64-bit Intel is official

B

Bomber

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
1,147
Front page shows the news in all its glory. Too bad it is only in Xeon to start with. Can't wait personally for it to filter down to desktop CPU's, but only for 32-bit cpus to bottom out in price ;) Wonder how they are going to deal with the heat issues in Prescott when 64-bit is enabled. The heat will definately go up...


Shamelessly pulled from [H] front

SAN FRANCISCO--Intel will come out with a server chip next quarter that adds 64-bit processing power to its current x86 line of processors, the company's chief executive said Tuesday.

Nocona will use the same core as Prescott, Intel's current desktop processor, meaning that Intel could quickly migrate the 64-bit architecture to desktop processors.

Although the move may hurt its Itanium strategy, analysts say Intel faces no legal obstacles in adopting AMD's approach. Intel's approach is compatible with AMD's, the representative said. "There will be one operating system that will support all (64-bit) extended systems," the representative said.
 
It's about time that intel put to use that cross-license agreement. :p
 
i also read someplace that intel was going to incorporate a large amout of the tech from the pentium M (centrino) into the desktop chips... so a 64 bit chip with centrino technology to reduce power consumption and heat... sounds like a winner
 
Originally posted by themustafa
i also read someplace that intel was going to incorporate a large amout of the tech from the pentium M (centrino) into the desktop chips... so a 64 bit chip with centrino technology to reduce power consumption and heat... sounds like a winner
Click to expand...

I agree... that would be one hell of a chip.
 
Originally posted by themustafa
i also read someplace that intel was going to incorporate a large amout of the tech from the pentium M (centrino) into the desktop chips... so a 64 bit chip with centrino technology to reduce power consumption and heat... sounds like a winner
Click to expand...

Yeah, its a shame Intel didn't continue the P3 line. :p
 
Intel has Xeon level chips with 64-bit extensions on the horizon, but when will that come to the desktop level? Guesses?
 
You mean like Linux. Or are you just waiting for Bill to join in and Windows to come out. Compaines do not move lighting fast, so I would like to see it in the road map. I guarantee even when Windows XP-64 is out there will not be a 64-bit Intel desktop chip out. Now the answer to that is who cares even when Windows XP-64 comes out there won't be sufficient 64-bit software to support it. There will be some software it may be the title your looking for or not but there will be some.

Isn't the whole point of x86-64 is that it is an easy upgrade path. You don't need all 64-bit programs, you can still use the 32-bit programs until the 64-bit ones come out. In essence the Hardware coming before the Software.
 
Ok I just had to say this:


One OS to Support them ALL!

Also, over at amdzone there is some parsing of the official statement. As posted by boundless

> > What they plan to show tomorrow (or the next day...
> whenever their part of the show comes up) is that they
> have "extended" that recompiling technology to run
> AMD64 code as well as x86 code. They do NOT have a
> HW AMD64 solution, but a software one based on the
> current software for the Itanium.

I'm confused. Is the announcement for AMD64
emulation on IA-64 or on Nocona? (IA-32)

Do they emulate a 64-bit processor under a
32-bit OS? What would be the point?
Click to expand...

When I origanally saw that I thought, just AMD fanboi fud, but upon further consideration, this has to be just killing the coporate ego of the entity known as INTC.
 
Jebus! NOW what is Intel's roadmap? And here I am waiting for LGA 775 Prescott.

What does this mean for Tejas?
 
yeah, the thing is that their timing is off, when they announce things they seem so outlandish to people that they are written off. by the time things are confirmed, the idea seems far more acceptable, that is why they have earned a lable of inaccuracy, when they are right more often than not.
 
Sweet, that must be why theres so many damn transistors un-accounted for on the prescott core. Intel has probibly been planning this for some time.

Retards confuse the Inquirer with "The National Enquirer" tabloid paper...

The Inquirer has been fairly credible, at least they have the balls to post some inside info unlike other hardware news sources that only post shit thats already released, talk about boring.
 
I would love to be an AMD stockholder right about now. :D

So is it a hardware solution, or an emulation one until the next core comes out?
 
Originally posted by Mark Larson
I would love to be an AMD stockholder right about now. :D

So is it a hardware solution, or an emulation one until the next core comes out?
Click to expand...
It kind of explains all those extra transistors don't it?

As much as people rip on them, the Inquirer was right all along.
64bit is in the Prescott, just not enabled. Same as Hyperthreading in the Northwood.

Wonder when or if Intel is going to enable it? 775?
 
Originally posted by Mark Larson
I would love to be an AMD stockholder right about now. :D
Click to expand...

I wouldn't. I can imagine quite a few businesses just put off buying Opteron systems and will wait for Intel. As they say, no one's ever been fired for buying Intel. If anything this announcement means less 64 bit AMD systems will be sold in the long run.

Of course, there is the chance the Intel implementation will be slower or not as complete so as to push people towards Itanium.
 
Originally posted by Spiritual Machine
Hmm.. and I thought this was a victory for AMD.
Click to expand...
Kind of a double-edge sword - they can crow about it in the boardroom, but it may end up actually hurting sales.
 
If AMD would implement SMT (aka Hyperthreading) I would consider buying one, it is a great chip but HT is a feature that I can no longer live without!
 
Originally posted by 0ldman
Wonder when or if Intel is going to enable it? 775?
Click to expand...

Well, that would certainly help explain some of the extra pins ... (well, "contact points" or whatever they are now, anyway).
 
Originally posted by Mark Larson
I would love to be an AMD stockholder right about now. :D

So is it a hardware solution, or an emulation one until the next core comes out?
Click to expand...

Thats what people were saying when the Athlon came about...

I wouldnt want to be a stockholder for AMD for any significant amount of time.
 
I personally don't see x86-64bit on desktops coming this year. Intel rep said a few weeks ago that they wouldn't officially release 64bit until 64bit OS was out. Like everything on the net though...that is probably hearsay. But to taut CT as Xeon tech, they will want the profit margin high so we won't see it for a while.
 
it has long been intels procedure to put features in cores long before they are rolled out and disable them. yamhill tech has supposedly been in the pentium 4 since northwood, and hyperthreading since coppermine (pentium3), but wasn't enabled until the time was right and it would have a real benefit.
 
Originally posted by batotman
If AMD would implement SMT (aka Hyperthreading) I would consider buying one, it is a great chip but HT is a feature that I can no longer live without!
Click to expand...

noooo, not again! - i'm reading this kind of comments on HT all the time and have to say i really cannot understand what the fuss is all about. i'd sell my [email protected] for an A64 anyday. granted - i'm not a big multithreader, but i for my part think HT is *way* overestimated for normal day usage and more a marketing-hype-machine thing. i don't care if the chip is 5% faster because off HT or whatever and i could easily live without it. ...not that this is the topic, though - sorry
 
Originally posted by wizzackr
really - i'm reading this kind of comments on HT all the time and have to say i really cannot understand what the fuss is all about. i'd sell my [email protected] for an A64 anyday. granted - i'm not a big multithreader, but i for my part think HT is *way* overestimated for normal day usage and more a marketing-hype-machine thing. ...not that this is the topic, though - sorry
Click to expand...

I love HT. I do alot of shit, divx encoding, dvd authoring, and run as a server. On my non-HT p4 2.53 these things were slow as molasses, especially the print serving. With HT I no longer have the lag. Its a "free" feature in the C procs so I don't think anyone can complain about having it...lol.
 
Originally posted by Merlin45
it has long been intels procedure to put features in cores long before they are rolled out and disable them. yamhill tech has supposedly been in the pentium 4 since northwood, and hyperthreading since coppermine (pentium3), but wasn't enabled until the time was right and it would have a real benefit.
Click to expand...
Got links to even rumors on that?
I call BS.
 
not for all of it, but yamhill rumors have been around since long before prescott. and hyperthreading has definately been in since willamette because the counterpart xeon procs got it (and that was a flop as the cache was really too small for smt. the pentium three part I am not totally sure on but IIRC it is true. and the disabling bit is definately true, just look at northwood, it was essentially the exact same core, baring stepping changes, from the 1.6a all the way through 3.4c, the only differences is intels greater experience with the .13 process and a couple of stepping changes, the rest hasn't changed but ht wasn't revealed until the 3.06B chip, why? because, from intel's point of view. the market wasn't ready for it earlier
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14040 is a list of yamhill stories on the inq that dates back to 2001, the fact that intel was working on yamhill since then makes it very probable that some form of it was in northwood
 
The Williamette HT part, no doubt about it.
The Coppermine, the design of that processor wouldn't benefit from it.
Some of Yamhill could be in NW, wouldn't suprise me much, but the line about the Coppermine... I just don't see it.
 
the fact that coppermine, like willamette, would not benefit from ht (though for very different reasons) is a major reason why neither ever had it enabled. but as the p7 architecture was ready to go long before the p5 ever hit 1ghz, it seems very possible that it was added.
 
Hyperthreading in A64s wouldn't be very useful...how can you use spare resources in the 10-stage pipeline when most of it is already used up? Now for Intel's 32-stage pipeline in the Prescott however...
 
What I don't get is this: Why not introduce a 64-bit Pentium4 for the desktop soon? Intel has the perfect marketing tool at their disposal (as does AMD), or at least they will this summer:

Windows XP SP2 will take advantage of a page table extension on the 64-bit processors (I'm assuming Intel will support this too) which lets the OS mark pages as non-executable. Marking the stack as non-executable prevents buffer overflow attacks from executing arbitrary code. The program would still crash (hey, it's Windows, so expectations aren't all that high), but no remote exploits.

Linux also has code in place to take advantage of such a flag on architectures which support it.

If replacing outdated equipment would eliminate (lots of) security problems, wouldn't that sell a lot of computers? It's a win for Microsoft because it sells more XP, it's a win for Intel and AMD because it sells more CPUs. It's a win for Linux too because it means cooler (as in :cool: not temperature) Beowulf clusters...
 
x86-64 is in prescott, and in all likeliness, it will be enabled shortly after nocona is released. Intel will probably space them out by a month or two to give nocona an exclusive market for a while (just like HT), but yamhill is on prescott.
 
Originally posted by bdavids1
What I don't get is this: Why not introduce a 64-bit Pentium4 for the desktop soon? Intel has the perfect marketing tool at their disposal (as does AMD), or at least they will this summer:
Click to expand...

Probably the same reason AMD did it....money. They can definately make more money per cpu with servers than with desktops.
 
i wonder what the clock speed is gonna be for those new xeons. It sounds to me like they might be better the pescotts for gaming ( 800 fsb, ht, 64 bit, ddr2, pci express, etc) I might just grab teo of those and go to town
 
the only advantages of nocona over prescott will be smp, a level 3 cache and temporary exclusivity of 64 bit extensions, ddr2, pci-e and all that other stuff is chipset based and the next chipsets for prescott 775 (alderwood and grantsdale) will both support that long before nocona even is released.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top