Slashdot Mirror
The Battle in 64-bit Land, 2003 and Beyond
An anonymous reader writes "Paul DeMone has an excellent article up at Real World Technologies on the future of 64bit computing. Find out where MIPS, HP, Intel, AMD, Sun, Fujitsu, and IBM are headed."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Intel will release a 64 bit processor first, but 2 months later AMD will come out with a 61 bit processor that runs twice as fast. Don't ask me how, or even why speed is relevant to the computing power, but they will do it.
Then, 6 years later, China will come out with their own.
Work sucked, until it became unemployment, when it became slightly more tolerable. -Tet
The article is very detailed on many points, but doesn't seem to have much mention of environmental aspects like heat dissipation. I can remember when this was a big issue with every new CPU, but lately it seems to have been swept under the rug. What's changed?
I'm certainly interested in the speed of CPUs, but heat production in the embedded space happens to be a bigger issue for me.
Could I interest anyone in some toast?
Hah! My Commodore 64 has 64 BYTES! Hah!
Lousy I/O?
A few weeks ago, I was looking into buying a $35,000 Sun system. I needed a machine with better memory bandwidth than a PC could offer. The machine in question interleaved its memory 8 ways, if you had all of the processers!
Then, I noticed that each bank ran at 75 MHz. Boy, was I shocked. That means that all 8 banks together run at the equivalent of 600 MHz. The new Granite Bay chipsets, with dual DDR 333, give you the equivalent of 666 MHz.
Both systems use PCI to connect to the outside world. The PC has a 533 MHz front-side bus, and an AGP port. I can't think of anywhere that the Sun would have had any better I/O.
Now, when you get into 8-way systems, the I/O between processers is better on the "high end" machines. But before you can come up with more I/O than a modern PC, you have to spend about 6 figures. In other words, two ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER!
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
Microsoft is eagerly awaiting 64 bit processors, as they will "greatly decrease the incidence of Integer overflow exceptions, and memory overwrites"
"Where's the power?"
Easy. It's in the PC.
Yeah, I know. Some of the super-expensive RISC chips blow away PC's on floating point. But look at your FLOPS per dollar. Chances are the PC will be at least an order of magnitude lower.
It's been trendy to bash PC's for quite a while. However, if you've been "in the business" for two decades, and had your eyes open, you've realized that things have been slowly changing.
In the "bad old days", PC's sucked hard. Companies like Sun, DEC, and IBM were the only choices if you needed more computing power than an average automobile.
Because of the economies of scale in the economy market - and the competition - PC chip makers like Intel, AMD, Cyrix, etc. kept improving their products steadily. Now, a modern PC chip compute with "big iron" chips very well in integer work, and are fast approaching (in some cases, BEATING) them in floating point work - and all at a tenth to a hundredth of the price.
Back in the bad old days, it didn't matter how fast of a computer you bought, it still wouldn't run a desktop at an acceptable speed. These days, it practically doesn't matter how SLOW of a chip you buy, it'll still run a desktop at an acceptable speed.
There will always be a market for the big iron and specialty hardware, but as time goes on, the PC technology has improved by leaps and bounds over the years.
Now, don't get me wrong. There's still room for massive amounts of improvement. I would love to see the x86 architecture, and all of the legacy crop dropped like a hot potato. I'm not confident that it will happen in this decade, but it sure would be nice if it was.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
In and of itself, a 64 bit processor with a 64 bit operation system really doesn't mean better performance. You've really got to have application which leverage that kind of platform. And there aren't many. On my SPARC servers (which all have 64 bit CPUs), going from a 32 bit OS to a 64 bit OS so no real improvement or degradation regarding performance in a wide variety of applications. Going 64 bits for most people mean nothing.
The main selling point for SPARC, which most people who aren't dealing with Sun don't understand, is not the CPU itself or the speed of a uniprocessor box.
It is the total package. (Admittedly, the lower part of that is the uniprocessor performance.) On the upside, Sun has some very compelling benefits. Almost all major UNIX programs (commercial) are developed for SPARC, often as the primary development platform. The binary compatibility is awesome. The binary tat I compiled on my workstation (with 5 years old technology that is several CPU generation behind) will containue to run the most modern hardware. There's no recompiling for different/newer architectures (unless you're looking to gain a specific advantage of a new processor and your compiler can do it). And probably one of the best features is an awesome scalability story. If your code does threads, or uses more than a processor at a time, you can scale from a 1 CPU to 100+ CPU configuration. No special programming to worry about clusters or to take advantage of new hardware. Additionally, because the hardware is (majority) single vendor, you gain a great deal of relaibility over platforms which has an incredible amount of diversity (wintel). Okay. That's a double edge sword, admittedly.
That said, it is too bad that Sun just can't keep up in the uniprocessor world. But it has quite a number of real-world advantages beyond performance which keep it afloat, which may surprise people.
Most users won't need more than 32bits for years. By 2010 normal people will probably want 64bit desktops so they can have more than 4 gigs of ram (although Intel may be able to trick them with their 36bit extension).
128bits is a LOT.
Don't be fooled by the emotion engine in the PS2. It is 128bit in the sense it can handle 4 32bit floating point numbers at once. Guess what? So does Altivec, SSE, etc!
Calling systems 128bits is like calling the Atari Jaguar 64bit when it was powered by the good old 68000 that powered the 16bit Gensesis, 16bit Amiga, etc.
Typically the number of bits something is referrs to how much memory it can address (2^32bit=4gigs for example). Marketting likes to calling things 128bit (PS2 can handle multiple 32bit numbers at once), 64bit (Jaguar had a memory bus capable of moving 64bits at once), or 24bit (The Neo Geo had a 16bit 68000 and a 8bit z80) to get your attention.
He said, "You'll be able to tell your grandchildren that you helped assemble the first NT supercomputer," and I cringed.