"Yamhill" Not gone the way of the DoDo

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
dullard

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,130
4,787
126
I tend to think that hyperthreading explains all the things shown there in the link in your article. Intel is pushing that big now, and doubling up on some parts will drastically improve hyperthreading performance. There truely is no reason for 64 bit processors in the home at the moment. AMD is fooling themselves. I could see the need for 64-bit in the home emerging in 2005/2006 (by then some home users will be reaching the 4 GB barrier). However the Athlon 64 doesn't even have the capability of using more than 4 GB of memory! One link showing that. So the one need that will be here the soonest, it doesn't help with. Intel has insted insisted that they won't consider 64-bit home processors until the end of this decade. I think that is too late, since 2005/2006 will see many people wanting to break that 4 GB barrier - so intel may have to move it up a few years. However, I just don't see Yamhill appearing in Prescot like that link suggests.

And what about this supposed Yamhill will require a license from AMD?
 
K

KGB1

Platinum Member
Dec 29, 2001
2,998
0
0
Well originally in the summer of '03 when all the whole sensation over the Hammer came out, Intel had a Yamhill project in upstate NY. (later reported to be cancelled on Inquirer also) Well it was supposed; AMD made the x86-64 (with support for 32 bit) spec. Intel had either to choose to make a Yamhill and pay AMD (yes I know AMD pays Intel to use x86 specs also.. so how could x86-64 be any different?)

A license to use the spec or continue with Northwood and Precotts (Intel went the 32 bit route) So I'm asking if the whole x86-64 license is technically an expansion of its own x86 architecture or is it different where the CPU core can process a new 64 bit.. but natively do 32 bit also without emulation

(xbitlabs.com had an article on this also)
 
T

thorin

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
7,573
0
0
Originally posted by: dullard
I tend to think that hyperthreading explains all the things shown there in the link in your article. Intel is pushing that big now, and doubling up on some parts will drastically improve hyperthreading performance. There truely is no reason for 64 bit processors in the home at the moment. AMD is fooling themselves. I could see the need for 64-bit in the home emerging in 2005/2006 (by then some home users will be reaching the 4 GB barrier). However the Athlon 64 doesn't even have the capability of using more than 4 GB of memory! One link showing that. So the one need that will be here the soonest, it doesn't help with. Intel has insted insisted that they won't consider 64-bit home processors until the end of this decade. I think that is too late, since 2005/2006 will see many people wanting to break that 4 GB barrier - so intel may have to move it up a few years. However, I just don't see Yamhill appearing in Prescot like that link suggests.

And what about this supposed Yamhill will require a license from AMD?
Click to expand...
Well I agree and I don't. I agree that tha majority 99% of home users won't hit 4GB of RAM until 05/06 (actually even then it'll likely only be us Enthusiasts and Average Joe will still be a year or two behind us) however even at that point address translation can be used to extend that limit. Current Xeon processors can use more then 4GB of RAM in certain configurations.

As for the licensing thing. IMHO it makes complete sense that Intel would have to license the 64bit x86 extensions from AMD, just like AMD had to license the original x86 Instruction set, and would have to license MMX, SSE, SSE, etc... Which is why we have AMD's 3DNow (er whatever it's called) they just wrote their own SIMD extensions to x86 to avoid licensing MMX, SSE, etc form Intel (or at least that's how I see it).

Thorin
 
K

KGB1

Platinum Member
Dec 29, 2001
2,998
0
0
Originally posted by: thorin
Originally posted by: dullard
I tend to think that hyperthreading explains all the things shown there in the link in your article. Intel is pushing that big now, and doubling up on some parts will drastically improve hyperthreading performance. There truely is no reason for 64 bit processors in the home at the moment. AMD is fooling themselves. I could see the need for 64-bit in the home emerging in 2005/2006 (by then some home users will be reaching the 4 GB barrier). However the Athlon 64 doesn't even have the capability of using more than 4 GB of memory! One link showing that. So the one need that will be here the soonest, it doesn't help with. Intel has insted insisted that they won't consider 64-bit home processors until the end of this decade. I think that is too late, since 2005/2006 will see many people wanting to break that 4 GB barrier - so intel may have to move it up a few years. However, I just don't see Yamhill appearing in Prescot like that link suggests.

And what about this supposed Yamhill will require a license from AMD?
Click to expand...
Well I agree and I don't. I agree that tha majority 99% of home users won't hit 4GB of RAM until 05/06 (actually even then it'll likely only be us Enthusiasts and Average Joe will still be a year or two behind us) however even at that point address translation can be used to extend that limit. Current Xeon processors can use more then 4GB of RAM in certain configurations.

As for the licensing thing. IMHO it makes complete sense that Intel would have to license the 64bit x86 extensions from AMD, just like AMD had to license the original x86 Instruction set, and would have to license MMX, SSE, SSE, etc... Which is why we have AMD's 3DNow (er whatever it's called) they just wrote their own SIMD extensions to x86 to avoid licensing MMX, SSE, etc form Intel (or at least that's how I see it).

Thorin
Click to expand...

:eek: Your explanation is much more thougth out and written than mine. I was thinkuing exactly like you.. however.. my fingers don't seem to type it equally as good. But that is what I was getting at. Is x86-64 AMD's or expansion on intel's x86 spec, so there you have it. :)
 
dullard

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,130
4,787
126
Originally posted by: thorin
As for the licensing thing. IMHO it makes complete sense that Intel would have to license the 64bit x86 extensions from AMD, just like AMD had to license the original x86 Instruction set, and would have to license MMX, SSE, SSE, etc... Which is why we have AMD's 3DNow (er whatever it's called) they just wrote their own SIMD extensions to x86 to avoid licensing MMX, SSE, etc form Intel (or at least that's how I see it).

Thorin
Click to expand...
I wasn't making a statement above, it was an honest question: Do you have info that the 64 bit extensions belong to AMD? I was under the impression that the basic 64 bit x86 extensions were public domain. If they belong to AMD then yes Intel would need to pay royalties. Does anyone know this info?

If it isn't AMD's patents, then Intel likely won't have to pay AMD a dime. Suppose AMD puts in additional extensions (like 3DNow) in addition to the 64 bit extensions - then of course Intel would need to license those if Intel choose to use them. But that makes a big assumption: that Intel would want to license AMD's extensions - and not just come up with its own. If Prescott was truely Yamhill, then AMD would have no time advantage in getting 64-bit to the consumers, and thus no programs would be optimized for the AMD new instructions. When developers have a choice are they going to choose AMD's over Intel's? Probably not. Thus Intel can simply by being the largest ignore those extensions and thus not pay a dime.
 
C

Cosmic_Horror

Golden Member
Oct 10, 1999
1,500
0
0
I beleive that yamhill is Intels version of x86-64 and not necessarly compatible with AMD's version of x86-64 (hence developed independantly and thus no licencing issues exist). From what i remember reading ages back is that Intel developed yahmill just in case the athlon 64 went very well and on time. Remember as both cup's run 32 bit software (eg current software) both could have been released by now...
 
T

thorin

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
7,573
0
0
I wasn't making a statement above, it was an honest question: Do you have info that the 64 bit extensions belong to AMD? I was under the impression that the basic 64 bit x86 extensions were public domain. If they belong to AMD then yes Intel would need to pay royalties. Does anyone know this info?
Click to expand...
Sorry I know I quoted your right before adding my licensing blurb but it wasn't really meant as a direct reply to your comment, it was more of a general reply to the licensing inquiries thus far. At this point I don't have anything to prove that AMD holds a license or patent on the x86 64bit extensions ..... though if I have time I'll check the US Patent Site tomorrow.

Thorin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom