PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft does AMD64



Freak
04-10-2003, 06:58 PM
The good news after MS last week announced the Itanium version of Windows XP has shipped, is that they have now announced the AMD64 version too.

What this means is........

We could have AMD 64Bit CPU and 64Bit operating System by
mid-year!!!!!

WinXP running LW8 on an AMD 64, with an AMD64 optimized VT3.
Should all be possible by September 03.

Considering A/W and Avid have announced almost comical paid upgrades, NT have a real chance at sticking the knife in,
(real good too) A/W could have a real problem, if NT get the timing
right (and i think they will) Maya who?

Regardless, it's a good year for technogeeks.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following the recent release to manufacturing of Windows XP designed for Intel's Itanium 2 processor, Microsoft has announced it will release both desktop and server editions of Windows for AMD's upcoming 64-bit processors, the Athlon 64 and Opteron.

The AMD Opteron is designed for servers and workstations, while the Athlon 64 will be featured in desktop and notebook systems.

Microsoft shipped an early development version of Windows designed for AMD's 64-bit architecture late last year. The company expects to release beta versions of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 designed for the new processors by mid-2003.

"AMD and Microsoft each have a history of making technology accessible and productive for the businesses and individuals who use it," said Dirk Meyer, senior vice president of AMD's Computation Products Group. "Native 64-bit Microsoft Windows on AMD provides customers a high-performance 32-bit application platform together with an easy migration path to the power of 64-bit computing."

In another show of support for AMD, Sun Microsystems announced it would likely use the new Opteron processor in upcoming products. Sun CEO Scott McNealy recently touted support for Solaris x86, which runs on both Intel and AMD platforms. Opteron will make its official debut on April 22, according to AMD.

Elmar Moelzer
04-10-2003, 07:03 PM
Yupp, could be interesting...
CU
Elmar

hrgiger
04-10-2003, 07:07 PM
So, I"m not much on hardware.
What will 64 bit computing mean to us? Is it just faster machines/higher data handling? Real-time rendering eventually?

Elmar Moelzer
04-10-2003, 07:14 PM
Well it basically means that the CPU can process chunks of 64 bit data instead of only 32 bit. Which in the end means faster computers, but I doubt it will be sufficient for realtime- rendering...
CU
Elmar

jin choung
04-11-2003, 03:30 AM
as they say in texas, 'YEEEEE-HAW!!!'

that's what i'm talkin' about. i knew it was gonna happen, they wouldn't risk giving an entire market to linux... but it's good to see the final press release nonetheless....

check out arstechnica.com for a really excellent discussion of the advantages of 64bit processor architectures.

primarily, the advantage seems to be in the ability to address more physical ram.

but in addition, athlon 64 will support SSE2 floating point instruction set (only available on pentium 4s right now) and sports a BIG HONKING CACHE and fast memory interface with processor too....

it's a very erotic processor. and i've been waiting for it oh so looong.....

jin

Sho
04-11-2003, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by Freak
We could have AMD 64Bit CPU and 64Bit operating System by
mid-year!!!!!

WinXP running LW8 on an AMD 64, with an AMD64 optimized VT3.
Should all be possible by September 03.

No, it won't. Well, not really, anyway. Why? Because there will not be any Opteron mainboards with an AGP port this year (according to HardOCP, AMD recenctly confirmed this - AMDMBs mobo pages say the same). And do you really want to run LW8 with your old PCI graphics card? I don't. We'll have to wait for the Athlon64 in late fall, I guess.

mattclary
04-11-2003, 06:49 AM
Steve, here's a good article on 64 bit computing.


http://arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/x86-64/x86-64-1.html

Extent
04-12-2003, 10:01 PM
Ya I've been waiting for A64 forever now, the only thing I dread about it is being forced to upgrade to XP. I just love 2k. ;)

I'll probably wait for a dual Opteron:D :D :D

Freak
04-14-2003, 03:23 AM
It will take sometime to really mature, but give it a few years
and 64bit will provide a few architecture improvements that will enable makers of media editing type software and hardware especially to use ram and resources more effectively.

The push at the moment is for everything realtime,
so that will just get better over the next few years, and computers will cope better as HDres becomes more standard.

64Bit Integrated LW8 anybody? :)
It's actually pretty darn impressive.....

Newtek would have to have one of the first
64Bit optimized hardware and software solutions
for editing, compositing and 3D on the prosumer market.

Pretty cool for a small company.....

Fingers crossed.....

Beamtracer
04-14-2003, 05:39 AM
AMD will have a cool new processor, but I think that Microsoft will spoil things. I don't believe that Microsoft will have Windows64 out by mid-year, as they say the will.

I think the first consumer 64-bit system will come from Apple in August.

Freak
04-14-2003, 05:32 PM
I believe that Microsoft will re-release WinXP with 64Bit versions
before the years end.

WinXP - Itanium is already available to OEM customers....

XP was designed for 32/64Bit processers.
But really needs to be optmized for AMD CPU's.

However i don't think you will really get a true 64Bit MS OS
until Longhorn or even after.

You will get a 32/64 multithreaded half assed version first.
But at least they have announced support for AMD....
Certain areas will be optmized and other areas neglected.

I think Apple will have a complete 64Bit solution first.
And i think it will be better than the Intel/AMD/MS mess.....
But only for a matter of time.

iBlue
04-14-2003, 05:44 PM
sounds like more vaporware from microsoft......

DaveW
04-14-2003, 06:56 PM
What's the other vaporware from MS?

Beamtracer
04-14-2003, 10:41 PM
Microsoft/Intel have operated as a duopoly. AMD crept in without the permission of the duopolists, and made its processors to be compatible with the other's products.

Now AMD is calling the shots, and wants Microsoft to actively support its new Opteron64 processor. How does this affect the duopoly? Is Intel just sitting by passively as Microsoft makes a special version of Windows for AMD? Is Intel exerting any influence on Microsoft?

Just because M$ shows a beta version of Win64 (for AMD) doesn't mean it'll hit the streets in the near future. M$ products usually run late. They could even do a deliberate go-slow.

It'll be a pity if AMD's new processor is curtailed by Microsoft.

Meanwhile Apple's 64-bit Jaguar OS is running on schedule (developers will get their copies in June) and the IBM970 processor is hitting the fabrication plants this week (it'll take a while for sufficient processors to be available for sale).

Regardless of the technical advantages of going 64-bit, if Apple gets there first they will get a publicity coup, just as Newtek will get a publicity coup if it is the first major 3D vendor with a 64-bit app for consumer machines.

It is not a question of whether to move to 64-bit. The RAM barrier means that software developers must move to 64-bit sometimes in the near future. Newtek... you may as well do it now and get the extra publicity, rather than wait another year to see what happens.

jin choung
04-14-2003, 11:02 PM
errrr,

i would dare say that most of the naysayers will be eating their words soon enough....

M$ is not driven by altruism. it's driven by money. intel horribly miscalculated consumer demand for 64bit computers and amd is going to bank on it. (as a point of fact, intel might be right in that consumers probably DON'T NEED 64bit computing as of yet... but then again, they hardly ned 3.0ghz processors either. so it's ironic that the company that sold the mhz wars failed to recognize the 'biggerisbetter' consumer mentality wouldn't work with __bit computing as well)

if M$ does not cash in with amd, it will lose marketshare and mindshare to LINUX. if M$ does not support athlon64 (and probably more importantly, OPTERON) and athlon64 really takes off, they've probably cemented linux's success more forcefully than any ploy linux could have engineered.

either way actually, i will be very pleased - linux gets more important, ubiquitous, developer freiendly or m$ provides a robust 64 bit os for my new computer.

as for M$ producing an 'unoptimized' os, errr, i don't think that will be an issue. linux guys have done their thing for virtually free and virtually instantly... ya think M$ will doom their athlon64 future by skimping? and thereby losing 'to the likes of linux'?

and as for optimization in general, i think most of that will happen in the compiler anyway. in addition, read the arstechnica articles, there is NOT a tremendous speed advantage by SIMPLY going with a 64bit architecture.

as a matter of fact, most of AMD's speed gain will occur from other architectural changes and not 64bits... the ars technica article even goes so far as to say that as a result, it is unlikely that itanium or the new apple processor will match it in performance clock for clock.

so i guess it's everyone's prerogative to root for their hometeam but arguing against greed and tech facts will hardly make for credible arguments.

jin

Beamtracer
04-15-2003, 10:37 PM
Is there a Linux incarnation that will run on AMD's 64-bit processors? I'm sure many people would prefer to use Linux for this new processor anyway.

I don't know if Apple's 64-bit machines will be faster than AMD based machines. We'll have to wait and see. I think they'll at least be comparable in speed.

Also, Apple will get a speed bump by having Big Blue as the processor supplier, rather than Motorola. I hear that Apple is going to sue Motorola for not producing the 'G5' processor.

I'm still not convinced Intel will sit by and let the IBM and AMD take their market. Graphics professionals drive this market, as they buy at the top end.

I think Intel will pull a rabbit out of its hat, and the skunkworks Yamhill processor will appear, causing the Itanium to sink.

jin choung
04-15-2003, 10:54 PM
yup,

they've been doing beta testing on clawhammers and sledgehammers for almost a year now.... and as i said, i'm pretty sure that this is probably one of the DRIVING REASONS why M$ is getting on the amd bandwagon.

and yah, yamhill may be a counter to amd and ibm but like you said, it would tank itanium and i don't think that's much of an option for intel....

looks like they chose wrong this time.

jin

Freak
04-16-2003, 05:44 AM
Apple will benefit much more from 64Bit hype than anyone else...
because they can optimize the software and hardware together,
FCP and Shake would be two applications that would show the advantages of the new processer, OS and architecture all at once.

Apple will definately have sweet ride for 03 and 04...
I think Apple will be faster at first....
I'm not convinced IBM will have great production yields.

Microsoft and AMD have a fairly good relationship,
MS actually benefit from having them around...
It means they have more leverage when making deals with Intel.

MS will support anyone who pays them as part of the testing WHQL and similar support programs. And anyone who will help them sell boxes.... AMD being one of them.

Intel don't really have to compete with AMD....
Intel will still go on to dominate the 64bit processer market, even if they turn up to the game a few years behind Apple and AMD.

Desktop market is really a tiny part of Intel's mafia operations.
It's really just to provide brand association, (and it works)
Server and chipsets make up a much larger chunk of the pie.
Intel can benefit from watching the mistakes of AMD and Apple
and spending a few dollars to catch them in a snap.

So while they may appear to be behind, it's really not a concern.
Companies like MS and Intel, will never be first, this is the domain of the little guy..

AMD are risking a lot on this technology, they will likely lose it..
Server markets are traditionally Intel only zones, it's will be almost impossible to remove the Intel only ideas of system administrators. Even the desktop market won't be swayed easily, if at all. AMD are pushing shi*t up hill.

Microsoft still hold all the cards....
I think you will see Win64 in October...

As far as optmizations, 64bit will technically slow some operations down as it will have to address twice the memory bandwidth to acheive the same result. But there are ways to combat this.

Optmizations will occur on both hardware and software levels,
as we progress, although 64bit really helps the memory department, other technical limitations will be optimized and alleivated as everyone comes to arrive at the same place.
Initially some areas will be more optimized than others.

As far as LW64 is concerned, yeah i think NT are listening...... :)
In fact i'm a little scared at just how much they do listen.
One could make uneducated guesses that Arnie is doing exactly that as we speak...... :)

mattclary
04-16-2003, 06:38 AM
I bef to differ on who drives the market for this niche. Database servers far exceed this demand than graphics pros.

Beamtracer
04-16-2003, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Freak
Apple will benefit much more from 64Bit hype than anyone else...
because they can optimize the software and hardware together,
FCP and Shake would be two applications that would show the advantages of the new processer, OS and architecture all at once.

Apple's Final Cut Pro editing system and Shake now both sport 32bpc renderers... I think they'd do well on a 64-bit platform.

I hope Apple doesn't do a Microsoft, and give its own apps a head start over others when migrating to 64-bit processors. Microsoft did that kind of thing when Windows 3.1 first debuted, which is the main reason competing word processors of that time disappeared.



Originally posted by Freak
Companies like MS and Intel, will never be first, this is the domain of the little guy..

AMD are risking a lot on this technology, they will likely lose it..


You think AMD will fail? I'm not so sure. One thing for certain is that M$ plays the roll of god here... M$ will decide who lives and who dies.

Freak
04-16-2003, 07:10 PM
Yep Apples media centric software, will benefit quite a bit....
As will Apple, they still have to do it right though....

But i reckon Steve Jobs is one of the smarter people around...
He's doing everything he should, to bring Apple forward.

MS on the other hand, have lost the plot.....
(but with that much money, they will find it again...)

Beam Wrote:
I hope Apple doesn't do a Microsoft, and give its own apps a head start over others when migrating to 64-bit processors. Microsoft did that kind of thing when Windows 3.1 first debuted, which is the main reason competing word processors of that time disappeared.

Indeed Wordperfect was casualty in MSofts evil plan.
But they didn't just optimise Word, they actually wrote malicious
code to stop Wordperfect form working with 3.11.
And WordPerfect was miles better than Word at the time....

Eventually Wordperfect Corp sued and beat MS in court...
By then MS Word had gained so much marketshare, it was too late.. MS have done the same thing to Apple and Sun among others.

I think Apple need to really optimise everything now, it's the only way that they can capitalize on the whole operation.
Shake will be faster on Apple, than on Linux,
And Apple will make sure of that.

I'm not sure if AMD will fail, but they won't make the splash they would want too. It would Take IBM, AMD and Motorola to join forces to even come close to competing with Intel.

AMD will never get the industry and public support they need, to challenge Intel... Intel have so much monopolistic powers, they could crush AMD just by pricing structure. (or a 1000 other ways)

AMD have been financially struggling for a very long time.
They are always just keeping their head above water.
Just getting enough out of one chip, to fund the next.

This is without doubt the strongest chance AMD have
at doing some damage to Intel, it's been well timed.
But it will take an awful lot of luck, to do real damage.

AMD will need a good 8 month head start on Intel,
to even stand a chance of making R&D costs back.

I admire AMD for having guts to go against the family,
but they will likely wake up with a horses head in bed..
or end up swimming with the fishies, like everyone else
who has ever tried to compete against Intel.

I hope they do very well....
But i can't see them radically changing the PC landscape.
At best, they will recoup enough funds to make another CPU....

Even if i'd really like them too...

They have recieved more Industry support, over the last few years. Which is a great thing.....

This is without doubt the best chance any competitor has had...
But with so many variables like Apple Microsoft and Intel...

AMD will have it's work cut out, it's really depends on the timing of everyone involved. And i'd never underestimate Intel.

mattclary
04-17-2003, 07:01 AM
Freak, I provide technical support for a piece of software that integrates with a lot of common applications, including Word and WordPerfect. I've used Word 95-Word XP and WP 6.1-WP 10, I speak from experience when I say that WP pretty much sucks, or maybe I should say WP developers seem to suck. Earlier versions of WP were more or less OK, but every new version has seemed to have gotten worse. Mind you, I'm not speaking of speed or how user friendly it is, I mean things that are supposed to work that just don't. Our product tends to expose product weaknesses. Keep in mind that Corel did not originally create WordPerfect, it was originally written by one company, sold to Novell, then to Corel.

ecliptic87
04-17-2003, 03:22 PM
What I thought was impressive was the fact that AMD is intergating the north bridge onto their new CPUs therefore eliminating the feared FSB speed rating which will just be as fast as the CPU clock.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_4699_7981%5E7987,00.html[/URL]

harhar
04-17-2003, 08:03 PM
ya well, apple will soon use intel processors.

Beamtracer
04-18-2003, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by harhar
ya well, apple will soon use intel processors.

That's just plain wrong. Harhar, you've been reading too much PC magazine again. They wouldn't want to anyway, as their processor roadmap is better using IBM processors.

I mean, what processor would you want to be using next year? A Pentium? A Titanium, or an Opteron64 or IBM970? I'd prefer one of the latter two.

Freak
04-18-2003, 10:55 AM
Matt:

Once apon a time Lotus and WP dominated these markets,
MS eventually screwed everyone...They undercut prices, and wrote mallicious code. And bought Excel, (which was a Mac application) and packaged it into Office

This is going back some years, WP was still made by WPC.
They eventually did a deal with Borland, and later Novell, which lost heaps of money when they sold it to Corel.

WP had 78% of the market back in the DOS days, WP failed to see Windows as big business. So Billy got pissed and stole the whole desktop market. So when WPC made a move for Windows 3.1 Billy stopped it dead.... By inserting code that stopped WP from working.

I used to work as the software coordinator for an 8 Billion dollar IT multinational. I had good business relationships with many people that were involved in giving evidence in the court case which MS eventually settled out of court (after they lost twice)
We were a large customer of all those involved.

I eventually did an OEM deal with Lotus to package smartsuite with our hardware for less than $3.00 per licence. It was the only way that Lotus could get their products onto PC's

We sold MSOffice and Borland Office and MS was outselling Borland 20 - 1, Borland could not compete on price. Even though Paradox was far superior, and WP was also more liked and widely touted as superior to MS Word.

But MS had one goal, and that was to get rid of the competition, and take it all for themselves. (they did it so well, it wasn't funny)
I was literally told by MS staff on many occasions, that it did not matter what price Borland, or Lotus was, MS would always beat their price. They even dropped our buy prices on Dos and Windows, if we would actively promote Office. (we did)

These days, MS word is without doubt the biggest seller, and best package on the market, but it was not always so.
MS have the ability to make anything bigger, better and quicker than anyone else ever will, even when they misread the market, as they did with the Internet. (Netscape Who?)

As for Intel and Apple, I think it was self indulgence on the writers part in this case, I think 3rd party pressure would stop Apple from doing a deal with the devil (sorry, Intel) Still it's nice to ponder the what if's....... It would be good for Apple and bad for MS.

ecliptic87
04-19-2003, 12:34 AM
I found an interesting article even though its a couple months old.

It pretty much gives you a rundown of what's shakin' with the big boys of computers. Whether what is presented in it are true is up to you, but I did come across some stuff that I thought was noteworthy.

May I remind you guys that I just started to divulge myself in the 64-bit arena so what might be new to me maybe old to you.

1. The Itanium 2 has no x86 instruction set, it is totally replaced so software will have to be rewritten to be optimized for the new instruction set.

2. IBM may be leaning toward making an agreement with AMD so that AMD can use IBM's manufacturing to churn out the new CPUs thus eliminating its production delays.

3. Dell is holding back on endorsing on the new Itanium 2 CPUs and may for the first time in history produce servers with AMD CPU's.

4. AMD Opteron CPU does have the x86 instruction set included so their will be no 32-bit emulation involved. All 32-bit OS and apps will run the same or better.

5. HP has thrown its lot with Intel.

I think that if you don't have compatablity in mind when you design your just begging for trouble
translated Loss in Market Share

Anyway its a good read regardless.

[URL=http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,418480,00.html[/URL]

;)

Beamtracer
04-19-2003, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by ecliptic87
HP has thrown its lot with Intel.

Intel, like most other computer companies around 10 years ago, thought that RISC would be the way of the future. Intel's x86 & Pentium processors were all CISC, so Intel teamed with HP who had lots of RISC experience.

The outcome of that collaboration is the Titanium processor, which has been a flop.

I hope that AMD becomes a stronger player with the Opteron. At least the market would be a bit more even.

ecliptic87
04-19-2003, 09:41 AM
Amen to that brother. I don't think that I have bought an Intel Chip since '95.

Since HP is ditching their PA-RISC Chips to go to the Itanium 2, that leaves RISC to whom, Sun, Cray and who else? Do any of you guys know how SGI handles its chips?

DaveW
04-19-2003, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer

I hope Apple doesn't do a Microsoft, and give its own apps a head start over others when migrating to 64-bit processors. Microsoft did that kind of thing when Windows 3.1 first debuted, which is the main reason competing word processors of that time disappeared.



They already have pulled a Microsoft, at least with Sonic Solutions. Sonic has been trying to port their DVD authoring apps/hardware to OSX and the dual cpu computers, but Apple has twice purposefully given them incorrect specs so their products won't work on modern macs. That's pretty slimey.

As for RISC vs. CISC, they pretty much don't exist anymore. http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-1.html

Freak
04-21-2003, 02:35 AM
Yeah, MS and Apple would of used this trick many times over by now me reckons.

But this is what smart people do in business.
Your not really meant to care about your opposition.
I don't always like the tactics, but you must respect them for being evil, and mean. Thats how they are number 1.

But you can see why there is a cloud over companies who make tools for the OS and make the OS too. It just begs for conflicts of interest.

ecliptic87 wrote:

1. The Itanium 2 has no x86 instruction set, it is totally replaced so software will have to be rewritten to be optimized for the new instruction set.

Starting from the ground up, could be a large benefit long term.
I think we have followed X86 for too long.... (But it has downsides too)

2. IBM may be leaning toward making an agreement with AMD so that AMD can use IBM's manufacturing to churn out the new CPUs thus eliminating its production delays.

Yeah, that would be good for both parties..... And a likely outcome.

3. Dell is holding back on endorsing on the new Itanium 2 CPUs and may for the first time in history produce servers with AMD CPU's.

Many of the major manufactures, have supported AMD in desktop and notebooks, for the first time lately. Previously they could not as Intel, (The Mafia) made them too scared to do so......
Intel would increase prices to Dell and decrease prices to say Compaq, while slowing down and delaying previous orders etc..

MS have a bad name, but i assure you all, Intel are the most evil greedy corporate bastards in history. :)

Intel only have to look at you the wrong way and it hurts......

Having said that, Dell and others have been pushed around
for so long by Intel, they would love to see AMD get some marketshare. But it's still hard with that kind of pressure.

Trying to convince clients of Dell to go non Intel
for something as critical as servers, will be very hard to do too.

I agree about keeping compatibility in mind while designing,
But remember Intel aren't used to having any competition.
Usually the market has no choice than to follow Intel.

AMD were quick to make good on this fact, making it fully compatible is a need for AMD...

But Intel are quite used to getting their way.
Only time will tell, if they have to change plans mid development,
I guess we all hope so...

AMD are doing everything they can correctly.....
But really Intel, can make anyone turn to jelly rather quickly.

Everybody bags MS, but those same people love Intel....
Intel are without doubt, the more monopolistic of the two..
DOJ, won't go near them though..... Even they are scared.

I hate Intel, but i so respect how they screw everyone. :)

Beamtracer
04-22-2003, 10:29 PM
Freak, I agree with you about Intel's monopoly status. Look at their reaction to products such as FireWire. Intel didn't want Apple to get a fee for every Intel motherboard shipped, so they come out with the inferior USB2 and then put pressure on other companies to support it. Only a monopoly could do this.

Intel was getting very lazy before AMD came on the scene. Intel's processors were (then) the slowest on the market. Those people who are using today's Intel processors should thank AMD, as without them your Intel processor would be much slower than it is. Competition is good for customers.

Regarding 64-bit computing:
Here's a Mac story that might be relevant. Mac OS9 could only ever take 1.5gigs of RAM, maximum. Adobe After Effects on OS9 could also only utilize 1.5gigs of RAM. When AE was "carbonized" to run on Mac OSX, it could still only read 1.5gigs of RAM, even though OSX machines were shipping with 2gigs of RAM.

My point is that Adobe was in the highly embarrassing situation of having software that could not read all the machine's RAM. Adobe have since fixed this situation, however Newtek could get into a similar bind.

It's only a few months before new machines are released on the market that can take in excess of 4gigs of RAM. It would be embarrassing if the if Lightwave was unable to utilize all the RAM in these new machines.

Newtek should be actively preparing for the new 64-bit platforms. The wait-and-see approach of delaying until others go 64-bit is not the best way to go, as others will take the glory.

ecliptic87
04-23-2003, 09:40 AM
Very true Beam, with that said I'm with you 100%. I do have one question probably born out of ignorance, How is USB2 inferior? It has a faster transfer rate than Firewire and has more compatiblity on more hardware.

Beamtracer
04-24-2003, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by ecliptic87
How is USB2 inferior?

USB2 only marginally beats Firewire-1 in speed specifications, but in practical use (with video) Firewire-1 outperforms USB2. There are more video devices compatible with Firewire than USB2.

Besides, USB2 should be compared to Firewire-2 (otherwise known as Firewire-800, twice the speed of USB2). Firewire can connect two devices without a computer in the middle, unlike USB2.

The point is that Intel can come late to market with a product that is not superior in any way, and use their monopoly power to get market share for their product.

It'll be interesting to see if Intel resorts to coercive means to increase the market share of its Itanium processor, and pressure computer manufacturers not to support AMD.

ecliptic87
04-24-2003, 03:05 PM
I stand Educated.

Thalaxis
04-25-2003, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by Elmar Moelzer
Well it basically means that the CPU can process chunks of 64 bit data instead of only 32 bit. Which in the end means faster computers, but I doubt it will be sufficient for realtime- rendering...
CU
Elmar

What it REALLY means is that it can address memory in 64-bit linear mode... which means a maximum of 500 terabytes of virtual memory, and 5096 gigabytes of physical, or thereabouts.

The performance improvements are just sort of coming along for the ride.

Itanium is an entirely different beast... it started out with a heavy emphasis on floating point (remember Merced, anyone?), and in its second iteration got some much-needed optimizations to make it more competitive in markets that were not primarily compute-oriented, which turned out to be most of them.

Realtime rendering is coming, but not here yet... maybe when we have Itanium7 processors in our wristwatches :)

Thalaxis
04-25-2003, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
AMD will have a cool new processor, but I think that Microsoft will spoil things. I don't believe that Microsoft will have Windows64 out by mid-year, as they say the will.


I don't know about that, they have been working on it for some time, and the last thing that MS wants is to allow Linux to gain an even bigger foothold than it already has.



I think the first consumer 64-bit system will come from Apple in August.

That's so unlikely that it's almost funny :)

Thalaxis
04-25-2003, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
Now AMD is calling the shots, and wants Microsoft to actively support its new Opteron64 processor.


No, not exactly... AMD isn't calling squat, really. MS is in a position to do whatever they want, and AMD absolutely NEEDS 64-bit support from them in order to continue to exist.



How does this affect the duopoly? Is Intel just sitting by passively as Microsoft makes a special version of Windows for AMD? Is Intel exerting any influence on Microsoft?


Clearly they are, since there are a LOT of companies driving Itanium solutions out there... and most of the 64-bit processor vendors are banking on Itanium. I imagine that MS would like a slice of that multi-billion dollar pie.



Just because M$ shows a beta version of Win64 (for AMD) doesn't mean it'll hit the streets in the near future. M$ products usually run late. They could even do a deliberate go-slow.


Think about it for a minute: what earns MS more money, destroying AMD, or joining forces?



Meanwhile Apple's 64-bit Jaguar OS is running on schedule (developers will get their copies in June) and the IBM970 processor is hitting the fabrication plants this week (it'll take a while for sufficient processors to be available for sale).
[/quote

Given that IBM announced production in H2 of 2003, that's rather unlikely. I find your faith rather amusing, to say the least.

[quote]
It is not a question of whether to move to 64-bit. The RAM barrier means that software developers must move to 64-bit sometimes in the near future. Newtek... you may as well do it now and get the extra publicity, rather than wait another year to see what happens.

It's always better to get it right than just to be first... we've not actually hit the 4 GB barrier yet, we're just reaching it. So while it would be good publicity, publicity isn't everything.

Thalaxis
04-25-2003, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
Is there a Linux incarnation that will run on AMD's 64-bit processors? I'm sure many people would prefer to use Linux for this new processor anyway.


That's what they're shipping now, I think.



I don't know if Apple's 64-bit machines will be faster than AMD based machines. We'll have to wait and see. I think they'll at least be comparable in speed.


IBM's already effectively announced that it's going to deliver performance comparable to a 2.8 GHz P4 at launch.



I'm still not convinced Intel will sit by and let the IBM and AMD take their market. Graphics professionals drive this market, as they buy at the top end.


Actually, I'd wager that this market is driven more by gamers than by graphics professionals, and the state of the graphics card industry is indicative of this. There are a LOT more gamers out there than there are graphics pros, or else the graphics pros would be struggling to find work -- the gaming industry accounts for even more revenue these days than the film industry.



I think Intel will pull a rabbit out of its hat, and the skunkworks Yamhill processor will appear, causing the Itanium to sink.

You're almost guaranteed to be right on the first count; I seriously doubt that Intel will let themelves be caught on their laurels AGAIN.

But sinking the Itanium will not happen because of AMD. It's already gained a LOT of market support, and given that HP and Intel shelled out billions between them to develop it, and HP, Compaq, and SGI have all dropped their own 64-bit solutions in favor of Itanium, plus the fact that Bull, Fujitsu, NEC, and I've lost track of how many others are prepping and/or shipping solutions... no that's just plain silliness.

Thalaxis
04-25-2003, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
Intel, like most other computer companies around 10 years ago, thought that RISC would be the way of the future. Intel's x86 & Pentium processors were all CISC, so Intel teamed with HP who had lots of RISC experience.

The outcome of that collaboration is the Titanium processor, which has been a flop.

I hope that AMD becomes a stronger player with the Opteron. At least the market would be a bit more even.

The Itanium processor is most certainly not a flop...

Thalaxis
04-25-2003, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by ecliptic87
Amen to that brother. I don't think that I have bought an Intel Chip since '95.

Since HP is ditching their PA-RISC Chips to go to the Itanium 2, that leaves RISC to whom, Sun, Cray and who else? Do any of you guys know how SGI handles its chips?

The high-end 64-bit market now consists of IBM, the pitiful attempts from Sun, and Intel. SGI spun of MIPS (direct competitor for Motorola, both focus on the embedded space which is astonishingly enormous even compared to the huge x86 market), and is now betting the farm on Itanium.

ecliptic87
04-25-2003, 09:36 PM
Actually, I'd wager that this market is driven more by gamers than by graphics professionals, and the state of the graphics card industry is indicative of this. There are a LOT more gamers out there than there are graphics pros, or else the graphics pros would be struggling to find work -- the gaming industry accounts for even more revenue these days than the film industry.

O c'mon, do you really think the gaming industry is digging in to the 64-bit pie. Gaming has alot more emphasis on graphic cards and memory not on processing power. Eventually they will take advantage, but not in the near future. The 64-bit market share is driven currently and in the near future by graphics pros. and servers.

Thalaxis
04-25-2003, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by ecliptic87
O c'mon, do you really think the gaming industry is digging in to the 64-bit pie. Gaming has alot more emphasis on graphic cards and memory not on processing power. Eventually they will take advantage, but not in the near future. The 64-bit market share is driven currently and in the near future by graphics pros. and servers.

Not even close. The high-end platforms and CPU's are aimed mostly at gamers. Presently, there is NO 64-bit consumer market, and it should be pretty clear that the first people to get their hands on Prescott and Athlon64 hardware, as well as most of the people who will go for the Canterwood platform are gamers.

There are also a few games already in the works that will actually REQUIRE 64-bit machines for their editing tools, apparently.

So yes, the people that keep the graphics pros in business by buying the stuff that they create are going to be a bigger slice of the pie than the pros, even though far fewer of them will care about having more than 4 GB of memory.

Besides, your second sentence betrayed your ignorance. That statement alone proves that you really don't know anything about gaming; you ought to try educating yourself about a subject before pontificating about it. Don't follow the example of the politicians.

Rei
04-26-2003, 05:31 AM
It is true, that most gamers will have systems that will embarass all of us. This is because all games are now calculated in real time, so things like lighting and particle FX have to be done. The main burden is the AI. 64bit processors will mean that this can now be much more improved. (although I personally think that the AI in HL was brilliant). Also gamers tend to be much richer than graphic pros, so they can afford to get them when they come out.

In short: Gamers and Servers drive the market.

Rei

ecliptic87
04-26-2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Thalaxis
Not even close. The high-end platforms and CPU's are aimed mostly at gamers. Presently, there is NO 64-bit consumer market, and it should be pretty clear that the first people to get their hands on Prescott and Athlon64 hardware, as well as most of the people who will go for the Canterwood platform are gamers.

There are also a few games already in the works that will actually REQUIRE 64-bit machines for their editing tools, apparently.

So yes, the people that keep the graphics pros in business by buying the stuff that they create are going to be a bigger slice of the pie than the pros, even though far fewer of them will care about having more than 4 GB of memory.

Besides, your second sentence betrayed your ignorance. That statement alone proves that you really don't know anything about gaming; you ought to try educating yourself about a subject before pontificating about it. Don't follow the example of the politicians.

First off, I can take constructive critizism, but letts keep the personal insults to a minimum.

Second, You can buy a 64-bit Machine. HP. Its a piece of junk, but its available. And I don't think that a consumer gamer is going to augment HP's market share at present.

So my ignorance is betrayed by saying that a P4 with 128 MB of Ram and a GeForce2 MMX computer will run HL or Unreal worse than a P3 with 256 MB Ram and a GeForce4 Ti. This is what I meant by that second sentence. If I was too vague then I apologize. If this example is in error, please, feel free to correct me.

Anyway I'm an avid gamer, I run an Athlon XP Barton 3000+, 1 Gig DDR400 Ram, with the true 333 MHz FSB, and a Geforce4 Ti 4800 with 8X AGP. As a game machine its great, but as a Graphic workstation it just cuts it. Maybe I set my expectations too high, but thats why I'm looking forward to 64-bit CPU's. My primary job is a network admin. I have the certifications, and I have the experience. I know my hardware, with the exception of Mac, and I know who goes for what.