WSJ: IBM to Unveil a Powerful Chip for Home-Entertainmnt Mkt
- Thread starter FatherJohn
- Start date
- Status
PC-Engine said:Every cpu AMD has ever made for the PC is simply an x86 emulator chip that you can buy for a cheaper price than an Intel chip. If that's what you call defining the x86 path then so be it.
it isn't a x86 emulator it's a x86 compatible chip, as is the pentium...
intel x86 design choices seem too much based on marketing: run for the megahertz (= consumer deceiving when new processors are less performant at equal frequency), attempt to impose rambus.. now look at the 4 GHz pentium IV fiasco, now intel must conform to reality and contradict their dogma: they don't communicate only on MHz rating anymore, and the future intel desktop/servers processors could see a revival of the pentium III technology, Ã la pentium M.
Intel was reluctant to see x86 evolve to 64 bits, because they wanted 64-bits needing customers to buy itanium.. and was providing reserved innovations like hyper-threading.
AMD innovated a lot with opteron: no-execute bit (a feature that make the other x86 cpus obsolete by a security perpective), a very efficient interconnection so your system scales *much* better when you add CPUs, efficient integrated memory controller, and of course x86_64 which have benefits like registers number AND size doubling , 64 bits address space..
this round intel is the copier.
the massive surge of opteron-based server sales is due to nothing but the objective advantages that it offers versus xeon-based servers.
i now only use opteron for my servers, with 64 bits linux..
GwymWeepa said:
it's even more that intel has a hard time finding customers for itanium while the competing (except for the higher segment) x86_64 gains a lot of the potential itanium consumers.
the latest innovation in x86 comparable to x86_64 was the x86 going 32 bits, aka the 80386.
Magnum PI said:PC-Engine said:Every cpu AMD has ever made for the PC is simply an x86 emulator chip that you can buy for a cheaper price than an Intel chip. If that's what you call defining the x86 path then so be it.
it isn't a x86 emulator it's a x86 compatible chip, as is the pentium...
intel x86 design choices seem too much based on marketing: run for the megahertz (= consumer deceiving when new processors are less performant at equal frequency), attempt to impose rambus.. now look at the 4 GHz pentium IV fiasco, now intel must conform to reality and contradict their dogma: they don't communicate only on MHz rating anymore, and the future intel desktop/servers processors could see a revival of the pentium III technology, Ã la pentium M.
Intel was reluctant to see x86 evolve to 64 bits, because they wanted 64-bits needing customers to buy itanium.. and was providing reserved innovations like hyper-threading.
AMD innovated a lot with opteron: no-execute bit (a feature that make the other x86 cpus obsolete by a security perpective), a very efficient interconnection so your system scales *much* better when you add CPUs, efficient integrated memory controller, and of course x86_64 which have benefits like registers number AND size doubling , 64 bits address space..
this round intel is the copier.
the massive surge of opteron-based server sales is due to nothing but the objective advantages that it offers versus xeon-based servers.
i now only use opteron for my servers, with 64 bits linux..
AMD started out by reverse engineering intel cpus. Eventually they had to license x86 from Intel. Only recently have they jumped to 64-bit computing while Intel has had 64-bit computing in the form of Itanium and Itanium2 for years. The fact that more and more companies are using servers based on AMD chips due to cheaper prices doesn't change the fact they've been copying Intel for decades.
PC-Engine said:Heh if the PC is reaching it's limits then Intel must be very afraid...
Yeah.. i plan on heating my house with the future Intel CPUs, nothing like having a 130 Watt Bulb in your PC
I don't think it's wrong to say that the PC has "peaked" as it is now. I don't see anything radical in the future that will help the PC platform leap forward.
Instead i see ever growing Heatsink, bigger Fans and bigger PSUs, while the current tech is pushed to it's limits.
And i don't see any alternative either and i will be buying this stuff for years to come
PC-Engine said:
they have cross-license agreements with intel since 1976. it covers the instruction set.
http://www.redhill.net.au/c-amd.html
on the other hand i don't think intel cross-licensed x86_64.. but had it to ?
like every other company in this sector (including intel), of course AMD does some reverse engineering of competitors products.
athlon-MP based server were even cheaper.. according to they should have been best-sellers :?
there is much more than price advantage in opteron plateform. opteron server are technically superior to xeon, especially in multiprocessor configuration, like was said the above in the thread (did you say anything that imply otherwise ?). add to this the fact it's much more efficient power-wise and thermally-wise with 90 nm CPUs.
eventually if you compare the price of servers, opteron is not really cheaper than xeon.
ultimate_end
Newcomer
PC-Engine said:
McFly said:
PC-Engine said:McFly said:PC-Engine said:Every cpu AMD has ever made for the PC is simply an x86 emulator chip that you can buy for a cheaper price than an Intel chip. If that's what you call defining the x86 path then so be it.
http://www.mdronline.com/watch/watc...37&on=T&SourceID=00000377000000000000
Fredi
Itanium is 64-bit and it came out long before A64.
Yes I have an Itanium in my PC too
.I can't describe it as being value for money though. It could equally be argued that it is Microsoft that defines the PC architecture
.Why would you need 64-bit computing for personal use?
64-bit computing on personal computers isn't all that useful since there aren't any software that takes advantage of it...
It makes more sense for servers and workstations that's why Intel didn't market Xeon and Itanium for the average Joe who owns a PC. And like I said with no software support, 64-bit computing for PC is just marketing. So if that's the meat of your argument then yes AMD have convinced a lot of lemmings that they NEED 64-bit computing in their PC hence the notion that AMD is defining the PC architechture with its 64-bit cpu.
64-bit computing on personal computers isn't all that useful since there aren't any software that takes advantage of it...
It makes more sense for servers and workstations that's why Intel didn't market Xeon and Itanium for the average Joe who owns a PC. And like I said with no software support, 64-bit computing for PC is just marketing. So if that's the meat of your argument then yes AMD have convinced a lot of lemmings that they NEED 64-bit computing in their PC hence the notion that AMD is defining the PC architechture with its 64-bit cpu.
ultimate_end
Newcomer
PC-Engine said:Why would you need 64-bit computing for personal use?
64-bit computing on personal computers isn't all that useful since there aren't any software that takes advantage of it...
It makes more sense for servers and workstations that's why Intel didn't market Xeon and Itanium for the average Joe who owns a PC. And like I said with no software support, 64-bit computing for PC is just marketing. So if that's the meat of your argument then yes AMD have convinced a lot of lemmings that they NEED 64-bit computing in their PC hence the notion that AMD is defining the PC architechture with its 64-bit cpu.
You're quite a character aren't you?
I'm sorry, I thought you two were discussing who defines the PC architecture.
Now you are saying that 64bit is not a PC architecture? Even though you previously used the fact that Intel has been using 64bit computing for longer than AMD to prove that Intel defines the PC architecture!
Perhaps then, the question should not be who defines the PC architecture, but rather, what is the PC architecture?
However I note that you, in a sense, agree with the argument that software determines the PC architecture. Now you are starting to understand, my friend!
I totally agree with whoever said that in the end it's MS who decides what goes inside a PC.
Intel could have a 8921Tflop monster running at 1W, but if MS doesn't want it, it won't be used for anything Windows-compatible (obviously that's a very bad example but you get the idea).
Intel could have a 8921Tflop monster running at 1W, but if MS doesn't want it, it won't be used for anything Windows-compatible (obviously that's a very bad example but you get the idea).
I'm pretty sure we agree if we're talking software vs hardware like in any computing related industry. I was only following your line of reasoning that Itaniums are for servers/workstations and not specifically PCs (personal computers) though you PC can obviously be a workstation or server. The only reason why I brought up Itanium is the fact it's 64-bit and used to illustrate the fact AMD is behind not ahead since Intel has moved to 64-bit many years ago. I didn't say it was cheap nor useful for PCs since PCs don't run 64-bit software like workstations/servers.
Now for the guy who claimed AMD is defining the PC architecture just because it's using 64-bit while Intel isn't is just proof that that AMD's 64-bit hype has brainwashed PC users. Having 64-bit cpu means nothing if you have no software that takes advantage of it. That's why Intel has only targeted it's 64-bit cpus for workstations and servers. In other words, if you want to claim that AMD is defining the PC architecture even though 64-bit computing in PCs have no use and even though Intel was first to market 64-bit cpus then go ahead and believe what you want.
Now for the guy who claimed AMD is defining the PC architecture just because it's using 64-bit while Intel isn't is just proof that that AMD's 64-bit hype has brainwashed PC users. Having 64-bit cpu means nothing if you have no software that takes advantage of it. That's why Intel has only targeted it's 64-bit cpus for workstations and servers. In other words, if you want to claim that AMD is defining the PC architecture even though 64-bit computing in PCs have no use and even though Intel was first to market 64-bit cpus then go ahead and believe what you want.
Well, i say thank god that AMD pushed 64bit for consumer level PCs, someone had to do it and Intel was kinda stagnant. It might be useless now, and it is, but hey it's all for the better don't you think?
I could say the same about how much we "really" need some of the features in newest GPUs, and how they sit idle most of the time, apart from some very few applications, but no one's complaining, because they know that one day there will be a game or 2 that make full use of their GPUs.
And i could say the same about how were "really" need 1Tflop for games
I could say the same about how much we "really" need some of the features in newest GPUs, and how they sit idle most of the time, apart from some very few applications, but no one's complaining, because they know that one day there will be a game or 2 that make full use of their GPUs.
And i could say the same about how were "really" need 1Tflop for games
Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that AMD has made 64-bit computing affordable even though there's no need or use for it now, however, eventually there probably will be since in the future the average PC will likely have more than 4GB of RAM. Also like you said it's forcing Intel to take action which is always good for consumers.
Wow i've calmed the Cave Troll down!!! KIDDING!
KIDDING!PC-Engine said:Sure, but don't expect us to always agree.
Ewww no way! That will be the day the Universe implodes.
PC-Engine said:
no intel didn't move to 64 bits, it intended to segment the market between 32 bits for desktop and 64 bits for servers..
if there was not AMD, we would be locked with 32 bits on the desktop and 64 bits server wouldn't be as affordable.
we can go 64 bits without compromising 32 bits performance (that was the big problem of the pentium pro).
AMD brought 64 bits to PC.
64 bits processors were available long before itanium.
even before, Intel wasn't the only innovator on x86: 3Dnow was out before SSE, and a long time ago the first 40 MHz 386 was an AMD one.
i don't understand why so much hostility toward AMD. intel customers should thank AMD because it puts pressure on Intel as well as the price front as well as the performance front.
without AMD's welcomed competition we would pay more and have less performance. on the other hand i guess Intel shareholders are not that happy.
On a side not, i remember my Cyrix P150 (or whatever it was), a Pentium-compatible chip running at 120Mhz but "with the performance of a P150"... Errr... Now THAT was a hot chip for the time being. And i mean physically hot.
- Status
Similar threads
