Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AMD's x86-64 Moves Forward

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the nacho-flavored-computer-chips dept.

MBCook writes "AMD Hammer line is definatly moving forward. The Inquirer has a supposidly leaked memo from MS saying that they have working x86-64 silicon that runs both 32 and 64-bit Win XP. Van's Hardware is reporting that MS is backing x86-64 over Intel's IA-64, and that MS has apparently convinced Intel to move to x86-64! There is an article over at Ace's Hardware from CeBIT that includes some coverage of AMD's Hammer line (including its NUMA). Last but not least is News.com's report that MS is preparing Windows to support NUMA." And it looks like the line will be named Opteron.

4 of 348 comments (clear)

  1. The bit stuff, explain to a layman. TIA by Typingsux · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    Anyone here to give a good reason not to have 128 or 256 bit processors? Video game consoles have them. Wouldn't it be kickass?

    --
    The above post is an editorial, the poster cannot and will not be held responsible for all or in part for it's contents
    1. Re:The bit stuff, explain to a layman. TIA by bonzoesc · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      The console numbers are mostly fluff; nobody judges consoles by bits anymore, and for good reason. Bit numbers aren't as closely tied to real performance as MhZ (which is still not really close, either) and other figures. The XBOX, with a 32-bit CPU, is faster than the Nintendo 64, which had a 64 in the name.

    2. Re:The bit stuff, explain to a layman. TIA by bentini · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      In fact, I'm fairly sure you're wrong. Well, sort of. You're probably right when you say that a processor with larger word size will be faster than those with smaller. However, it will also be more expensive.

      Equivalently, you could have, for the same price, a 64 bit processor or a 32 bit processor which has more functional units, more cache, a faster clock, etc. What this means is that if you need 64 bit, it's better. If you don't, it probably isn't. Why do we need 64 bits? That, my dear friends, is the 64-thousand dollar question.

      To deal with (precise) numbers larger than 4 billion. Do we need to? Well, sort of. It can be useful for polygons and stuff, but the "32-bit" architectures, largely, already have the SIMD instructions (MMX, Altivec, etc.) which will do this.

      Basically, I think that the reason that many people are moving to 64 bit is that it doesn't cost much, and you could conceivably use it. Also, it makes compiling easier if everybody has the same processor. But by and large, I don't really think most people should care.

      BTW, if anybody gets on my ass for this, 64 bits can't be for that much performance. If you want real performance, you have to go to some other model of computation at this point, so... yeah.

  2. Nice. M$ once again stifles innovation ... by jkujawa · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    MS is backing x86-64 over Intel's IA-64, and that MS has apparently convinced Intel to move to x86-64!

    x86-64 is much closer to the old x86 architecture than IA64. x86 SUCKS. It has sucked for years. Moving to IA64 would mean trashing a bunch of legacy code, but it also means that new applications wouldn't be saddled with 25 years of architectural baggage from an architecture that should have been taken out and shot 20 years ago. So once again, by chosing backwards-compatibility over everything, Microsoft is holding back the industry.