Prescott already has 64bit extensions?

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Article:

We managed to find out some more information about Intel Prescott processor than the Santa Clara, California-based company wants everybody to know. According to a source whishing to remain anonymous, Intel?s next-generation NetBurst CPU code-named Prescott does have 64-bit extensions. But Intel does not desire to enable them because of some reasons, the source added.

Apparently, the extensions may be a part of the well-known Yamhill project and will not be compatible with AMD?s 64-bit extensions available now in AMD Opteron and Athlon 64 processors.

Intel?s top managers have been considering the enablement of the 64-bit extensions in Prescott and Tejas processors for some time now, but no final decisions have been made. What we know for sure is that Intel is not likely to turn on additional functionality of the Prescott processor until 2005, probably when AMD?s 64-bit processors become more or less wide-spread on the market and may affect Intel?s sales.

Intel has been saying that its 32-bit and 64-bit processors will co-exist totally independently in different market segments and has never confirmed plans to implement 64-bit extensions into its IA32 chips. Intel Itanium processors, on the other hand, can emulate conventional x86, but not really fast.

Since implementation of 64-bit extensions into desktop and entry-level server processors may potentially delay the appearance of IA64 software for desktop and cost-effective server applications, Intel should act very cautiously in respect of 64-bit extensions to IA32 chips, as the company?s long-term target seems to be the Itanium and its architecture.

Historically additional CPU instructions deployed by Intel have been more successful that those introduced by AMD due to numerous reasons. Therefore, Intel adding 64-bit functionality into its Prescott chips and derivatives may be a negative news for AMD.

If this is true and Prescott comes with 64bit extensions, I think they may be disabled at first, kind of like what the Hyper Threading plans were, remember? It was on the Williamette and Northwood cores, except disabled without an option to enable it. The Northwood cores without Hyperthreading that is. (3.06GHz, and all "C" processors have hyper threading)

I wonder how fast it will run 64bit compared to AMD as well...

Edit: Another thought, could this be a reason why the 64bit editions of Windows are being delayed? For all we know, they could have wanted to create support for Intel CPU's as well, and previously Intel and Microsoft have been pretty good about working together, because after all, they are two very large companies making products that work together.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

bumpity

 

[ProviaFan]

If that's true (big if), then Intel is speaking with forked tongue, because (at least if I remember correctly) someone from Intel recently said that there is no place for 64 bit on the desktop, and won't be for some time.

 

[Alkaline5]

Dual platforms could potentially be disastrous for AMD if x86-64 doesn't develop a strong user-base and developer support. I still think the sensible thing to do would be for Intel to suck it up and support x86-64 (or for MS to force them to) but it's sounding more and more like they will release yet another 64-bit architecture. If that happens I suspect that profitability will only be a vague memory for AMD as Joe Consumer lines up blindly behind the Pentium name.

 

[NFS4]

Well, well, well...look who crashes the 64-bit party

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: jliechty
If that's true (big if), then Intel is speaking with forked tongue, because (at least if I remember correctly) someone from Intel recently said that there is no place for 64 bit on the desktop, and won't be for some time.

As far as I know, they didn't say there isn't a place for 64bit on the desktop, but they said that the need isn't here right now nor is the customer demand. I certainly think that 64bit will make people purchasing a PC think once about what to pick if the average salesman even mentions it.

Its kind of like the dual cpu question for desktops, Intel solved it hyper threading, and for all P4 cpus, had some die space set aside for it, even though things didn't work out how they wanted. The other reason I believe they will atleast leave a "fail-safe," requirements for 64bit on die, but disabled, is because Intel is more of a long term company. Lots of their money goes into R&D. By them being more long term, they will probably want something for the unforseen future of what tricks AMD can pull out of the hat as well.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: NFS4
Well, well, well...look who crashes the 64-bit party

What do you mean?

Oh, I see, you purchased Athlon 64's 3200+ CPU.

 

[Goose77]

Well this is still a big if????????? its still hearsay. I think that they might accually have something of this sort, just like hyperthreading, but havent perfected it or is not performing well for some reason.

As far as I know, they didn't say there isn't a place for 64bit on the desktop, but they said that the need isn't here right now nor is the customer demand.

as for this statement, your right, but they also said that there will not be a need in the near future. Its funnie that they say this and then add instructions on a proc that will be released soon. It almost seems like the statement of no need for 64bit right now was to buy intel some time for them to attempt to create a working 64bit instruction set so they dont have to license it out from AMD. Now my conjecture might not be right but its an interesting assumption to think about!!!!

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: Goose77
Well this is still a big if????????? its still hearsay. I think that they might accually have something of this sort, just like hyperthreading, but havent perfected it or is not performing well for some reason.

As far as I know, they didn't say there isn't a place for 64bit on the desktop, but they said that the need isn't here right now nor is the customer demand.

as for this statement, your right, but they also said that there will not be a need in the near future. Its funnie that they say this and then add instructions on a proc that will be released soon. It almost seems like the statement of no need for 64bit right now was to buy intel some time for them to attempt to create a working 64bit instruction set so they dont have to license it out from AMD. Now my conjecture might not be right but its an interesting assumption to think about!!!!

Why is the statement funny? Its a smart move, just to be on the safe side incase suddenly the market wants it.

 

[Jumpem]

ifl

 

[Goose77]

Why is the statement funny? Its a smart move, just to be on the safe side incase suddenly the market wants it.

its funnie because its hypocritical of intel to say it wont be needed now or near future then include it on the next processor release which is due out within 3-6 months!! If you ask me thats could be considered present.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: Goose77

Why is the statement funny? Its a smart move, just to be on the safe side incase suddenly the market wants it.

its funnie because its hypocritical of intel to say it wont be needed now or near future then include it on the next processor release which is due out within 3-6 months!! If you ask me thats could be considered present.

Ok, I can see your POV now. I guess my personal thoughts were getting in the way of some things too when I said that, because if I was Intel I would have kept support for 64bit just incase, but at the same time I would have said less about 64bit.

 

[magomago]

ouch - it won't be compatable with AMD's 64bit extensions? What now- WinXP Intel and WinXP AMD along with respective linux versions? And what about programs optimized for 64bit...now two versions?

Why would Intel want to create a rift in the 64bit "world" so to say

 

[Goose77]

Originally posted by: magomago
ouch - it won't be compatable with AMD's 64bit extensions? What now- WinXP Intel and WinXP AMD along with respective linux versions? And what about programs optimized for 64bit...now two versions?

Why would Intel want to create a rift in the 64bit "world" so to say

It wouldn't create a rift, since intel controls 75% market share they would try to force the market to choice between the two. Kinda similar to what Nv did with the graphics market! problem is, this could back fire on intel. If people really hate intel's prices and are really upset with how they have been doing business, the market could chose not to support intels instruction set and leave them hanging, like Nv(probably not gonna happen, but anything is possible in this day and age, all it takes is M$ to screw them, once again, like Nv ).

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: magomago
ouch - it won't be compatable with AMD's 64bit extensions? What now- WinXP Intel and WinXP AMD along with respective linux versions? And what about programs optimized for 64bit...now two versions?

Why would Intel want to create a rift in the 64bit "world" so to say

Because they can "steal AMD's thunder" and put AMD out of business; since Intel is much bigger, their 64 bit extensions will probably come to prominence, even though AMD brought 64 bit extensions to the average person first (well, Apple's G5 may have come out before the Athlon 64, but the prices seem to be more in line with Opteron, which came out before the G5, so I'm just going to ignore this inconsequential facet of the argument for now). People will go with Intel every time, mainly because some people still mindlessly parrot the BS that AMD sucks, is not stable, etc., and the masses tend to believe these pseudo-geeks who pretend to know what they're talking about.

 

[OddTSi]

Originally posted by: magomago
ouch - it won't be compatable with AMD's 64bit extensions? What now- WinXP Intel and WinXP AMD along with respective linux versions? And what about programs optimized for 64bit...now two versions?

Why would Intel want to create a rift in the 64bit "world" so to say

Who said there would be a rift? I think it's pretty safe to say that Intel's 64-bit ISA would eventually be the dominant one. Just like with SSE and 3DNow.

 

[Goose77]

Originally posted by: OddTSi

Originally posted by: magomago
ouch - it won't be compatable with AMD's 64bit extensions? What now- WinXP Intel and WinXP AMD along with respective linux versions? And what about programs optimized for 64bit...now two versions?

Why would Intel want to create a rift in the 64bit "world" so to say

Who said there would be a rift? I think it's pretty safe to say that Intel's 64-bit ISA would eventually be the dominant one. Just like with SSE and 3DNow.

No offence but 3dnow is AMDs.

 

[OddTSi]

Oops. Double post.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: OddTSi

Originally posted by: magomago
ouch - it won't be compatable with AMD's 64bit extensions? What now- WinXP Intel and WinXP AMD along with respective linux versions? And what about programs optimized for 64bit...now two versions?

Why would Intel want to create a rift in the 64bit "world" so to say

Who said there would be a rift? I think it's pretty safe to say that Intel's 64-bit ISA would eventually be the dominant one. Just like with SSE and 3DNow.

Yeah, true. Which is why some of us (those who think competition is good for the marketplace) want to see AMD have at least a little success with their x86-64, instead of being immediately smothered under the foot of a giant elephant.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: magomago
ouch - it won't be compatable with AMD's 64bit extensions? What now- WinXP Intel and WinXP AMD along with respective linux versions? And what about programs optimized for 64bit...now two versions?

Why would Intel want to create a rift in the 64bit "world" so to say

If Intel really wanted to kill off AMD, they would, if this is true, enable the 64bit extensions. Everyones saying AMD will have the 64bit market share, but if Intel makes a move now, the preemptively shut AMD down before they can take any sizable market share. Forcing everyone to support Intel 64 first and foremost and AMD 64 as an after thought. Granted most developers have already developed their first round of apps based on AMD 64, but if Intel released their 64bit offering in the next 3-6 months, every app vendor would focus mainly on Intel 64 for their second gen 64bit apps. But in reality its a moot point for the consumer market, 64bit will only have an impact on the workstation and server market for the next year or two.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Goose77

Originally posted by: OddTSi

Who said there would be a rift? I think it's pretty safe to say that Intel's 64-bit ISA would eventually be the dominant one. Just like with SSE and 3DNow.

No offence but 3dnow is AMDs.

of course it is, and it is no where near as dominant as SSE, which is hwat the post was illustrating

 

[Goose77]

Originally posted by: AgaBooga

Originally posted by: Goose77

Why is the statement funny? Its a smart move, just to be on the safe side incase suddenly the market wants it.

its funnie because its hypocritical of intel to say it wont be needed now or near future then include it on the next processor release which is due out within 3-6 months!! If you ask me thats could be considered present.

Ok, I can see your POV now. I guess my personal thoughts were getting in the way of some things too when I said that, because if I was Intel I would have kept support for 64bit just incase, but at the same time I would have said less about 64bit.

This is my thoughts exactly. It would have been a better idea if intel just ignored the 64bit AMDs. This way no extra attention is drawn to the 64s and leaves intel the possibility to enter the market when ever they feel like, which in return would probably kill amd and draw no criticism to intel!

 

[ST4RCUTTER]

I have some doubts that Intel is really set on introducing a third and incompatible instruction set for Prescott. Here are my reservations in a nutshell:

• 
  Microsoft has already said that it won't support a third instruction set for 64-bit computing.
  Intel already has an instruction set in the form of IA-64 that has third party support and driver validation.
  Intel has licensing agreements with AMD to allow x86-64 support on future Intel CPU's.
  Validation, validation, validation. New processer architectures can take years to design and manufacture, and this is only to create the required hardware. In order for a processor to be truly successful it must have driver and application support. Much like Microsoft, third party software and hardware manufacturers are loath to design for multiple platforms when a single standard already exists.

The way I see it Intel could do two things. Wait for x86-64 to gain wider support and then launch a Hammer-killer that works even better than the K8 or launch a new P5 line with all or part of IA-64 allowing for 64-bit computing. Either of these could have the potential for canibalizing sales of Madison or Deerfield but Intel may not have a choice if competition against AMD becomes too difficult with P4/Xeon (P4EE). Overviews for Prescott can be found on chiparchitect.com that show a dual integer execution core (try saying that 3 times fast) and other improvments that might be inline with 64-bit computing.

Another thing we should watch is the current introduction of Prescott. It looks like we may have to wait until the second quarter of 2004 before we get our hands on these. Some indications from Asian motherboard manufacturers indicate that Prescott may have some significant issues. Everything from overheating to not working with computers utilizing an 800Mhz FSB. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[Macro2]

This is probably FUD to get people to wait for Intel's "revolutionary" X86-64 chip. Either Yahmill or some Itanium emulation.

IF AMD can't get a foothold within a year Intel's incompatible extensions will crush AMD64 like Intel did to 3DNOW.

 

[Macro2]

This is probably FUD to get people to wait for Intel's "revolutionary" X86-64 chip. Either Yahmill or some Itanium emulation.

IF AMD can't get a foothold within a year Intel's incompatible extensions will crush AMD64 like Intel did to 3DNOW.