When and "if" Intel goes to 64-bit in the near future, what standard do you see them using?

[NFS4]

AMD has x86-64 and Intel already has their own 64-bit architecture on the Itanium. I know that Intel would rather die than use AMD's x86-64 standard, so that means that they would have to come up with an entirely new standard. And I would think that the two would not be compatible, so Microsoft would have to come up with 4 versions of their operating systems AFAICT: 32-bit, x86-64, Itanium, Intel consumer 64-bit, right??

Meh!!

 

[Pandaren]

know that Intel would rather die than use AMD's x86-64 standard, so that means that they would have to come up with an entirely new standard.

I don't see why they should care, so long as it sells products. When AMD adopted SSE, they called it 3DNow! Professional or something like that. Intel could just rebadge the AMD64 architecture as Intel64 or something like that and most people wouldn't know or care.

 

[AndyHui]

I have no idea. I suspect that since Intel wants people to go to the Itanium, it would be some form of IA64 type compatible, or at least make migration to IA64 relatively easy.

 

[Lonyo]

SOURCES AT AMD confirmed what we earlier believed, and that is there is no obstacle to Intel using the Hammer X86-64 instruction set if the chip giant wants to pursue a backup plan.

Sources close to AMD said that Transmeta "licensing" the instruction set, which it did last May, meant no more than it had decided to work with the instruction set and there were no real conditions or limitations on use for X86-64 code.

From an article at the Inq.
I'd guess Intel could use the x86-64 architecture if they saw it as the easiest way to go forward with a hybrid chip. It would make sense, because then the software would already be in place to support the architecture, thus more chance of sales.

 

[nowayout99]

I know someone that works for HP. It's safe to say that Intel would love to get Itanium out there all over the place. What the specifics would be is anybody's guess, but my ignorant guess is that they would dumb down Itanium as we know it and extend it with X86 compatibility.

 

[Pandaren]

I suspect that since Intel wants people to go to the Itanium, it would be some form of IA64 type compatible, or at least make migration to IA64 relatively easy.

I think this is highly unlikely, given the differences between IA32 and IA64. IA64 has far more registers, no OOE, and needs huge caches because of low code density.

What the specifics would be is anybody's guess, but my ignorant guess is that they would dumb down Itanium as we know it and extend it with X86 compatibility

Itanium already has x86 compatibility. It's not all that fast, even with the new execution layer that is supposed to enhance performance.

 

[Intelman07]

I have no idea what Intel wants to do but I dont think Itainium will come to the regular consumer market. Itainiums are quite expensive....they would have to make a consumer line of 64bit chips.

 

[mrgoblin]

4 Different versions of Microsoft is hell for the consumer but roses for microsoft. I tell ya, they got these people on a leash

 

[Cosmic_Horror]

Intel finds themselves in an interesting position. Normal they develop the technology and licence it out eg MMX, SSE etc

This time AMD has come up with x86-64 instruction set. If Intel want to use this technology, my understanding is they would have to pay for it.

Intel could use their leverage and get a deal out of this next time AMD wants to use some of their technology but AMD is moving away from Intel so i see this as unlikely.

Intel i believe will wait and see the market penitration of x86-64 before making any descision, partly because they do not have a consumer 64bit ready for the maket place.

Intel have marketshare and i beleive they will respond with their own version of a hybrid x86-32/64 bit chip.
If and when Intel does, software will start appearring for it much faster than for AMD's x86-64.

I do not see 4 windows versions as microsoft will incorperate the intels version as the standard (eg you will get winxp with winxp-intel64 as a package or more likely the winxp 32 bit will disappear altogeather and older versions will be made incompatable so you have to get a new copy of thier operating system).

Intel within 12 months of release of a hybrid cpu, would remove all non 64bit chips from the product range so all new intel based systems would have 64bit compatability. this is a huge market share and with Intel's advertising would really push 64bit computing into the home.

As long as hardware and software can run in 32bit mode Intel can come to the party late and enforce its own standards.
How many programs are wirtten with AMD's 3dnow etc? even they had to licence SSE.

AMD will spend the money telling the world that you need 64bit computing at home and when Intel are ready, will agree with their own product range. Joe Consumer will see Intel, see 64bit and and think wow i gotta have that!



Side Note: from intel's piont of view it is a shame that their hybrid chip couldn't link x86 to I64 and thus help the tranisiton to getting everyone on I64 as intel has spent a fortune on itanium I64 cpu development.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

I don't think Intel will create a different standard, they may, but to the extent where compatibility will still be fine. If they do make an entirely non compatible standard, they're shooting a bullet in their own leg while trying to run a race. I don't think Intel will try moving the desktop users to 64bit for atleast 2 years... maybe more if for some reason A64 doesn't perform as well as it is expected to

 

[Sohcan]

Originally posted by: Pandaren

I suspect that since Intel wants people to go to the Itanium, it would be some form of IA64 type compatible, or at least make migration to IA64 relatively easy.

I think this is highly unlikely, given the differences between IA32 and IA64. IA64 has far more registers, no OOE, and needs huge caches because of low code density.

While there are some features that makes OOE difficult (though the same can be said of antiquated features in x86 and many RISC ISAs, such as condition codes and non-atomic instructions), there is nothing in the IA64 architecture that prohibits an out-of-order implementation.

 

[NFactor]

I think it all depends on Microsoft. They can push Intel around, if they say they will only make one consumer level 64-bit OS then I think they will use a variation on AMD64. If Microsoft want's to make more money, which i think is likely, they will use their own extensions.

However, I don't know how this will all swing for developers. People probably won't want to compile for two different processors and sell it separately. Because of this I think that Intel may actually go with AMD64 in some sort of a variation and use their marketing power to punch it through as theirs to the general public.

 

[paperfist]

I'm no CPU guru, but if the rumors are valid about Prescott already having 64Bit and it is just a case of Intel enabling it then it would seem to me that Intel would have had to use AMDs extensions, as I doubt they would've been able to make their own so quickly. That would also take into account Intel taking the smart road and just building off an existing standard and soon to be existing OS support. Intel could easily then make the next move on future revisions for extensions and then force AMDs hand. Did that make sense?

And yes I know Intel uses 64bit in other applications, but isn't desktop computing a little different?

 

[MadRat]

Intel owns both the AI64 and (former-DEC) Alpha 64-bit architectures, so its not like AMD64 is anything they wouldn't already understand.

The experts all would be surprised if Intel ever deviated from their current "P4 = IA32, Itanium = IA64" plans.

 

[Snooper]

NFactor,

I do have to question your conclusion that Microsoft would bully Intel by ONLY making an AMD64 consumore OS. If a company came to you and only had 15% of the market and asked you to make a custom version of your product to support only there widget (and you knew it was going to cost MILLIONS to do it) and you also knew that another company with 85% of the market was going to ask you to do the very same thing with there own widget (and the cost would be the same to develop for the second widget), which would you choose:

1) Spend X million to develop for 15% of the market, or
2) Spend X million to develop for 85% of the market

The bean counters would make this call in their sleep. The problem with being the 800 lb gorilla is that everyone is gunning for you. The advantage of being the 800 lb gorilla is that you ARE the 800 lb gorilla...

 

[draggoon01]

Originally posted by: paperfist
I'm no CPU guru, but if the rumors are valid about Prescott already having 64Bit and it is just a case of Intel enabling it then it would seem to me that Intel would have had to use AMDs extensions, as I doubt they would've been able to make their own so quickly. That would also take into account Intel taking the smart road and just building off an existing standard and soon to be existing OS support. Intel could easily then make the next move on future revisions for extensions and then force AMDs hand. Did that make sense?

And yes I know Intel uses 64bit in other applications, but isn't desktop computing a little different?

same was said about hyper-threading being in all the p4 chips which would explain their larger size than athlon, but it was never 'turned on' either by intel or hacks. that may have been because it never really was, or intel never needed to turn it on...

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: draggoon01

Originally posted by: paperfist
I'm no CPU guru, but if the rumors are valid about Prescott already having 64Bit and it is just a case of Intel enabling it then it would seem to me that Intel would have had to use AMDs extensions, as I doubt they would've been able to make their own so quickly. That would also take into account Intel taking the smart road and just building off an existing standard and soon to be existing OS support. Intel could easily then make the next move on future revisions for extensions and then force AMDs hand. Did that make sense?

And yes I know Intel uses 64bit in other applications, but isn't desktop computing a little different?

same was said about hyper-threading being in all the p4 chips which would explain their larger size than athlon, but it was never 'turned on' either by intel or hacks. that may have been because it never really was, or intel never needed to turn it on...

Or it would have sucked hard enough to squeeze juice out of a coconut.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: NFactor
I think it all depends on Microsoft. They can push Intel around, if they say they will only make one consumer level 64-bit OS then I think they will use a variation on AMD64. If Microsoft want's to make more money, which i think is likely, they will use their own extensions.

However, I don't know how this will all swing for developers. People probably won't want to compile for two different processors and sell it separately. Because of this I think that Intel may actually go with AMD64 in some sort of a variation and use their marketing power to punch it through as theirs to the general public.

Okay.

How much market share does AMD have? How much does Intel have? If MS only supported AMD, MS would have a hugeproblem(so would InteL). MS needs Intel and Intel needs MS. Plain and simple, MS will develop whatever is needed for Intels consumer 64bit CPU, and it likely wont come before Intels slated 2005/2006 or so release. There is a reason why people call AMD Chimpzilla, its nothing compared to Intel.

Call me and Intel fanboy, etc, I own a dual opteron system, its strictly for professional use(animation, video, some sound, some programming), 64bit consumer apps are a long ways away.

 

[lucky9]

intel's 64bit will have a small amount of die set aside to run 32bit x86 progs natively or if things are fast enough by then by emulation. their 64bit processor will be their 64bit processor. remember the die shrinks that are/will be due. and also the speed increases that are already on the road map.

it'll be fast enough.

 

[Acanthus]

5ghz, 2MB cache, 1200fsb, 32bit is enough for me (Tejas)

 

[Blastman]

They might have to use AMD?s x86-64 ? ?

link ? Analyst Rob Enderle said Microsoft executives have said in the past that they will not write a new 64-bit desktop version of Windows specifically for Intel like it did for Athlon 64.

"Microsoft doesn't want to do two operating systems and if Intel wants Microsoft support they're going to have to comply with AMD specifications on 64-bit on the desktop," said Enderle, principal analyst at research firm Enderle Group.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: mrgoblin
4 Different versions of Microsoft is hell for the consumer but roses for microsoft.

Err... No. It would be a big PITA for MS. I'm sure MS would love to consolidate all their consumer 64-bit efforts into one main code base.

And not only would it be a big PITA for MS, it'd also be a big PITA for end users and for developers.