PDA

View Full Version : Intel reveals new 64 bit chip



js33
02-17-2004, 09:55 PM
OK it's offical now.

Intel reveals new 64 bit chip (http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-5160169.html?tag=nefd_lede)

So how about a 64 bit Lightwave now?
We now have 3 choices for 64 bit processors. AMD, Intel and Apple so the time seems right for 64 bit Lightwave now.:D

Yea. It's about time.

Cheers,
JS

prospector
02-17-2004, 10:07 PM
LW 9 due inQ1 2005

At least a birdy told me so.

js33
02-17-2004, 10:16 PM
We don't even have 8 yet :( and were already talking about 9. :D

Cheers,
JS

DigiLusionist
02-17-2004, 11:38 PM
PCs will have 64 bit chips this year (maybe)?

Damn. A certain citizen of the world will have to find something new with which to claim platform superiority...
:p

js33
02-18-2004, 12:32 AM
Hehehehehehe. :D

So true. Wonder what he'll come up with now?

Cheers,
JS

hrgiger
02-18-2004, 01:51 AM
I'm sure he'll come up with something....:rolleyes:

No big deal anyway, still not much software support for 64 bit.

js33
02-18-2004, 02:04 AM
Yet. But it will come soon and it's the future going forward. How many people will buy a 32 bit Intel PC now when soon you can get a 32/64 bit for the future?

Cheers,
JS

Exper
02-18-2004, 03:00 AM
Another one.

Intel's 32-bit/64-bit Xeon Processor to Ship in Two Months?
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040217105329.html

Bye.

Exper
02-18-2004, 04:15 AM
Then...

Intel reveals new 64-bit server chip
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5160169.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed

Craig Barrett confirms 64 bit address extensions for Xeon. And Prescott
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14189

Bye.

Para
02-18-2004, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by DigiLusionist
PCs will have 64 bit chips this year (maybe)?

Umm, 64bit chip utilizing desktop PC:s came out before G5 :)

Exper
02-18-2004, 09:52 AM
And even more...

Nocona and Prescott: Intel adopts x86-64
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1971&p=4

Bye.

stone
02-18-2004, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by DigiLusionist
PCs will have 64 bit chips this year (maybe)?

they already have had for half a year.


Originally posted by Para
Umm, 64bit chip utilizing desktop PC:s came out before G5 :)

no, opteron isnt a desktop cpu, and amd64 came after the ppc970.

it doesnt matter though. its not like 64bit cpu's are anything new.

/stone

Para
02-18-2004, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by stone
it doesnt matter though. its not like 64bit cpu's are anything new.

Exactly. The only thing that really matters is when we, the users, really start to benefit from all those extra bits :)

mlinde
02-18-2004, 11:37 AM
Yeah, although I think the M$ family will get full 64-bit support first. Think about it -- compare the size of the development teams for Windows vs. MacOS, they can't be the same, I'd expect M$ to have 3 or 4 developers (or more) for each guy at Apple. Then throw in the option to support full 64-bit or mixed 32/64 OSs, and M$ can have versions of the OS for each platform and sustain them easily, where Apple will probably have to migrate their entire product line before a 100% 64-bit OS is out, just to keep OS development affordable & practical in-house. Sad, but IBM and Apple need to get the G5 into every box they sell fast, to allow the full conversion, IMHO. Supporting 2 versions of the OS will just be too expensive for Apple, where M$ can throw money at it for a few years, like they did with 3.1 and 95 and NT.

hrgiger
02-18-2004, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by js33
Yet. But it will come soon and it's the future going forward. How many people will buy a 32 bit Intel PC now when soon you can get a 32/64 bit for the future?

Cheers,
JS

Well, execpt with the average time it takes for a desktop system to become obsolete by a new system twice it's speed is about 18 months (Moore's law). So when you speak of the future, I still don't see real heavy 64bit support in the next few years. Maybe 3-5 is more likely.

Qslugs
02-18-2004, 12:44 PM
doesnt anyone remember dec alphas anymore? Windows has been 64 bit before....

Beamtracer
02-18-2004, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by DigiLusionist
Damn. A certain citizen of the world will have to find something new with which to claim platform superiority...
:p Hi DigiLusionist. I've been singing the praises of AMD64 as well as the 64-bit Apple G5. That's not claiming platform superiority. AMD is part of the Windows platform, aren't they?

I just thought Intel made a grave error by not making a viable 64-bit desktop processor. Now, obviously, Intel has seen the error in its ways, as it rushes to create an x86 based 64-bit processor.

Have a think about it... if AMD did not exist, or there was no Apple G5... does anyone really think that Intel would have been bothered bringing 64-bit computing to the desktop?

This is a major about-face from Intel, forced on it by its competitors. Intel will now be making 64-bit desktop processors based on AMD64, and under license to AMD.


Originally posted by mlinde
Think about it -- compare the size of the development teams for Windows vs. MacOS, they can't be the same, I'd expect M$ to have 3 or 4 developers (or more) for each guy at Apple.
[...]
Supporting 2 versions of the OS will just be too expensive for Apple, where M$ can throw money at it for a few years
I don't agree here, Michael. Apple is doing pretty well so far with OS X, regarding stability, security and other advanced OS functions.

Two reasons why Apple will have no trouble with supporting 32/64-bit computing:

1. The PowerPC platform was designed in its inception to be both a 32 and 64-bit platform. All planning would have been done around this.

2. Open source. Most of Mac OS X is based around open source. The kernel (guts) of the OS is the BSD UNIX kernel.

Much of the development on top of that is part of Apple's open source "Darwin" project.

So the UNIX that forms the basis of Mac OS X is already 64-bit. That's why the Mac OS kernel is already 64-bit.

Open source means that much of the development of Mac OS X is done by the UNIX community. Apple just installs the latest BSD-UNIX kernel when it is ready.

This is how Apple maintains OS X on a much smaller budget, yet is still able to offer a very robust OS. This is how juggling 32-64 bit computing will be easy for Apple.

* * * * *


I think users of all platforms should consider a 64-bit computer when buying their next machine. Both AMD64 and the Apple G5 can run today's 32-bit applications, as well as future 64-bit applications.

When, some time in the future, a 64-bit Lightwave is released, the 64-bit machines will be able to run it. 32-bit machines will be left behind.

mlinde
02-18-2004, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
Open source. Most of Mac OS X is based around open source. The kernel (guts) of the OS is the BSD UNIX kernel.

Much of the development on top of that is part of Apple's open source "Darwin" project.

So the UNIX that forms the basis of Mac OS X is already 64-bit. That's why the Mac OS kernel is already 64-bit. (Edited for brevity in reply)
Beam, the Darwin project is the kernel level of the OS, a GUI-less UNIX without Classic, Carbon, Cocoa, Java, Application Services, Quicktime, or the Core Services. At that low level the OS can support 64 or 32 bit. That's the open source level. Move up to the Core Services, OpenGL, QuickTime, Carbon, Cocoa or Java environments and Apple has to develop the 64-bit code for all of this, internally. This is why I don't think Apple will have full 64-bit support soon. From Core Services up, they have to develop the 64-bit code in-house. Then they need to maintain functional equivalence between that 64-bit and the 32-bit versions of OS X until such a time as all machines are 64-bit and a significant number of legacy machines are also 64-bit. Sure, Apple probably has (and continues to) develop pieces of the Core Services in both 64/32. It takes a lot of energy (read time & money) to maintain two distinct but equal codebases, so Apple will continue with the mixed environment, which I think will hobble pure 64-bit for some time. Of course, if a 64-bit programming expert were to drop in and correct me, I'd be happy to hear that Apple will be able to do a slow transition over time without hobbling either 64 or 32 bit platforms.

fortress
02-19-2004, 03:02 AM
Originally posted by Qslugs
doesnt anyone remember dec alphas anymore? Windows has been 64 bit before....

I do and they were the first true 64 bit cpu around years ago

mlinde
02-19-2004, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by fortress
I do and they were the first true 64 bit cpu around years ago Then DEC was bought out by Compaq, and Compaq was bought out by HP, and the rumor is that the Alpha programmers now reside at AMD.