Slashdot Mirror
It's (Almost) Hammer Time
thelizman writes "C|Net is catching up on the buzz with AMD's Hammer line of processors. Of note in the article is how AMD demonstrated their 64-bit contender using Linux and Windows, instead of just Windows. In reality, Linux will likely have 64 bit applications more quickly than Microsoft, and will see use on this processor more readily than your average WinTel machine, so you know...like...it only makes sense."
The 64-bit x-86 hasn't been welcomed as warmly, primarily due to backward compatibility issues. Definitely having the source and being able to recompile Linux apps will give the Linux folks a jump out the gate for 64-bit apps.
:)
In general, I doubt strongly this is a AMD vs Intel issue, either. This is a Windows (and their legacy users) vs Linux (and their overly prideful users that must find every method to berate windows).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only versions of windows that I know of that are 64-bit are the 64-bit WinXP and maybe versions of NT (but those were probably for Alpha anyway), which are now outdated.
There are probably enough people like me that don't want to upgrade to WinXP just for 64-bit (I don't like lots of things about XP, but thats my opinion). So it would seem that Linux with Cross-platform portability (hence, x86-64) will have a better chance at propagating (spelling?) itself in to this market faster than windows.
Just my opinions, not to be taken as fact.
Ever notice, that once you break away from the WinTel monopolies... things just progress differently? I don't personally use Linux. I haven't had the time to sit down and really get into it. That doesn't mean that I don't like to see it gaining more run from hardware manufacturers and in the press. Competition always has, and always will be a good thing.
Not to mention, 64 bit processing on a desktop would be reason enough for me to quit putting it off!
Jason
He's totally creeping out the Great One, eh...
I do like the fact that AMD is planning on using "a smooth migration path to the 64-bit software of tomorrow", so we wont have to rewrite much of anything. Besides, I still like my old DOS games
LOTR: Elijah Wood is a munchkin asshat. Yes, asshat. LOL.
I don't do much 3D rendering other than some gaming action, and my multimedia is limited to playing some MP3s while I'm coding with vim. Are there any other compelling reasons for a 64-bit arch? I suppose I could load more data in registers, storing two 32-bits into one 64-bit register.... but i'm drawing a blank... someone help :)
The more you know, the less you understand.
AMD seemed for a while to be winning the price point war, getting to market at an extremely competitive cost for cutting edge hardware. According to my recent price-watching, however, this advantage seems to be diminishing, as Intel's lately been getting more competitive in their pricing in reaction to this. Maybe they're just going after the next buzzword in hopes of beating Intel at it's own game.
Directly from the article:
The Hammer family of processors will differ from other AMD chips--and other Intel processors--in that they will be able to run conventional 32-bit applications found on Windows PCs today as well as 64-bit applications.Perhaps we should read the article before we all run off and post ;-)
The PR is vague enough to be interpreted as "running a 64-bit version of Linux as well as [plain old 32 bit] Microsoft Windows". I've asked AMD flat out, and they will not commit to saying yes, Win64 will be coming to the Hammer party. MS certainly haven't mentioned it, AFAIK.
As a film/video FX developer, we'd love the massive memory space & 64 bit registers that Hammer brings. But as a [currently] Windows-only app, Linux-64 isn't helpful (except possibly for a few customers' render farms).
Our code is 64-bit clean, we have a working Itanium port, but we haven't sold a copy yet. We have customers who need multigigabytes of RAM & the speed of an Athlon to process it all, yet don't have the spare kilobux to justify dedicating a dual Itanium to a single app (it's all but useless for 32 bit apps at Winzip level & up).
So... rumours, anyone? Hard facts? Tidbits, gossip, insider info?
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Well the normal could do fine with a pentium 200 and 64 megs of ram.
64bit is for the power user, people who want gigs of ram, huge harddrives, people who trade media like dvd movies, who edit movies, who play games, who run alot of programs at the same time, or who just want more speed, they want state of the art.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
If I remember correctly, one of the things AMD picked up from the Alpha Engineers was memoryCPU tech that has already been used on the MP boards. Each CPU has it's own memory link, so they don't fight or clog one.
AFAIK Alphas died because of business problems, not technical ones.
It's not just a simple matter for Intel to increase the Itanium's x86 performance. The reason it runs so slow is because it uses an emulation layer for x86 which is always going to be dog slow, the only way intel could fix it would be to do a major (as in almost complete) redesign. Hammer on the other hand can exicute x86 in hardware since it's 64-bit instruction set is a superset of x86. Itanium will likely never see the desktop, instead Intel will fork off another chip line for the consumer/workstation market (like the Pentium/Xeon lines today).
More RAM will not matter if you can not access the data which you desire from the permanent storage device. ATA and SCSI just can not deliver, mostly due to individual disk drive IO. Fiber Channel is close, but not practical, and is no different than something like RAID1 when it comes to performance. It is all stored on disks. That is going to have to change or something. Disks are a mechanical device and are not going to scale. Something is going to have to give. Something new needs to be made to accelerate this IO from the permanent storage into the temporary manipulation space (RAM).
Right now, I do not want a faster processor, because that will not improve the speed of disk IO. I do not need more RAM, because I really do not use it (today). Faster network speed? That would be nice, but the 11MB across my LAN is okay for now.
I just wish that moving that data around was faster, not necessarily being able to hold more of it. And in this case of speed, the processor has nothing to do with it.
Now what this all has to do with this new AMD processor, I do not know. Nothing. Mod me down.