When 64 bit Windows goes mainstream..

[MrEgo]

I didn't notice any forums discussing this topic, so I suppose I'll ask. I'm just wondering if anyone has any ideas about how long it will be before 64 Bit Windows will be a mainstream OS?

Also, I'm wondering if, at that time, Intel will be caught up with a 64 bit processor of their own? Or has AMD planned much better for the future than they have?

If Intel does not have a 64 bit processor readily available at that time, will AMD rob a lot of market share? It seems like AMD would succeed a lot more with Athlon 64 if there were more operating systems besides Linux or maybe Windows Server 2k3 (if it supports it) that supported 64 bit computing right now. Given that the Athlon 64 does (probably will) perform like a champ without the 64 bit computing enabled, it would definitely be a plus if a 64 bit Windows was available.

 

[Electrode]

* Mainstreamers learn about new products from TV commercials.
* AMD hasn't run a TV commercial for 3 years.
* Dell and HP/Compaq, whose spots are the only PC manufacturer ads I remember seeing recently, only use Intel CPUs.
* Microsoft does not stand to make a ton of profit from running an ad campaign for x86-64 Windows, at least not one targetted to the mainstream...

As much as I love my dualie Opteron rig, I'm afraid that the Athlon 64 is going to be a flop so severe that AMD will not survive.

As for Intel, they've already said they're not going to make a 64-bit desktop or workstation CPU any time soon.

 

[Slappy00]

The question should not be "when" but rather "why".... The problem is that the avg. consumer does not need 64-bit computing. AMD made a bad move with this b/c Microsoft is in no hurry to get a 64bit verision of Windows out the door, further with all the hoopla surrounding the Athlon 64/XP/whatever they want to call it, the avg consumer who likes to be informed about his or her purchase knows that 64-bit is not necesary nor is it really helpful. All of this goes back to Microsoft, who also knows theat its bottom-line is selling softwear and if ppl are not convinced that 64-bit is the way to go then they will not buy the 64-bit version of windows to go with their Athlon when the 32-bit version works just fine.

I know this sound kinda convoluted, but in reality both AMD and Micorsoft are kinda hoping the other one is sucessful rolling out their product, but neither want to go with out the other going first... It seems as though Microsoft has forced AMD to roll out their processor first, so if sales are good Microsoft might get that OS out quicker, if not they will put it on the back-burner and focus on Longhorn...

 

[DAPUNISHER]

* Dell and HP/Compaq, whose spots are the only PC manufacturer ads I remember seeing recently, only use Intel CPUs.

Actually, HP/Compaq offers the largest selection of AMD based notebooks available.

 

[pspada]

Since the new 64-bit chips from AMD will run 32-bit OSes and apps just fine, there is no rush to migrate to a 64-bit enviroment, so it will be a gradual evolution. Unlike the Intel I-lame-ium2, which requires a brand new 64-bit OS and apps to operate at all.

 

[stevejst]

Microsoft already has 64-bit Windows, it started with 2000 server for Itanium. Itanium has been the slowest selling chip for Intel, and so is the Opteron for AMD. AMD would not release the numbers after boasting a lot in the past but observers believe that the sale of Opteron has been abysmal short of supercomputer purchases, probably worse than Itanium.

Read here and here.

Xeon sales by far (10-15 times) surpased Itanium and Opteron combined and that will continue for some time.

The only relevant press release from Microsoft is here.

Since then we learned that Microsoft moved the release of SP2 for Windows XP to 2004, nobody should expect 64-bit release of Windows XP any time soon.

Shortly AMD expects to milk money from their usual fan base, mostly on the hype of 64-bit computing. Whether that is a good financial move or not, who knows. If it is, you should expect Microsoft joining in the milking since they have never passed any opportunity like that. I guess that is what AMD is hoping for.

As far as current retail market goes Dell has been taking a lion share away from HP, which became a matter of concern in HP. In the server market HP is still the leader, neither Dell nor HP are offering Opteron servers. These are two leaders in the server market.

 

[stevejst]

Few Quake benchmarks using Athlon 64 3100+ (whatever that is) here.
Note that SD/CW board setup is on top.

 

[beyoku]

Well just think, the average user does not need a 3Ghz PC, or even 2 Ghz's for that matter. The average user that bought that 700mhz celeron or P3 still uses the same ms works and surfs the net and reads email. Its not really what the need VS. what they can be sold. Intel can tell people the need a 3Ghz processor because "netburst" will help them "surf the internet and burn cd's" - Burning CD's and surfing the net has more to do with actual internet connection speed and CDR speed than processor power. I surf the net on a 166mhz pee one - with a cable connection! Its all marketing hype - Other things we dont need. i bought a Hercules GTS 64 for 419.99 - never again

We really dont need AGP 8X yet do we??? - Not really.
What about the performance jump from ata 100 to 133?
What about dual channel ram on amd platfroms - we notice that the single channel sometimes out performs.
Why does my grandmother have a computer with a 60 Gig hardrive in it - Thats what they sold her.
256 vs 128 megs on a card that already FAST AS HELL?

There are lots of things that we dont really need. But of those things 64 Bit computing is one that could make a VERY big difference is introduced earlier rather than later. ITs all about wants. I really want the technology. Most people in these forums have 2Ghz processors and 400.oo video cards - And they sit in the forums all day?!

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: stevejst
Few Quake benchmarks using Athlon 64 3100+ (whatever that is) here.
Note that SD/CW board setup is on top.

That's the worse link I've ever seen you post.
Those graphs are completely useless cause it doesn't tell you anything about what processor is being used. Not to mention that the first graph says it's using a "K8 3100" (like you said, whatever that is)... and then they list nForce2 motherboards... WTF is that? The K8 architecture processors won't even plug into an nForce2 board, so how are they getting these results?
And the next graph is a Pentium 4 3.0G? I'm hoping the "g" stands for Ghz? So now we know the clock speed of that, and the motherboards... but how do you get a Pentium 4 on an nForce2 motherboard? (Epox 8RDA3+ at the bottom)
Looks like who ever created that webpage has no idea what they're talking about.

 

[redhatlinux]

I think AMD really has big balls for moving to 64-bit. Why not ?? The operating system is pretty much ready to go. When other developers start working with 64-bit the 'reasons' will be there. Opteron has done pretty good in clusters, lots of FLOPS. Intel has given up Floating Point performance for the many varients of SSE. IBM has picked up Opteron for servers, not the biggest player but its a start. By gaining even small market share in Cluster sales and Server sales, AMD gains some credibility for Desktop/Laptop sales thru the same channels.

Large memory address spaces also present some 'new' options to application developers not available with 32-bit.

 

[yak8998]

The move to 64-bit seems a bit on a "last-ditch" effort on AMD's part, tho I doubt that is true. With the slow move to 64bit, or the move not even happening for a while, this seems like just another ploy to increase sales...

I'm still sticking with Intel for now, unless I get a bunch of money, or if the Athlon64 is balls-fast