PDA

View Full Version : Athlon 64 & Lightwave



TSpyrison
09-23-2003, 11:48 AM
This might be interesting to some of you..

Benchmarks (http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/athlon_64-45.html)

:D

Beamtracer
09-23-2003, 05:50 PM
Pity this "64-bit" processor only works with the old 32-bit Windows.

TSpyrison
09-23-2003, 06:03 PM
I wonder if Newtek has any plans on compiling a 64 bit version of lightwave...

Tronam
09-23-2003, 06:03 PM
One thing I find irritating about Tom's approach to benchmarking these chips is that, along with the officially announced P4-EE, he's also including results of overclocked P4-EE processors that don't even exist (even on paper) against the currently available and *non-overclocked* Athlon64. I think AnandTech did a much better job. More neutral and less politics to stir things up.

Intel's "paper launch" last week of the P4-EE, two months before it's actually going to be available was, in my opinion, purely an underhanded marketing move to paint a negative picture on AMD's launch. Now, I'm all for fair competition, but most of this just kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Not that I lose sleep over any of this of course. ;)

-Tronam

js33
09-23-2003, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
Pity this "64-bit" processor only works with the old 32-bit Windows.

Beam,

You and Ed are going nuts with the FUD today. What makes you think that? They already released a beta version of XP 64 bit today with the processors release and the final version is due Q1 2004. So where is your fully 64 bit OSX?

Cheers,
JS

js33
09-23-2003, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Tronam
One thing I find irritating about Tom's approach to benchmarking these chips is that, along with the officially announced P4-EE, he's including results of overclocked P4-EE processors that don't even exist against the currently available *non-overclocked* Athlon64. I think AnandTech did a much better job. More neutral and less politics to stir things up.

Intel's "paper launch" last week of the P4-EE, two months before it's actually going to be available was purely an underhanded marketing move to paint a negative picture on AMD's launch. Now, I'm all for fair competition, but most of this just kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Not that I lose sleep over any of this of course ;)

-Tronam

Yeah I saw those benchies today. Tom obviously gets ad money or something from Intel. :D Plus it looked it a little desperate on Intels part to sneak something in at the last minute.

Cheers,
JS

Beamtracer
09-23-2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by js33
So where is your fully 64 bit OSX?
The hybrid 32-64-bit Mac OS X is shipping now.
Running this OS, applications on the Apple G5 can access 64-bit features such as 8 gigs of RAM for a single application. That's out now.

I like AMD. It's just that Microsoft is destroying them, just like Microsoft has destroyed so many other companies in the past.

Despite AMD announcing plans for its 64-bit processor around 1997, Microsoft still hasn't released a 64-bit version of Windows to run on it.

Why is Microsoft doing a go-slow?

MS wants AMD to stew for a while. It takes the shine off the release of a new 64-bit processor if there is no mainstream 64-bit OS that'll run on it. Open source Linux64 is available, but not Windows 64. Why?

Microsoft is dancing with Intel, and it can control the industry more effectively in a duopoly arrangement. It also allows Intel (who haven't announced any 64-bit desktop plans) to get more life out of its legacy 32-bit processors.

What can AMD do? It's out of their control, as they are at the mercy of, and are let down by Microsoft.

TSpyrison
09-23-2003, 07:08 PM
Windows XP (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1276839,00.asp)

js33
09-23-2003, 07:11 PM
Well in case you missed it. MS has a beta XP 64 ready TODAY for AMD 64 with the FINAL version due Q1 2004. I wouldn't say MS is letting them stew. True, I agree, that the final should have been ready today but that's just MS. If MS was letting them stew they would have had nothing ready today.

Video from MS showing 64 bit windows on AMD and Itanium (http://news.com.com/2009-1006_3-5080659.html)

Cheers,
JS

Beamtracer
09-23-2003, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by js33
MS has a beta XP 64 ready TODAY for AMD 64
"A beta XP 64 ready today"??? But the word "beta" means that it's not ready!

Microsoft has been sitting on a beta 64-bit OS for a long time now. It was supposed to be ready a year ago.

As usual, Microsoft is running late. Every time they announce a ship date, that date passes and no OS appears.

Do Windows users think this is good?
You could be jumping into 64-bit computing, but you can't because of Microsoft.


Microsoft slogan:
"Where Do You Want To Go Today?"

Hmmm. I'd think I'd like to go to the new world of 64-bit computing.

MS: "Sorry, permission denied".


AMD needs it's new 64-bit processors to be success. AMD's very survival depends on it. Yet today is the launch day for AMD64 and there's no 64-bit Windows to run on it. That certainly puts a damper on the launch.

It benefits all Windows users if there is competition to Intel.

TSpyrison
09-23-2003, 08:14 PM
Even if there was a final version of Windows XP 64, what 64 bit applications are there?

Its not just microsofts fault here..

Its going to take some time for things to migrate to 64 bit

Beamtracer
09-23-2003, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by TSpyrison
Even if there was a final version of Windows XP 64, what 64 bit applications are there?

Its not just microsofts fault here.. It is Microsoft's fault. You've gotta have the OS before you can build applications for it.

What if Microsoft came out with 64-bit Windows for AMD earlier this year when the Opteron processor was launched... then there would have been time for some software developers to recompile their wares to 64-bit. Some 64-bit apps would have been out by now. Probably Lightwave 8 (to be released sometime between now and the end of the year) could have been 64-bit, as its codebase is already "64-bit" clean, making a recompile "relatively" easy.

But as it stands now, the AMD64 processor is on the market, but there's no way MS Windows will be there before the release of Lightwave 8.

So Newtek has no choice but to release LW8 as a 32-bit app, at least as far as the Windows version goes. This could have been different if MS came to the party earlier. No doubt Newtek will be ready to release a 64-bit version of Lightwave as soon as Microsoft allows.

If the open source community can get 64-bit Linux running on the AMD64, why can't MS get its operating system out on time?

I hope the Opteron/Athlon64 goes well, to ensure the survival of AMD, and to provide some competition to Intel. But alas, Microsoft is the gatekeeper of this world.

Fausto
09-23-2003, 08:49 PM
You know you're anti MS pro apple rhetoric is really boring. I'd suggest that the MS executive are uniquely more qualified to deduce, decide and implement any future OS developments than you are. This isn't about emotion, it's about process, it's about quality, it's about maintaining market share....

js33
09-23-2003, 09:36 PM
Beam,

The transition to 64 bit won't happen overnight. You should know this from being on OSX. The hardware has to come first, then the OS then the apps. Also the fact that OSX update 10.2.8 was pulled down today shows that Apple is trying to shove updates out before they are ready. Also with the nasty ATI bug limiting LW on the Mac why are you so concerned with MS when you have issues to deal with on your own platform?

Cheers,
JS

WizCraker
09-23-2003, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
[B]It is Microsoft's fault. You've gotta have the OS before you can build applications for it.

There is no fault to Microsoft, they have provided the developers through the MSDN with the SDK as well as the OS and so has AMD supplied the developers with the SDK for optimizing the code for the 32-64bit processors of both Athlon64 and Opteron. Even if you are a small company or one man developer for a few hundred bucks you could get the OS MSDN subscription to test your 64bit app on a 64bit OS. Its that simple. No Fault of Microsoft as said above they have provided all the tools.


But as it stands now, the AMD64 processor is on the market, but there's no way MS Windows will be there before the release of Lightwave 8.

So Newtek has no choice but to release LW8 as a 32-bit app, at least as far as the Windows version goes. This could have been different if MS came to the party earlier. No doubt Newtek will be ready to release a 64-bit version of Lightwave as soon as Microsoft allows.

hmm, if memory serves me correctly I do believe AMD has said that the Chip is 32-64bit compatible. That would mean if a Developer wanted to keep users that did not want to switch until they had, the developer would implement the ability to run in 32 or 64 bit depending on the users machine. It is not that hard to implement the check and not that hard to code, it may take a little bit more time but then it is for the user and the ability to transition into 64bit technology seamlessly.



If the open source community can get 64-bit Linux running on the AMD64, why can't MS get its operating system out on time?

I've worked with Microsoft for some time on API's and Applications and they work side by side with the developers to insure that what ends up at ship date is solid. Microsoft never gives a release date to the public unless they are sure that they will hit it. All others are rumors. Just because the OpenSource Community has a 64-bit version of Linux running does not mean Microsoft is slow, it just means Microsoft wants to have something solid for the masses to use.

Titus
09-23-2003, 10:52 PM
Ha!, Linux is 64 bits since I can remember.

js33
09-23-2003, 11:03 PM
And still not many people use it for real production.

SGI and SUN have been 64 bit for years and they never made any impact on the desktop. Their market has always been the highend servers where 64 bit made sense.

It will still be awhile before 64 bit means anything on the desktop.
It took 7 years to make the transition from 16 bit to 32 bit.
I think 64 bit will happen alot quicker but will still take a few years before it is commonplace.

Cheers,
JS

WizCraker
09-23-2003, 11:06 PM
I agree, AMD has said that they are in it for the long run and that it could take up to 5 years. I think that is what they said in a press release some time ago.

Titus
09-23-2003, 11:32 PM
I'm really disconnected from all this 64 bit hype. What really excites me is the new hyperthreading technology found on new P4 and Xeon chips.

takkun
09-23-2003, 11:33 PM
Here's some more Athlon 64 benchmarks using Lightwave:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1884&p=16

Once Lightwave is 64-bit, I'll consider upgrading my hardware but till then I'll stay 32-bit.

And on the next page is some interesting benchmarks done with 64-bit compiled programs in Linux:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1884&p=17

mattclary
09-24-2003, 06:00 AM
1. How is Microsoft supposed to have a 64bit OS ready to ship when there have been no 64bit chips available to test it with? I work for a software company, and I can vouch for the need for a thourough QA process. I wouldn't WANT a 64bit OS that was released prior to the chip that was going to run it! It's awesome that MS has a beta ready for this chip already!

2. That's the beauty of the Athlon 64, it doesn't need a 64bit OS, it's a "tween" chip that will allow migration.

3. Even running a 32bit OS, the Athlon 64 is holding it's own.

4. Apple is still irrelevant.

Karmacop
09-24-2003, 06:31 AM
The DEC alpha was 64 bit and 64bit OS's ran on it. NT ran on it but it was only 32 bit. I'd say they've had long enough ...

mattclary
09-24-2003, 06:44 AM
I don't think there was enough market demand for the Alpha.

Exper
09-24-2003, 07:15 AM
Read this.

AMD's Athlon 64 processor - Lightwave rendering
http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2003q3/athlon64/index.x?pg=13

AMD's Athlon 64 processor
http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2003q3/athlon64/index.x?pg=1

Bye.

mattclary
09-24-2003, 07:43 AM
Very respectable scores!

Exper
09-24-2003, 07:49 AM
Yep!
Considering the GHz gap!

Bye.

Beamtracer
09-24-2003, 08:09 AM
Considering that Lightwave gets far more optimization for Intel processors than AMD processors, I'd agree that the Athlon64 did well to be almost as fast as Intel.






Originally posted by mattclary
1. How is Microsoft supposed to have a 64bit OS ready to ship when there have been no 64bit chips available to test it with? Microsoft should have foreseen the coming 64-bit age. They should have had their code 64-bit ready, which didn't require an Opteron to do. Also, MS would have received samples long before the processors were released to the public.

The reason the Linux port was so quick is that Linux for x86 was already "64-bit clean." In a similar way, the 64-bit clean code of Lightwave 3D should make a recompile to 64-bit relatively.


Originally posted by mattclary
Apple is still irrelevant.
As I said before, I like AMD and Opteron, but who are you calling "irrelevant"?

The new Apple G5 is now the biggest selling 64-bit platform, exponentially outselling AMD64 and Intel's Itanic combined. It's also the most widespread UNIX based OS.

When LW7 was came out, Newtek released to the press some figures about Lightwave sales per platform, figures rarely made public. They said that Lightwave on Mac OS X was outselling Lightwave on Windows.

You call that irrelevant?

mattclary
09-24-2003, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
The new Apple G5 is now the biggest selling 64-bit platform, exponentially outselling AMD64

Considering the AMD64 wasn't released until yesterday, that doesn't say much. Give it a week. ;)

Gui Lo
09-24-2003, 09:15 AM
Beam,
You are making arguements for yourself.

Since the Mac Lw is more popular than the PC Lw then why are there not more Mac LW plug-ins?
Why are there consistantly more problems with the Mac than the PC?

I use both systems for different jobs. 64 bit or 32bit, I dare not use Lw on my Mac until most of the critical problems disappear.

You are not helping LW on the Mac by constantly asking for a 64bit LW for Mac.

Gui Lo

(Just thought:Maybe this is a Wintel scheme!);)

Exper
09-24-2003, 09:17 AM
Not flames but facts! ;)

Prices:
Athlon 64 3200+ will sell for $417 in 1,000 unit quantities
Athlon 64 FX 51 will be priced at $733 in 1,000 unit quantities
Pentium 4 3.2 EE will sell for around $740 in 1,000 unit quantities

Bye.

mattclary
09-24-2003, 09:28 AM
Athlon 64 3200+: $417 in 1,000 unit quantities
Athlon 64 FX 51: $733 in 1,000 unit quantities
Pentium 4 3.2 EE: $740 in 1,000 unit quantities
Whatever Apple offers: Priceless

:)

handron
09-24-2003, 11:05 AM
Thought this was interesting:

"On our cross-platform application tests, the G5 was the clear winner on tests using Adobe Acrobat and Sorenson Squeeze (a video compression tool). The Dell entry bested the G5 under Adobe Photoshop 7 and NewTek Lightwave 3D, a 3-D modeling application."

I read this on the PCMag website yesterday. It compared a DELL Pentium to the Apple G5. Food for thought.

DigiLusionist
09-24-2003, 11:24 AM
Looks like Beam's gonna need need to find a new pro-Mac, anti-PC tagline again.

Beamtracer
09-24-2003, 03:24 PM
Hey, I like AMD. OK? I just thought that MS should have had their Windows code 64-bit clean long ago.

As I understand it, Microsoft will make one OS for x86-64, which will work on Opteron as well as Athlon64 and any other derivatives. Opteron was released some months ago and samples provided a year before that, and the architecture planned years before that, and announced around 1997 if I remember.

AMD would be selling more units if they had the 64-bit OS now. Announcing a beta OS is not the same thing as releasing a complete version.

I think that the Opteron and Athlon64 are potentially better processors than what Intel offers.

As I said, the Lightwave tests referred to earlier used the current version of Lightwave which is highly optimized for Intel, but not the other new processors. If the new processors can do well with non-optimized code, they will do even better when apps are written for them.

Hopefully, when Lightwave 8 is released, Newtek will have had time to do some optimization for the new breed of processors (Athlon64 + Apple G5 [IBM970])

hrgiger
09-24-2003, 03:35 PM
Beam, you should post this as your new signature:

The Apple G5... the most expensive 64-bit workstation for running Lightwave

Because soon enough, that's actually what's going to be true.

js33
09-24-2003, 03:45 PM
Well in Beam's defense why do you say that?
The Boxx systems aren't cheap neither are Dells.
HP workstations are also expensive.

The Opteron processors aren't cheap neither are the first round of AMD 64's so what are you basing this on?

Cheers,
JS

hrgiger
09-24-2003, 04:12 PM
Probably not enough.

Generally, it always seems that Macs are a bit pricey. I guess my feeling is the performance difference of a G5 vs. a regular Pentiumb 4 doesn't seem to justify the price difference. Hey, show me otherwise, not that it matters.

Beam's constant pc(probably to be more fair microsoft) bashing just gets old.

Tronam
09-24-2003, 04:13 PM
I personally feel that Beamtracer's responses have been pretty fair and measured. He's not the only one who wishes Microsoft hadn't been dragging their heels over the past year. I'm glad that they at least contributed to the Athlon64 launch presentation, but they haven't exactly been on the ball lately. Dare I mention the massive postponement of Longhorn? Regarding AMD's initial performance, while it's become clear that aside from a lesser percentage of the benchmarks they aren't outpacing Intel's new Extreme Edition part, I would say that they are at least maintaining competitiveness. It is certainly not a poorly performing chip. I'm hopeful that this will improve over time, because I think it's important for there to be a competitor to keep Intel on guard. Intel has some of the deepest pockets in the semiconductor business and I'm amazed that AMD has maintained themselves as well as they have.

-Tronam

js33
09-24-2003, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by hrgiger
Probably not enough.

Generally, it always seems that Macs are a bit pricey. I guess my feeling is the performance difference of a G5 vs. a regular Pentiumb 4 doesn't seem to justify the price difference. Hey, show me otherwise, not that it matters.

Beam's constant pc(probably to be more fair microsoft) bashing just gets old.

Well I would agree with you when comparing a G4 system to a P4.
But now if you compare a Dual G5 to a Dual 3Ghz Xeon the prices are very competitive. Also the AMD 64 series won't be dual capable so you have to throw a Dual Opteron in there. Also the P4/Xeon at this time has no 64 bit capabilites. The new P4 EE does seem to have good performance but at a premium as well again no dual capabilites there. So for now the Mac Dual G5 can only be compared to a Dual Opteron as they both have dual operation and 64 bit capabilites. Right now I don't think a Dual Opteron can be had for 3K and the OS isn't ready for it yet anyway. So in reality there is no direct comparison available at the moment.

Beam is retaliating for all the Mac bashing by PC users in the Mac forum in the weeks leading up to the G5 launch. Plus I agree with him about M$ dragging their feet.

Cheers,
JS

DaveW
09-24-2003, 05:55 PM
Jeez guys, give beam a break. He's making valid statements here, not spreading pointless FUD. Unlike some PC people visiting the Mac forums...

Regarding the price of the systems, the dual G5 is the winner but when it comes to single-cpu workstations (which for most graphics pros is far more cost effective) the G5's are overpriced.

js33
09-24-2003, 05:57 PM
Yes the single processor G5s are not a good deal as most people will probably by the duals.

Cheers,
JS

Beamtracer
09-25-2003, 12:12 AM
I'm just against monopolists.

Look at AMD. On a shoestring budget they've managed to come out with a processor that is competitive with what Intel is offering. Yet Intel has such vast wealth you'd think their lead would be greater.

Windows users... you're better off buying your next computer with an AMD processor rather than one from Intel. Even if you gain a few extra megahertz from Intel, in the long run it's a better investment to get an AMD processor to keep the market competitive. You'll have faster processors in the future that way.

For some reason, a lot of application developers have optimized their software for Intel processors more than other processors. I believe this is also true with Lightwave, which is heavily optimized for Intel's SSE2 instructions.

For this reason, processors from other manufacturers actually have to be much faster to compete, as they're running with non-optimized code.

I think AMD has done well to hang in there this far. Remember Cyrix?


Originally posted by hrgiger
"The Apple G5... the most expensive 64-bit workstation for running Lightwave

"Generally, it always seems that Macs are a bit pricey. I guess my feeling is the performance difference of a G5 vs. a regular Pentiumb 4 doesn't seem to justify the price difference."
Well, you made the statement about Macs, so now I feel like I should respond.

You may be correct that the difference between the G5 and Pentium 4 doesn't justify the price... ... of the Pentium!

There's a review of the G5 in the British magazine 'Digit', who tested it against a Dell Dimension 8300 with Pentium 4 processor, and another machine with dual 3.06GHz Xeon processors.
http://www.digitmag.co.uk/

Quote from Digit magazine review:
"If you work in graphics, the G5 is a showstopper.
Using Photoshop with the G5 update, this Mac creamed the competition – even the dual Xeon."

"The G5 itself is an impressive beast...
If you currently use a Windows PC, there’s enough power here at a reasonable-enough price to make you sit up and listen – and if you’ve bought a three grand plus Xeon machine recently, you might just be kicking yourself.

The gist of the article was that when the code is optimized, nothing is faster than the G5, such as with core Photoshop work.

When the code is not optimized for the G5, the Xeons were faster, such as with some non-optimized Photoshop filters, and Lightwave 3D 7.5, which of course has no optimization for the G5 at all, as it was released long before the G5.

However, when Lightwave 8 is released, this should change. Hopefully Newtek has done some optimization work for the new generation 64-bit processors, the AMD64 and the G5.

Hervé
09-25-2003, 12:28 AM
just to quote someone, I have a Boxx dual 1900+, it was pricey..... but I have to say, very upgradable, very well think machine, extremely solid, and very good support... I am going to change for the new AMD64, I would just need to change some fans... not the entire machine like apple is ALWAYS doing... I have nothing against Apple.... I am writing this on a "usedToBeFastG4"....

Exper
09-25-2003, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
Windows users... you're better off buying your next computer with an AMD processor rather than one from Intel. Even if you gain a few extra megahertz from Intel, in the long run it's a better investment to get an AMD processor to keep the market competitive. You'll have faster processors in the future that way.

For some reason, a lot of application developers have optimized their software for Intel processors more than other processors. I believe this is also true with Lightwave, which is heavily optimized for Intel's SSE2 instructions.

For this reason, processors from other manufacturers actually have to be much faster to compete, as they're running with non-optimized code.

I think AMD has done well to hang in there this far. Remember Cyrix?Beamtracer... I'm totally agree!!!
AMD is doing a really good work with the new 64bit cpu.
They finally have a new possibility againt Intel (which found his glory most on big market's ignorance).

I don't want say: "I have no alternative... must buy an Intel!"

Note: Cyrix it's now a part of VIA, they produce "C3", "Antar" and "Eden" cpu!


Originally posted by Beamtracer
However, when Lightwave 8 is released, this should change. Hopefully Newtek has done some optimization work for the new generation 64-bit processors, the AMD64 and the G5. Hopefully... we'll see a non Intel-centric LW[x]! ;)

Bye.

js33
09-25-2003, 02:17 AM
Well if LW and other apps are upgraded to 64 bit then AMD and Apple have a chance to gain some market share over Intel.

Intel has the Itanium but it is mainly for servers running only 64 bit code and is not, at this time, meant for the desktop. Intel has no 32/64 bit hybrid processor like AMD or Apple.

But I imagine if Intel sees 64 bit on the desktop taking off they will respond with something. I read that Prescott has 64 bit capabilites but it is not official yet.

Time will tell hopefully soon what the new market will be.

Cheers,
JS

Exper
09-25-2003, 02:29 AM
Hoping for a non Intel-centric market (too many dreams in my... bag)!!! :D

Bye.

CaptainKirk
09-25-2003, 04:44 AM
Sure Intel has a 64 bit Pentium. It will be released in December, they are just not advertising it as 64 bit yet since their other chips are still faster overall. There are a couple of articles on this already. ( confirmed by pin numbers and Microsoft additions of support for a yet "unknown" 64bit extension set )

A big corp like intel makes more money by slowly increasing performance of their chips as needed and milking the market.


Interesting how Mac people again point to two paragraphs which praise Mac. That same article goes on to say that overall Pentiums were faster in Photoshop, much faster in some test and wiped the floor ( their exact words ) with G5 in Lightwave, Cinema4D etc.........

So far G5 only opens PDF documents faster than a Pentium. Looks like Apple is turning out to be an office machine , while PCs are for creatives. Oh, how the world turns.

Exper
09-25-2003, 05:10 AM
CaptainKirk...
can you provide a link or two?

Thanks!

Bye.

mattclary
09-25-2003, 05:48 AM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
As I said, the Lightwave tests referred to earlier used the current version of Lightwave which is highly optimized for Intel, but not the other new processors.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the new AMD chips include the SSE2 instruction set, which puts them on an even footing with Intel, not to mention the AMD chips are actually running at a lower clock speed than the P4s. I heard someone refer to the P4EE edition as the "Emergency Edition", kinda funny.

FYI, I'm not arguing with anything you said, Beam, just making a point for everyone.

Exper
09-25-2003, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by mattclary
Actually, I'm pretty sure the new AMD chips include the SSE2 instruction set, which puts them on an even footing with Intel, not to mention the AMD chips are actually running at a lower clock speed than the P4s. I heard someone refer to the P4EE edition as the "Emergency Edition", kinda funny.All AMD64 models are equiped with SSE2.

P4EE "Emergency Edition"? Yes!
What about Prescott -> P -> Panic ? :D

Bye.

CaptainKirk
09-25-2003, 07:32 AM
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11668

That's one of them

But, that was obvious even before any articles.

It would be silly to thing that of all companies Intel would be the one not capable or not having a backup 64bit plan.

That thing is out in December. Whether it will be marketed as a 64bit CPU, whether they'll just switch it on next year if deemed necessary or what, we don't know yet.

hrgiger
09-25-2003, 08:35 AM
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anything against the G5. I'm glad that somebody has made the move to 64 bit computing since that just means that the rest of the industry will be soon to follow to stay competitive. And yes, that means Microsoft too. So what if they're late, obviously they must be doing something right if market share is an indicator.

My thought process when I buy a computer is this. Should I pay twice as much for a computer that is not three times as fast as another that is a third as much? No, IMHO. That's all I was saying.

mattclary
09-25-2003, 09:02 AM
Holy Crap!!! Did you guys realize you can actually PURCHASE the AMD 64s already? You can get the CPUs and corresponding mobos at Newegg.com I didn't figure you could actually get them for a month or more.

Tronam
09-25-2003, 09:08 AM
Yeah, I think all of the vendors had stock in advance and we're not allowed to reveal it until the day of the AMD Athlon64 launch. It was almost Macworld-esque. :) Near the end of the webcast they stated that motherboards and processors were available immediately and almost immediately all of the online vendors had them on sale. Pretty well executed I think.

As a computer agnostic (owning both platforms), I want a G5 *and* an Athlon64! :)

-Tronam

anieves
09-25-2003, 10:05 AM
Mac vs PC.... ahhh, the debate that will never end!

Apple is still in business because the products they put out are innovative! Apple is an innovator something not MS or intell or AMD for that matter are. I own both, Macs and PCs and at the end of the day I use whatever gets the job done.

I said it once and I'll say it again, if Apple released a PC version of OSX the marketplace would do a 360 in no time flat!

mattclary
09-25-2003, 10:36 AM
Yeah, If I could get OSX ported to the PC, i would at least give it a try. My problem with Apple is they would never do that, as they couldn't limit you to only buying hardware from them.

Tronam
09-25-2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by anieves
Mac vs PC.... ahhh, the debate that will never end!

Apple is still in business because the products they put out are innovative! Apple is an innovator something not MS or intell or AMD for that matter are. I own both, Macs and PCs and at the end of the day I use whatever gets the job done.

I said it once and I'll say it again, if Apple released a PC version of OSX the marketplace would do a 360 in no time flat!

Come on now. I agree that Apple is an innovator and that Microsoft often "borrows" concepts from their OS designs (of course, occasionally it goes the other way too), but lets not compare Apple with AMD. Two totally different businesses. When was the last CPU that Apple innovated? I don't think it's fair to claim that Intel and AMD are not innovative when Apple themselves are basing much of their internal hardware on Intel and AMD's technology. Can you say HyperTransport, PCI-X, USB, IDE, AGP...? :)

Where Apple really is innovative in my mind is aesthetic hardware design, intuitive user interfaces and bringing a lot of different technologies together seamlessly. But, let's not over-exaggerate their innovation so that it spills into technology sectors that they are not a part of. That smacks of Apple zealotry, which in my opinion is hardly objective.

-Tronam

TSpyrison
09-25-2003, 12:06 PM
If I remember right, Steve Jobs, got the idea for the original Macintosh after visiting Xerox...

Karmacop
09-25-2003, 12:50 PM
Xerox had no real idea about what they were doing ...

Tronam
09-25-2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by TSpyrison
If I remember right, Steve Jobs, got the idea for the original Macintosh after visiting Xerox...

Ack!! Not that old war horse again. :) Can't we all agree that pretty much the only thing even remotely similar between the original and modern Macintoshes is the name? Besides, Apple didn't just come up with UI concepts, they actually developed something tangible. I think they deserve respect for that. They proved that it could be done and definitely had a major impact on the way personal computers developed over the last 20 years.

-Tronam

TSpyrison
09-25-2003, 01:12 PM
Well, if you realy want to get into it...

:D

My Amiga did it better than all of em' (at the time when the amiga was doin it.."

And..

My Commodore 64 ran something called "GEOS", in the tiniest amount of memory..

:p

Exper
09-25-2003, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by TSpyrison
Well, if you realy want to get into it...

My Amiga did it better than all of em' (at the time when the amiga was doin it.."

And..

My Commodore 64 ran something called "GEOS", in the tiniest amount of memory..
Best things unfortunatly are always blown up! :rolleyes:

TSpyrison
09-25-2003, 01:27 PM
GEOS on a Commodore 64



http://sean.adventureteam.com/pages/geos/desktop01.gif

:cool:

js33
09-25-2003, 03:12 PM
I remember GEOS but never used it. Was it out before the original MacOS? It looks a lot like the original 1984 Mac.

Cheers,
JS

Beamtracer
09-25-2003, 03:56 PM
The username 'CaptainKirk' returns, previously banned from the Newtek forum under the name 'Panini'.


Originally posted by CaptainKirk
Sure Intel has a 64 bit Pentium. It will be released in December

There are so many rumors about Intel creating more 64-bit platforms. First it was Yamhill, then it was x86-64 under licence from AMD, now the Pentium64. None of this can be taken as factual.

Intel always says that 64-bit computing is not needed on the desktop during this decade. Then again, Microsoft once said that the graphic user interface (GUI) is not for serious computing, and that Microsoft would not develop one.

I believe that Intel could make a much faster processor if they wanted to, if they were willing to spend more of their vast cash on R&D.

Intel only invests enough R&D to stay competitive with AMD. It's AMD that is determining how fast Intel's processors will run.

You could plot it on a graph and see how slow Intel's processors were pre-AMD, and see a spike in the graph at the same time when AMD appeared on the scene and started making waves.

Same for Microsoft. Look at their web browser, Internet Explorer. Notice that it doesn't get revised much these days. Once they've obliterated the competition, the development stops.

js33
09-25-2003, 04:15 PM
Well it's pretty amazing when you think about the fact that we went from 300Mhz to over 3 Ghz in less than 5 years. But I agree with you about the biggies sitting on the little guys. If it weren't for AMD Intel would probably only be at 1Ghz today.

There are rumors of 64 bit capability in the upcoming Prescott.

Imagine that, now the PC side has rumors and the Mac side has real products. :p

MS will have 64 bit but the impact of it won't be full blown for awhile.

Cheers,
JS

hrgiger
09-25-2003, 06:49 PM
Actually, I think it has less to do with competition between AMD and INTEL then with the natural progression of things. Moore's law says that processing will double in speed every 18 months and it's been true for the last many years. Which means in another year or more we should be running 6GHZ processors, or perhaps a new breed of the 64 bit equivalent of a 6GIG.

Exper
09-26-2003, 02:54 AM
hrgiger...
actual cpu market moves more to fight back than for a real evolution.
Looking at Intel an their P4EE (Emergency Edition) you can have the right and sad direction about this bad-monopolizing company!

A different speech goes for AMD, Motorola, IBM, Sun and so on (whatever you want to buy... buy one of that and fight back against Intel's yoke)!

Bye.

anieves
09-26-2003, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by Tronam
Come on now. I agree that Apple is an innovator and that Microsoft often "borrows" concepts from their OS designs (of course, occasionally it goes the other way too), but lets not compare Apple with AMD. Two totally different businesses. When was the last CPU that Apple innovated? I don't think it's fair to claim that Intel and AMD are not innovative when Apple themselves are basing much of their internal hardware on Intel and AMD's technology. Can you say HyperTransport, PCI-X, USB, IDE, AGP...? :)

Where Apple really is innovative in my mind is aesthetic hardware design, intuitive user interfaces and bringing a lot of different technologies together seamlessly. But, let's not over-exaggerate their innovation so that it spills into technology sectors that they are not a part of. That smacks of Apple zealotry, which in my opinion is hardly objective.

-Tronam

Yeah maybe I has a bit unfair comparing AMD and Apple... maybe Dell would have been more appropiate. But I'm not talking about Apple as an inventor but innovator 2 totally different things. I think Apple is still the best innovator of the pack, all those different technologies were developed by a bunch of different comapanies but Apple seems to have a clear vision wich is what other companies lack...

Apple got rid of the useless floppy, Iplemented USB in their boxes standard not to mention Firewire that has revolutionized the DV market. How about iPod? How about the music store that works seamlessly with itunes? Some of those were not invented by Apple but they surely had the Vision to make them into a product that ppl want, now THAT is an innovator.

sketchyjay
09-26-2003, 06:36 AM
From reading alot of these tech sites I've come to the conclusion that Intel loves to sit on their faster processors until they can't make any money on slower ones. And in some cases they cripple the faster processors to sell them at one a premium for slower speeds then slowly release speed on the chip. Yeah they get to make huge amount of money by making one chip and releasing it at different speeds. Great for them but sucks for us.

I don't think Intel considers Apple when releasing chips. Few of us are ever going to switch because we have thousands of dollars worth of software that would need to be repurchased and that just ain't going to happen. Yeah the Mac is the better price by performance but it still isn't cheap enough to buy it AND all my software over again. (well if adobe went with dual software like LW then maybe)

So I don't see Intel moving any faster than AMD makes them since they are the only competition they have. With luck some more players will enter the field and really get things moving.

Jay

mattclary
09-29-2003, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
It's just that Microsoft is destroying them, just like Microsoft has destroyed so many other companies in the past.

Despite AMD announcing plans for its 64-bit processor around 1997, Microsoft still hasn't released a 64-bit version of Windows to run on it.

Why is Microsoft doing a go-slow?

MS wants AMD to stew for a while. It takes the shine off the release of a new 64-bit processor if there is no mainstream 64-bit OS that'll run on it. Open source Linux64 is available, but not Windows 64. Why?

Microsoft is dancing with Intel, and it can control the industry more effectively in a duopoly arrangement. It also allows Intel (who haven't announced any 64-bit desktop plans) to get more life out of its legacy 32-bit processors.

What can AMD do? It's out of their control, as they are at the mercy of, and are let down by Microsoft.

OOOPS, there goes that theory:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11781

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11668

Hervé
09-29-2003, 08:54 AM
Love to see that

mattclary
09-29-2003, 09:18 AM
No doubt! Her tattoo isn't as cool as mine, but she's much cuter than I am. :)

Beamtracer
09-30-2003, 04:20 AM
Hey, Matt... it would be interesting if Intel did adopt AMD's x86-64 instruction set. We've only heard this from The Inquirer, which has a dubious record of accuracy. None of the mainstream press are running this claim so far.

That would leave Intel with two 64-bit architectures... AMD64 and Itanic. Then again, it is true that Intel has licensed AMD technology.

If the rumor is true, it would be bad news for the Itanic. Sure, Itanic is for servers so far, but the IA-64 architecture was always destined to filter down to mainstream computers in the future. It would also spell bad news for Hewlett Packard, who "bet the farm" on Itanic.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how the whole thing unfolds.