Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Reveals Support For AMD's Hammer
Anonymous Coward writes "Red Hat had been rumored to be working on support AMD's Hammer architecture, and now they have made it official. Now if I can get a hold of one of these my little site will finally be able to handle a good slashdotting with 16GB of DDR333! 'Red Hat will provide native 64-bit support for processors based on AMD's x86-64 technology, while providing support for existing 32-bit Linux-based applications.'" Combine this with Linus' feelings and Hammer is looking better and better.
Moderate this as a flame if you want cause I am sick and tired of this x86-64 bullcrap.
Lets see, the history of slashdot and most of computer-geekdom has always ribbed Intel for maintaining backwards compatibility with processors more than a decade old. Sure, x86 is great due to all the applications out for it, but in all honesty why can't we move away from it?
With Slashdot, Linus and most of the online review sites pushing for x86-64, one has to wonder if AMD is slipping cash under the table to all these parties. If not, then what happened to those people who wanted innovation in the releam of processors and just not cheap hacks upon hacks upon hacks? It's kinda funny but the way AMD is going is sorta the way Microsoft is: maintain backward compatibility at all costs.
My guess is that most people pushing x86-64 have yet to write a program more complicated than "hello world!". Let's stick to our desire for innovation and truely stand behind the company willing to shed the baggage: Intel.
I can't help but feel that "real" manager's will just say Itanium plus winXP despite the advantages of Hammer and RedHat
AMD has almost constantly succeeded to deliver technically better hardware for a lower price. Given the current economic downturn (blabla) and the lessons learned in the dotcom meltdown (e.g. that image is not everything) even your average modestly intelligent manager type will perhaps chose the cheaper, better product. Besides, I don't think AMD is still viewed as that kind of an underdog anymore! And Linux on the server front looks good, too. So I think the chances are good.
Another issue is of course whether an 64+ bit addressing architecture is needed for mainstream PCs yet. But as we all know: it's not whether you need it - it's whether the industry thinks you need it!
My thoughts were the same when 32bit came in, until I relealised.
The new insturusction and architecture improvements in 32bit x86 made for a good performance overhead.
The memory bus was twice wide on a 32bit system , so the pointers on the linked list may have been twice the size but becuase of the wider bus there was no performance hit.
One of the create benifits of 32bit was that you could have numbers +-64000 in one register, giving the greatest performance increase.
The extra wide bus is gonig to give some performance gains on 64Bit systems, but I don't see the extra address space or larger numbers being that benifitial.. Well maybe the extra address space will help with threading and process management, and mean that bloatware can be even more bloated.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
just too bad that the anouncement is only for the high-end versions of the redhat distro
we're stuck in 32-bit-hell for the rest of our days, and redhat turns into the new M$ -- evil and agressive...
oh... wait... it's linux... move along people... nothing to read here...
> On the SPEC CPU2000 benchmarks, the two fastest
> boxes are 1ghz I2s
That's only true because of Itanium 2's floating-point performance. Real server workloads don't use floating point. For a slightly more realistic workload, look at the SPEC CINT numbers. There, the 1GHz Itanium 2 falls behind 2.4GHz Pentium 4s and Xeons.
Furthermore, none of these SPEC bencharks are nearly as memory-intensive as real server workloads. That's where Itanium really gets Hammered.