO!

LOL.

 

[AluminumStudios]

If the world was really ready to adopt a 64 bit arcitecture, then why hasn't Sun's Ultrasparc, or MIPs been more popular? They are both well understood and in use. Assuming Itanic doesn't sink, why would the high-end world flock to it as opposed to UltraSparc and MIPs?

 

[AGodspeed]

<< If the world was really ready to adopt a 64 bit arcitecture, then why hasn't Sun's Ultrasparc, or MIPs been more popular? They are both well understood and in use. Assuming Itanic doesn't sink, why would the high-end world flock to it as opposed to UltraSparc and MIPs? >>



Cause it can run 32-bit code faster than any other processor on earth (assuming the Hammer runs 32-bit code better than the Athlon that is).

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

I think the problem is Merced was way too delayed for Intel to go to McKinley and Madison in the timeframe they would have liked. Merced was never supposed to be a chip for the masses. I bet Intel will eventually succeed in making the Itanium viable in a few years, in the post-Madison era.

-Ice

*edit* typo

 

[AGodspeed]

<< I think the problem is Merced was way too delayed for Intel to go to McKinley and Madison in the timeframe they would have liked. Merced was never supposed to be a chip for the masses. I bet Intel will eventually succeed in make the Itanium viable in a few years, in the post-Madison era.

-Ice >>



It was just recently reported that Atom-sized PC chips are a lot closer. The articles mentions:

HP said it was ahead on designing a complex nanochip as well as the parts and could be making nanocomputers smaller than a bacterium, able to be weaved into a shirt, in the next decade or so.

I was just reading that Intel plans on having Itanium for the next 2 decades. I wonder if these technologies will conflict with each other.

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

<< that Atom-sized PC chips are a lot closer. The articles mentions:

HP said it was ahead on designing a complex nanochip as well as the parts and could be making nanocomputers smaller than a bacterium, able to be weaved into a shirt, in the next decade or so.

I was just reading that Intel plans on having Itanium for the next 2 decades. I wonder if these technologies will conflict with each other. >>



The way I understand it, Itanium is just Intel marketing-speak for IA-64 compatible processor. Hence, a nanotech fabbing technique does not interfere with Intel's Itanium plans.

-Ice