AMD Sledgehammer (64-bit CPU) Preview

ruiner writes, "There's a sweet AMD Sledgehammer preview up at AMD Zone. They discuss the need for a 64-bit CPU, and what operating systems would support it. "

Comments

two comments

[stripes]

First the article says

It is the first product that AMD has developed that doesn't totally follow Intel's lead. The K5, K6 and Athlon were created to compete with equivalent Intel products: The 486, Pentium and Pentium Pro/II/III.

If we ignore AMD's many non-CPU products, there is still the AMD29k, a fine RISC CPU that had some great success in the printer market, and a few other embeded markets before it was discontinued.

Shortly after that the article says:

Intel has gone the "RISC-y" path while

The IA-64 is definitly not a RISC. It has a few similar features, like being a load-store archature, but it has a lot of unRISCy features. The instruction decode looks very very complex (for no good reason). The modulo-scheduled register file while having some resemblence to SPARCs register windows are really a whole diffrent beast (ironicly having more resemblence to the AMD29k's "local" registers!). It is chock full of out and out scheduling restrictions (not as in "do this and it is slow", but "you can't do that", "if you do this who knows what happens").

There are lots of intresting ideas in IA-64, many that may actually pan out. But calling it an "EPIC" rather then "RISC" isn't marketing speak, it really does have a lot of non-RISC attributes.

Will they play ball?

[Psiren]

I understand that Intel have been very helpful in porting Linux to the Itanium. Obviously, its in their best interests. Will AMD be as helpful? I'd like to hope they will. A positive commitment from AMD for Linux would bring a welcome boost to their sales methinks.

Now weary traveller, rest your head. For just like me, you're utterly dead.

RUINER == AMDZONE webmaster

[FuriousJester]

I've read /. and AMDzone for a while now. I use and advocate for the use of AMD products. When reading previews of new tech, I like to know who wrote the piece, and what the connection between the tech and the author is. AMDZone is ran by Chris Tom, aka ruiner. Highlight the name attached to most posts on the site and check the email address. The site ruiner.net makes reference to his work on AMDZone.

The intentional use of "they talk about" in the post here, which indicates to the reader a separation between the poster and the site referenced, is definitely misleading. There is only one thing worse than faking impartiality, getting caught doing it. No, this is not a major sin, but it is a common marketroid sin, and it is one I prefer not to see either of my regular reads getting into. Ya gotta teach'em while they're stil youngins, else they never learn.

This is just an FYI for those of us who know preview is another word for marketroid. There is probably some meaty goodness in the article, but remember the source.

I like this quote...

[Greyfox]

The last major change was to the 386, the first real 32-bit processor. We have been riding the 32-bit wave for at least ten years now, and we are beginning to see this wave crest.

The first real 32-bit process from Intel maybe. Dec released their first 16 bit processor in 1970. I'm sure that by the time the 386 was introduced, they'd been doing 32 bit for ages and were starting to move to 64 bit processors. Never mind that a machine with one of those processors would have a six digit price tag.

But the second bit of the quote is actually more interesting. We didn't see a true 32 bit OS until NT came out. The 95/98 archetecture still requires you to thunk back to 16 bits today, 3 decades after DEC introduced their first 16 bit chip. OS/2 also had a 16 bit device driver model to start out with. We didn't start using the full IA32 capabilities for years after it was introduced. AFAIK Linux and NT are the only two 32 bit OSes for IA32 (Well maybe SCO but I'm still amazed that anyone actually buys that stuff.)

But technically ?

[Ma�djeurtam]

This article (from AMDZone, I know) seems to forget that this new AMD CPU is one more hack to the x86 architecture.

Intel, with the Itanium, did the right thing and designed their new processor from scratch. Do we really need a new x86 chip, with its horrible design, when the open source concept allow you to recompile virtually anything in seconds, provided a compiler exist ?

Personally, I can't imagine how AMD can success with this.

Stéphane

No Longer the Bridesmaid

[348]

Intel has said that it does not think 64-bit will become a standard until at least 2005; this is a 4-year window for AMD to move to the forefront of consumer computing.

AMD has finally decided not to be the bridesmaid. This is the first real offering that doesn't mimick the direction set by Intel. With Sledgehammer being the only targeted 64-bit architecture from the big three that doesn't move to RISC. Speeds at close to 2Ghz and not using RISC architecture will open up a part of the market and allow AMD to bet the leader for once. Opening up the portability between 32-bit and 64-bit computing is goint to give AMD a huge advantage at least for the short term. Now let's see how they deliver, hopefully they learned from the Coppermine like failures with logistics and get the product to the shelves when they say they will.

Love those charts

[toofast]

I really appreciated the chart that compares the different CPU architectures. I teach Computer Science classes, and you won't believe how people judge a CPU only by it's rated MHz. For them, K6/2 500 == Athlon 500 == Alpha 500.

I'm just wondering, now that AMD is working on a 64-bit chip without having an Intel counterpart to base itself on, how compatible will they both be when they hit the market??