Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Commits to Using Opteron
the_1000th_Monkey writes "According these articles at The Inquirer, Infoworld, and The Register Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 will support AMD's 64-bit Opteron processor. Beta releases can be expected in the middle of this year. Here is MS's official press release."
About time that we hear this news from MS. Now, what about linux?
GeneralKael -- Slacker Extraordinaire
Add 7 new instructions to the chip ensuring that non-MS authorized Opertons won't be able to properly run MS software.
Recompile and go.
It's not like this is a poorly implemented Unix workalike that has processor-specific cruft buried deep under the skin.
I have been pwned because my
Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 will support AMD's 64-bit Opteron processor. Beta releases can be expected in the middle of this year.
A slashdot story where Microsoft are the good guys! What have you done with the real Timothy?! Taco! Help, Taco!!
I hope they support it as well as they did with the pentium 64 chips. I hope they used basicly the same concepts with it as they did the pentium when it comes to programing for it too. I hate having to learn a whole bunch of new things for a product.
No.
64-bit Blue Screen of Death!
That's great, what about linux support?
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Half the MS-Intel Duoply is broken!!!
Now, if only the first half would die off...
Suicide Booth: You are now dead! Thank you for using Stop and Drop, America's favorite since 2008.
And does this make AMD part of the Axis of Evil now?
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
Was there any doubt that this would happen? Since MS is running on about a 3-5 year Server cycle, the next server release would happen around 2008. I would assume that most high end servers and many workstations would have 64 bit processors by this time. It just makes sense that MS would support the 64 bit processor being released by the 2nd largest processor company.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
Linus says next version of Linux will ship with DirectX.
They will suck in even more platforms.
Amazing...even will have a version for the full 64bit (not using the 32bit compatability...much)
I can't find any information if Win2k3 has support for Intels Itanium 64bit processor...You'd think it would considering MS and Intel spend every night in bed together
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
.... it will be a while before the software catches up ....
...
Just my $0.02 cents
HallmarkOrnaments.Com
It will be annoying when they do release the opterons and there is no (64bit) software to run on them. Sort of buy a system, install a 32bit os and then a few months later reinstall it.
Also I think many people will be dissapointed with the 32bit performance and AMD might get a bad name for it.
Mouse powered Chips, Open source Processors and Lego
Beta-version of Windows 2003 is likely to support a developers-only version of Opteron in 32 bit mode, however, only in case M$ does not discontinue the whole Windows 2003 product line. Sorry.
with Sun now supporting the Opteron, lending more legitimacy, it was only a matter of time before Microsoft jumped on the bandwagon.
then again, Microsoft could have been holding on to their press release, and Sun could have jumped on the bandwagon, releasing their press release early in order to beat out Microsoft.
either way, it really should be a simple matter for Microsoft to support this chip. it is backwards compatible, and they have had 64 bit for quite a while, so the heavy work is already done.
Have they made any commitments to Intel's 64 bit processors?
SIG: HUP
Yes, the Sun's rays also shine on Microsoft from time to time.
Heh.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
I know, stupid question, but an honest one. I'm curious WHY 64-bit is so damn important, and I'm sure others still haven't clued in. Anyone care to post a nice explanation or links or something. Thanks.
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
This is no news to me. I remember reading that AMD was delaying their 64-bit processors until next fall, the reason was apparently that they wanted to have a version of Windows to run on it.
It is therefore no surprise that Microsoft announces an appropriate version of Windows in the same time frame!
that they'll be providing an advanced version of Windows 2003 to work on the new Cyberdyne 1028-bit chip. Biological detection and engagement will be 30% faster, and there will be a whole new meaning to the phrase "blue screen of death".
Dang it. I like Win2k (I also use linux, but sometimes Win2k is just easier). Too bad they are not going to go back and release a 64bit Win2k. Not that I really expected them to, but that is just a bit more money that my 64bit athlon is going to cost me.
sweet now I can use my new cd key I got yesterday on that chip ;)
---
The Opteron has not been delayed, it's comiing out at the end of April. This is a server chip/chipset, and the motherboards are missing AGP.
The Athlon 64 is the consumer version of this. Both are 64 bit, basically the same chips, Opteron is for serveres, Athlon 64 is for desktops.
From a user's point of view, I wonder if in a couple of years users will have to decide if they want binaries for Intel's 64-bit architecture or AMD's. This as you all know is not a good thing, since it will bring market confussion to users (however, in the server space where these chips are first targeted this is not so big of an issue, specially with technologies like Java). A workaround is for companies to ship versions of their products for both architectures, thus at the very least this represents a burden on developers.
Another posibility I see is that AMD's choice of creating a backwards-compatible x86-64 instructions set will reign supreme over Intel's, and thus force Intel to adopt in AMD's x86-64.
Either way, I see turbulent times ahead...
Right now you are running 32 bits. That gives you the ability to access 4 gigabytes of addresses (2^32). It's enough for most applications, but if you want to go over 4 gigabytes of actual space you have to start playing around with crap like memory blocks.
Now if you have 64 bits you actually have 2^64 which is an outrageously huge number. It's 2^32 raised to the 32nd power. Needless to say, it's enormous. You can now access individual memory locations without having to worry about alignment and other things that make working with computers today pretty unbearable.
It won't make your system any faster, though.
Most likely, something in a future version that would make it partly incompatible with Linux. Maybe, some chipset feature remaining undocumented, or something that to write code to use would infringe a patent.
I wonder what it will turn out to be.
Now if only those two things could be made available at hardware stores. Excuse me while I drift off to my personal happy place.
For most stuff, 64bits will provide negligible benefits. For now, the areas that I see it will shine:
1) Servers that need more then 4gb memory (large db / e-commerce / etc).
2) Programs that need high precision math (scientific / video and image processing)
What do you think the chances are that their main motivation here is that they don't want to be beat to the punch by Linux.
Just imagine if the only 64-Bit servers you could buy were non-MS based...
Ok, fundamental issue is memory addressing. Barring windowing techniques a 32 bit system is limited to 4 GB of RAM (2^32=4,294,967,296).
This tends to... oh... suck if you happen to be trying to do any work with data that's larger than that. Memory is quick, disk is slow, disk over a network makes glaciers look quite pippy and responsive.
As mentioned above there have been techniques developed to get around this to get systems to the 8, 12, 16, and 32 GB RAM limits that some systems hit, but they always have a downside (such as windowing hits, multiple 4GB memory spaces slicing up your data, etc.)
On a 64 bit system you now have 2^64=18,446,744,073,709,551,616 or in laymans terms a sh*tload of theoretical memory space to play with. Going back to the point above, more data in memory = quickness = goodness.
There is a reason that midrange systems have ruled the roost in terms of big database systems. The majority of them have to do with fundamental issues like this.
Now there are other issues but outside of massive number crunching applications where systems like the Alpha have ruled this is the base problem.
>Now if you have 64 bits you actually have 2^64 which is an outrageously huge number
2^32 used to be an outrageously huge number, as well. Remember the days when a top-of-the-line box had 640k of ram, and a 20 MB harddrive was considered gigantic? 4 gigabytes was an absolutely ridiculous number to throw around back then.
Just reminiscing, that's all.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Why not?
64 bit instruction set for faster low level functions, faster 64 bit pipes. Good stuff, all around. Will you have an immediate use for it? No. It will eventually replace 32 bit, and you'll be happier. Just like the Pentium replacing the 486, the 386 replacing the 286, it's a move in the right direction.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
If I read the interview at ZDNet correctly, the Opteron can due both 32-bit addressing or 64-bit addressing.
To quote directly: One product feature "is the integration of the memory controller onto the microprocessor silicon, which of course is a good thing for memory latency, and hence a very good thing for performance."
32-bit applications will also get this feature, meaning that they should see improvements as well. It's not exclusive to the 64-bit apps. Both should due well on this architecture.
Forgot a potential benefit in my last post...
3) High geek factor.
2) Most CPU's do IEEE floating point calculations in 80-bit, if you didn't know...
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
If you do, you're wrong.
You're no different than the people who type "Lunix."
Learn to enjoy civil discourse.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
" Right now you are running 32 bits. That gives you the ability to access 4 gigabytes of addresses (2^32)"
Actually, since the pentium pro you have been able to access 2^36 addresses.
graspee the boringly informative
2^32 times the addressing space of 32 bit, so goodbye 4 gig limit. And greater speed / precision ratio. Those are the two biggest points.
-Reid
"Microsoft's 64-bit Windows operating systems represent an inflection point leading to higher performance and greater efficiency for businesses and consumers."
So, are they admitting their previous versions sucked?
By the time their crappy server OS does get launched, they will be facing an entrenched group of free OSs that have 100% market share.
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
It's like adding on and making an 4 lane highway into an 8 lane one, it allows you to handle more traffic. For most drivers it doesn't mean they'll get where they're going faster as the same speed limits apply. But a few proffessional ones will find that the extra lanes mean they can utilize the extra space better and drive faster.
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
Although there are Xeon-based servers that support more than 4GB of RAM, it just doesn't handle it very efficiently by having to use windows and page addressing extension (I think that's what PAE expands to) to address anything beyond the 4GB 32-bit memory addressing limit. Xeon's support 36-bit memory addressing.
With the AMD Hammer's handling > 32-bit memory addressing natively and without hacks like PAE, it will definitely help improve high-memory use applications like databases, large rendering jobs (think Unreal II, future movies), or scientific crunch jobs.
Microsoft has been itching to get a piece of the Unix/Linux dominated server market (and while their share has been slowly growing, Linux has been thumping it for years), so it's not all that suprising to see them support the upstart. Every so often they do make a good choice. Every so often...
Beyond that, Microsoft has been slowly helping AMD over the years, if by just using the 3D-Now optimizations on the early K6-2 processors. Of course, you'll never get Intel and Microsoft out of bed together, but then again, you'll never see them be exclusive either.
It would be interesting to see, since the Beta for Windows 2003 (I actually have a legitimate copy, just no legitimate reason to use it) was kinda slick. Though i doubt if I was running a business I'd consider anything but Linux for base server operation.
there's always fat binaries.
or, perhaps "chunky" binaries. since both platforms would have native x86 execution, there could be run-time detection, and a code path chosen depending on the processor.
i would assume this would be needed for some time anyways, even if there were only one 64bit x86 standard, to avoid market confusion.
Two reasons. 4gig limit, only 2 can actually be used, this is starting to become a real problem blah de blah de blah.
The more subtle one is that the x86 instruction set is as broken as a broken thing, as we all know, and x86-64 goes some way to fixing that. Particularly in terms of having more registers.
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
stupid morons, i submitted this story way back, it didnt get accepted.
the question is how long til microsoft gains monopoly in x86-64 market?
will linux stand up against ms?
microsoft will become another monopoly ?
True, but because of how the memory is addressed by programs (32bits at a time) special considerations must be taken, and things are generally slower.
Maybe you know the answer to this? Do most modern CPUs have a full 80bit adder / multiplier pipeline, or are they handled as multiple instructions?
Anyway, the ability to address a 64bit programatically should have benefits in itself.
On the Windows side of things, because the Opteron processors utilize NUMA (Non-Unified Memory Architecture), Microsoft needs to make sure that the x86-64 kernel is stable with NUMA and make sure that 32-bit applications can indeed run while the OS is in 64-bit mode. They (Microsoft, and AMD for that matter) cannot afford a botched release of the operating system.
The one thing that got me curious is that it seems that only Enterprise Edition (and Datacenter Edition as well) of Windows Server 2003 will support NUMA and not the Standard Edition... I wonder if that will also be the case with the x86-64 Edition of Windows Server 2003 (ie: it will be more expensive than Standard Edition, which has a 4GB memory limit anyway).
64 bit instruction set for faster low level functions, faster 64 bit pipes
This is just plain wrong. 64-bit words at the CPU level has no direct effect on instruction speed, unless you make tricky optimizations, like packing 32-bit variables into a single 64-bit register and doing operations on them simultaneously (which, in general, isn't that useful, BTW). Yes, there are a couple places where wider registers could be useful (bulk data transfers, etc) but there really aren't that many. Some people have mentioned higher-precision arithmetic, but IMHO, if you need that, you're using the FPU anyway, and thus have had 64-bit (80-bit internally) precision for some time now.
The main reason the Opteron is a good thing is because 1) it provides MORE registers, allowing the compiler to make smarter register allocations, which can provide drastic performance improvements, and 2) it provides access to a larger address space, meaning you can finally have >4GB of memory without nasty paging hacks. Of these, only the first is really that useful to your average Joe, which is why you're only going to see the Opteron in higher-end workstations and servers for the immediate future... at least, IMHO.
These "chipsets of the future"? If they offer better performance, and Linux has supported it for 6 months+ I might as well buy it in my next system.
One question though: Is the Opteron spec an addition to IA32, where winshit would already run, or a completely different chip, in which legacy winshit software won't run? I seem to remember that NT for the alpha architecture died off because of a lack of binaries.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
me: dud3 1 g0t 64 b1t CpU!@#!
friend: 0wnz0r!
But really, its all said above. Main thing being the memory access problems which current 32bit systems can have.
/* sig */
AMD holds up Athlon. Waiting for Windows to port to it. Microsoft may have "moved on"; but it wasn't ~that~ long ago. Remember MP3s ???
They're going to support Opteron/Athlon64. Nothing in the press release says they're going to be using it to run their sites
But a few proffessional ones will find that the extra lanes mean they can utilize the extra space better and drive faster.
Wow, I didn't realize you got that added bonus. Goodbye Speed Limit!
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
how about an x86-1MB instruction set?
With IE and Microsoft Office running on Apple, why bother?
Remember the 68k->PPC changeover at Apple when they used to ship fat binaries, those with code for both PPC and 68K?
Why wouldn't this be an option? Or maybe that weird dynamic recompilation stuff that the Alphas had for running x86 stuff in emulation?
On the other hand, you could ship discs with multiple versions of the binaries on. This could be the thing that finally makes software distribution on DVDs catch on in a big way.
No, the Pentium series cannot address 2^36 bytes of memory.
The sequence is:
effective address -> segmentation -> linear address -> paging -> physical memory.
PAE uses the paging mechanism to allow banking of physical memory. The maximum size of the linear address space is still 2^32 bytes (4GB).
The bottleneck is the limited address SPACE, not the amount of physical memory. What 64 bit addressing does for you is remove the limit on allocating space for files & data.
Forget physical memory, its not important. Thanks to locality you can efficiently cover a lot of address space with 1GB or less of physical memory. You can see this if you increase your windows memory from 256->512->1024 MB. There is little benefit. Paging physical memory in is really quite efficient.
On the other hand the poor old VMM gets really slow if its trying to squeeze everything into 4GB of address space.
I would assume Microsoft is hoping that by the time this happens most developers will have jumped on the .NET bandwagon. I'm not totally certain about the details of .NET but I believe it allows for platform-independant code, in which case MS would only have to provide the runtime environment for each platform.
Actually, I believe (2^32)^32 != 2^64
2^64 = 2^(32*2) = 2^32 * 2^32 = (2^32)^2
... but not (2^32)^32
Bitter much?
... rat's ass about 64-bit support for any x86 architecture? If you have a real need to address that much memory, you'd be a fool to cheap out and buy inferior hardware like Intel or AMD.
"And this is my boy, Sherman. Speak, Sherman." "Hello." "Good boy."
Not quite right. Opterons are for workstations and servers. Opterons have up to two memory controllers, can have larger cache, and support SMP. Athlon64 will be single-CPU only (this wasn't the original plan, BTW).
I expect Opteron workstations running Linux64 and Win32 will be available sooner rather than later.
Check the bottom of this article for info on a BRCM chipset supporting AGP 8x (among other goodies).
Sweet!
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Moderators?
Umm, a 64 bit bus means a 64 bit integer word size.
Yeah, we know that if you use a high level language, that's lost in conformance to a lowest-common-denominator standard that applies to all processors.
Call that 'tricky optimizations' if you like. The world still runs on machine code, even filtered through your kludges.
A workaround is for companies to ship versions of their products for both architectures, thus at the very least this represents a burden on developers.
So M$ and Windows developers would be copying what Apple and Mac developers did 9 years ago...
Sounds like par for the course to me.
You're making the erroneous analogy that all the bits on a parallel bus carry different cargo. The wider bus means vehicles 'twice as wide' can travel on the road. That would mean, in two dimensions, four times as big. But your analogy was crap to start with, so my extension is wrong also.
I am going to assume you did not mean to post in here, and meant to post in the article before this, but come on moderators, had you read the article, you would know it had nothing to do with Microsoft, or AMD, at all, it was about the PATRIOT act, check links before you mod.
* 2 and 4 CPU models
;-) I WANT one of these babies!
* Up to 24Gb of RAM (6 * 4Gb modules)
* Built in boardcom TOE gigabit
* AGP 8X/Pro 110
* Optional SCSI or SATA adapters on board
* ZCRaid compatible for either SCSI or SATA RAID
Time to take out a large loan ?
*drool*
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
2^32 times the addressing space of 32 bit, so goodbye 4 gig limit. And greater speed / precision ratio. Those are the two biggest points.
Alright! I can finally start using 64 bit floats for curency data types and not have to worry 'bout droping pennies until the numbers get *REALLY* huge.
Just kidding.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
More on 64-bit Gaming and AMD's Athlon-64 Benchmarked. There's probably some other info floating around too, but these sprang to mind.
Rock over London, Rock on Chicago. Wheaties: Breakfast of Champions.
The way I see it, there are two huge advantages to the Opteron - 2^64 bytes of addressable memory, and the new registers. I know that unless the OS is x86-64 targetted, applications won't be able to address more than 4 gigs of memory. That's a VM mapping issue the OS must deal with. So running a 32-bit OS on the Opteron negates that potential 64 bit advancement
However, could x86-64 applications that have no need for that much memory still run in the lower 4gigs of ram while using the new registers? I'm not familiar with the x86-64 specs at a low level but I do know that as Intel expanded x86 from 16 to 32 bits, flags had to be set in the CPU (and presumably supported by the o/s) for applications to use the 32 bit registers. Does anyone know if this is the case with x86-64?
"This is Zombo Com, and welcome to you who have come to Zombo Com" - www.zombo.com
Another chance for leaking Windows code...
could you name a source on that one? thanks...
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
Let's say that I have 64bit.. Two times 32bit... *grin* ;-) Just kidding.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
on ix86, memory pulled 64 bits at a time. This is because MMX registers are 64 bits wide, and the FPU is capable of a precision of 80bits.
Doesn't mean the normal registers are wider than 32bits however. And there is only the one FPU.
Its called segmented addressing. Its stupid, and I thought the computer industry learned from this already.
Basically the stance that microsoft has taken is that if you need to use PAE, you only need to run 1 application / server.
MSSQL has a PAE option, but it will consume all available memory and not release any of it.
Linux supports PAE too, but applications are still limited to a 3GB address space (when configured this way). Its only benefit is when you have more than 1 process that needs access to large amounts of memory, then the segemented addressing will still be faster than swapping.
Remember how we used to say: "Windows is a 32-bit shell to a 16-bit operating system, originally designed for an 8-bit processor with a 4-bit bus by a two bit company that can't stand one bit of competition." Any ideas how to bring that up to date?
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Does the NT port to Alpha count as a 64 bit BSoD?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Your bitchtits are the massive failure.
Lick my nutz.
The key to this whole issue is .Net, and the CLR.
.NET performance, but I think as an idea it's actually pretty good.
Microsoft is supposedly moving all their code to run on the CLR, which is similar in many ways to the Java runtime. Programs are compiled to processor independent byte code, and then before being run are put through a JIT compiler to produce PROCESSOR-SPECIFIC machine code.
Thus, all MS has to do is distribute a version of the CLR for AMD or Intel, and suddenly all applications have optimal support for those processors. Also, when a chip manufacterer releases a new chip, or adds to the instruction set, or your machine has some other hardware change, all you need is, at most, a new CLR, and suddenly all of you applications, from any developement house, have improved performance.
This is actually a neat idea, and allows MS to loosen its ties with any specific platform.
I can think of several difficulties with this idea (There must be some way of doing architecture specific P-Invokes (native calls) for performance reasons, but I don't know enough of the details.), and have only heard disappointing things about
Although its fun to kick MS around for licensing reasons, they have been pretty reasonable updating the software limitations of hardware - 2k pro supposed only 2 cpus, but I am very certain that it and XP pro will see and use all 4 logical cores of a 2 CPU hyperthreading xeon machine.
Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised to see the RAM limits increased when more ram becomes necessary. Right now, MS publically says due to lack of PAE support in Exchange 2000, there is no reason to put > 3 GB of ram in a E2k box. Once apps start pushing things on a more regular basis, MS will probably have to relent. Right now I think the people who really need 64 bits have it, and are using *nix. People who would like it, find ways to deal. AMD hopefully will commoditize 64 bit computing, and make it something we don't need to worry about.
ostiguy
Testing takes time. Does that sound like a reasonable explanation?
How many times are people going to confuse this?
From the story you link to - "Opteron, in keeping with the company's original launch date, is set to officially debut on April 22 in New York City."
The *Opterons* have not been delayed. It is the *desktop* 64bit procs that AMD will release later in the year.
It's not that tricky, people.
Everyone rails on the x86 instruction set. Yeah it's not pretty, it's not fun, hell it's downright ugly. But what are the top SPECint machines these days? Wanna guess? That means something is ok with x86. Yeah it might be hack-on-hack-on-hack but this collection of hacks seems to be working. (They'd be pretty near the top SPECfp's except for Itanium, everyone else's favorite Intel punching bag -- give me a break it has stellar FP, which is what it was made for!)
More seriously, there are some academic studies around that show that variable-length instructions of the x86 ISA actually are improving performance over fixed-length RISC-style ISAs. Why? Because the instruction density in the cache can be higher, and therefore the I-Cache fill rate doesn't need to be as high. Sure, the I-Decode is a b*tch to design and build, but apparently Intel and AMD are able to run it in about 500ps (~2GHz, or better) in 0.13u and below technology. Not bad, not bad.
waaaayyyyy back in 1996!
Ask your doctor's office to get more up to date computer magazines.
What?! Oh, ok the silly closed source send your stuff out on CD model of selling software might suffer. Microsoft might have trouble porting the Universe all the time. I can't imagine how the average Visual Basic disaster shop will cope. What's new? This is just another indication of the superiority of the free software model. Free software has been ported to different platforms for years and it's not difficult for the various distributions or their users to keep up with all the archetectures. It always makes me laugh to this kind of excitment for M$ junk and I can't wait to hear excited anouncements like , "With more than 1,200 applications ported, NT^H^H Opeteron is really catching on!"
From the Register, "For instance, there are five varieties of Linux, three BSDs, Beowulf and Windows in the offing. Most of them have either already been released or are due to be released at the Opteron launch." I hope they are not waiting for M$ to finish putting together all it's little peices.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
In the fourth quarter of 2002, Microsoft delivered to industry partners a developmental release of the 64-bit operating system with application development tools for the AMD 64-bit processor hardware.
Helps to read the article before posting a comment on it.
As usual, the best windows ever is whatever staggers out the door! M$ is soooo slow. Have a nice look at ports in the free software world.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
"Intel's reason for the simple reason that the Opteron allows for legacy programs to work."
Itanium is capable of emulating a 32-bit processor and running 32-bit applications. It's slower than a native version, sure - BUT IT WORKS. I quote from ZDNet:
"Itanium chips will come with circuitry that enables them to run software written for current 32-bit Intel chips"
I don't understand people who insist in spreading the propaganda that Itanium won't run 32-bit applications - when it damn well will. I can understand corporations worried about their legacy applications perhaps not running as fast - but they WILL STILL RUN on Itanium.
As a programmer, I don't understand why anyone cares about preserving the legacy of 32-bit architecture by expanding it (yet again) for 64-bits. It needs to be reworked - not preserved. I'm personally biased because I run an open source operating system on my machine with free tools, for me aquiring 64-bit software will be a no-cost option.
A 2 CPU hyperthreading xeon machine is still a 2 CPU machine, and Windows not recognizing that should be considered a bug (Now fixed, I believe).
Had to say it!
Go Truckle Go!
64-bit Solitare!
2^32 times the addressing space of 32 bit, so goodbye 4 gig limit.
16 exabytes ought to be enough for anybody.
"Microsoft's 64-bit Windows operating systems represent an inflection point leading to higher performance and greater efficiency for businesses and consumers."
Can someone please tell me what the fsck an "inflection point" is?
I'm a lawyer with excellent karma. Something's gotta be wrong.
Here are all the details from a Microsoft.
http://saveie6.com/
In a recent article in PC Magazine, Dvorak states his thoughts that the Mac may be moving into the Intel camp. The article is http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,939886,00.asp . He claims that the Mac maybe first at the plate when it comes to using the IA-64 platform. After reading the article, its possible Microsoft knows this and is changing it's 64-bit roll out strategy. Wasn't there also an article here on Slashdot saying Windows wouldn't be available for the Intel's 64-bit platform until 2006?
This is an odd question, but the answer can be split into 3 cases.
First, you have 64-bit apps running on a 64-bit OS. In order for AMD64 processes to run at all, they obviously need to run in a 64-bit OS. So AMD64 processes have available to them the large 64-bit virtual address space as well as the 8 new AMD64 general purpose registers.
Next you might have 32-bit processes (old code) running in a 64-bit OS in what is known as Compatibility Mode. These old apps will get true 4-gigabyte address spaces (no 3gig user/1gig system split like current systems), but they will NOT have access to the 8 new 64-bit GPRs. This makes sense, because the new GPRs can only be used if the applications were compiled for AMD64 to begin with (i.e., the compiler knew to use them). If you recompile these apps for AMD-64, they would automatically run in Native 64-bit mode discussed earlier.
The last situation that you might have is a 32-bit OS running 32-bit apps, in which case none of the 64-bit features apply at all. This is known as Legacy Mode, and is what you would get if you ran Windows 2000 on your Opteron.
Hope that helps clarify things.
Whoops. Wrong year.
You! What planet is this???
He's dead, Jim.
I was getting tired of my old one.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I thought this was dead already.
I've been using Win2k since it's release. I've seen the blue screen....never!
I know a few companies that are moving forward with plans to use opteron or release opteron-based systems that have been until now 100% intel camps. In one case, I know the company *tried* to embrace itanum first, but found to market rather cold to the thought. A few years ago, the market would have folowed intel anywhere with respect to the future/replacement of the x86 family. AMD has really done a top notch job here. For one, the price is such that system makers can enjoy a decent margin, something they haven't been able to do for a loong time with intel based systems. From a technical perspective, it is the logical next step, the power of 64 bit computing without the detriment of lack of legacy. Legacy has left us with some bad things, but it is vital for organizations and companies that cannot afford an intrusive migration. Plus, a lot of the legacy from 386 days no longer necessitates much of an impact to new development as it does with 32 bit systems. Intel dropped the ball. If the market wanted 64-bit computing without caring about compatibility, there is already Alpha, PA-RISC, Sparc, Power4, MIPS, and others. Windows was *not* the reason, the price was. Now with AMD maintaining compatibility and providing the product at a reasonable price target, they will be really hard to beat.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
The key to this whole issue is .Net, and the CLR.
.NET implementations such as Mono, in order to put a CLR on the Opteron, MS will need an operating system to support it. I'm using "operating system" in the pure sense, as in the stuff that provides hardware access (kernel and drivers), not the GUI with a web-browser definition they used with the DoJ.
That's fine for applications. However, the trick will lie with porting the O/S itself. You know, the stuff that the CLR depends on!
MS will NOT be distributing a version of the CLR for *BSD or Linux.. I guaran-damn-tee it! Excepting other non-MS
The nice thing is, just as Windows 3.1 on the i386 had all the 16-bit thunks for calling 32-bit DLLs in "enhanced mode," MS can take their time transitioning from 32 to 64-bit mode. Once the main kernel and the libraries it depends on are 64-bits, then the apps that NEED 64 bits will work. They can take their time porting the MMC, Notepad, and all the remaining utilities to the CLR. After all, why should notepad.exe be 64-bits?!
THAT is why the Opteron will be a smashing success. Backwards compatibility; just like the i386..
you know wintel and lintel was just so much easier to say. i dont know about the rest of you but winamd? linamd? i dunno, guess that'll take some time to get used to
2^32 times the addressing space of 32 bit, so goodbye 4 gig limit.
Actually the Opteron uses 40 bit physical addressing and 48 bit virtual addressing (similar to the Alpha).
This will give you a cap of 1 TB of memory or 256 TB if you want to play funky software games.
And greater speed / precision ratio.
There is no inherent speed benefit to 64 bit computing (read: addressing). In fact there are some significant drawbacks when you are talking about applications that have complex data structures containing a lot of pointers (memory size increases).
Also, they have the exact same precision. You can do 64 bit integer math on a 32 bit CPU, it just takes a little longer if it doesn't have 64 bit registers.
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
It's not a very well known fact but the company name 'MicroSoft' was originally coined by a girlfriend who was about to go down on Bill Gates when he was at Harvard....Micro-Soft became his nickname, and has stuck with him (and his company) ever since!
Just another little known fact!!
Its been known for about 4-5 months now that MS was supporting AMD's Opteron over Intel in its new OS's. Microsoft had to pick a side, only AMD had a tangeable candidate for incorporation into their new releases. It seems that Intel believes the 64-bit platform is useless to current users. While this may or may not be so right now, down the road the accuracy of the added address space will become etremely important. It will even affect the gaming industry, games that take advantage of the new address space will not be faster, they will be more precise and realistic. (graphics and physics)
-bb
PRINT "Signature line broken."
GOTO 1
That's similar what I said about my last computer: "256 Megs is tons, I won't have to buy more ram!" Then the next Windows came out.
I hate to pull a newbie here gents but can someone explain some stuff to me....
.. more "bits" at it's disposal to calculate and therefore some calculations will be much faster due to a single calculation or not having to "trick' it's way round a mathematical computation.....
...newbieness but i seek knowledge.....
I understand a 64bit cpu has
I understand it can address more memory also.
but what about the ways in which we speak to the cpu / entire system?
do we need a "64bit" pci slot? will that help - will it only help due to increased bandwidth on the PCI slot or will a 32bit pci slot (even if it was "hacked" to work very fast somehow,.. ) would it slow the machine down?
What about the AGP port- USB hub controller? - the file system itself - does a 64bit exe file contain more lines of code,....... does it contain more physical datA?
do we need a different file system (or rather SHOULD we have, rather than do we need?)
I can see the uses for a 64bit cpu,..... but what else needs to "move over" on the system to help it out?
(I guess I should remember that even 32bit boards had 8bit isa slots......... but they slowed the machine down in general when being accessed right?)
is there a general 64bit MACHINE faq rather than just a 64bit cpu faq?
p.s sorry for the
thank you.
..now with 16 character addresses!
BRAIN has performed an illegal operation in AMD64 at 0123456789ABCDEF. BRAIN will now terminate.
But you must remember, Microsoft is evil.
Who else here remembers the promise of Service Pack 7 for Windows NT 4.0, that NEVER HAPPENED?
I would treat MS announcements as if there was no announcement at all. At least then you won't be lulled into depending on them, for something that never comes.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
They were soon abandoned once Intel put their foot down, PPC NT didn't even leave beta did it?
That's similar what I said about my last computer: "256 Megs is tons, I won't have to buy more ram!" Then the next Windows came out.
OTOH, there are only 2^265 subatomic particles in the Universe.
It is a major blow to Intel, since this makes AMD a much stronger competitor in the server and workstation market. The fact the Intel did not succeed in preventing this from happening indicated that Opteron must be very competitive.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The main reason the Opteron is a good thing is because 1) it provides MORE registers, allowing the compiler to make smarter register allocations, which can provide drastic performance improvements,
Having more logical registers in the ISA will not make much of a difference. 32-bit x86 processors from Intel and AMD already provide dozens of internal physical registers that are dynamically renamed on the fly.
" No, the Pentium series cannot address 2^36 bytes of memory."
...which is from the pentium pro developer's manual.
I never said the pentium could address 2^36 bytes of memory- I said the pentium pro could.
Your argument seems to be based on out-of-date web pages regarding the pentium series which was to have PAE but the feature was dropped, and later introduced in the p pro.
I blame the fact that the first few hits google gives you are really really old web pages.
Try this:
"The new PAE (physical address extension) flag in control register CR4, bit 5, enables four addi-
tional address lines on the processor, allowing 36-bit physical addresses. This option can only
be used when paging is enabled, using an advance page-table mechanism provided to support
the larger physical address range."
graspee
So there's 'no inherit speed benefit' but it takes longer to do 64 bit math on a 32 bit processor? Sounds like that is a speed difference.
64-bit computing ( using 64 bit address registers ) does increase the addressing space by 2^32 times, I was not referring to the opteron which apparently limits that.
With regard to your comment regarding expanded pointer sizes, there's little reason I can see with why this can't be addressed using short addressing, obviously not every program will benefit or require the expanded address space, so it is feasible only to allow it 32 bit or less.
-Reid
The AMD migration path will allow you to mix 32 and 64 bit applications, and even portions of the same application can use a non-homogeneous number of bits. With Itanium, migration is painful, expensive, and difficult to do completely. With Operton, migration can happen transparently.
I think from the *user's* point of view, this will be an easy decision.
With more registers in the CPU exposed to the compiler, less spill code will be needed. You are effectively increasing the bandwidth of 'useful' instructions loaded into the CPU. By the same token, the instruction cache(s) will be used in a more efficient matter.
Also, remember, even in an OOO processor where you are renaming registers, whatever spill code you have will not be ignored by the processor. The spill code will still be executed and retired in order.. meaning lots of useless moves in and out of the memory subsystem.
Thus, having more logical registers in the ISA makes a lot of difference!
I am not a robot. I am a unicorn.
PCI already has plug pin-compatible 32 and 64 bit data width standards (if a 64 bit PCI card is plugged into a 32 bit connector it will reconfigure itself for 32 bit transfers)
2K Pro will only use the first physical cpu and the hyperthreading unit of that physical processor if hyperthreading is enabled, which is why you disable hyperthreading in the BIOS if you are running 2k. XP Pro will in fact use two physical cpus and their accompanying hyperthreading units. Server 2003 will likewise recognize hyperthreading units, but the limits are such that if you want to have 8 physical cpus and hyperthreading you will need 2003 Datacenter where you could have run 2k Advanced server on that same unit without hyperthreading.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
No again. I know what I am talking about - I just could not be bothered to check when PAE was first introduced.
Understand this:
The linear address space is the "sandbox" for the processor and where it runs programs. That's what you see from your programs.
The paging mechanism is transparent - the actual physical memory being used is irrelevant.
The processor can address 32-bits, i.e 4 GB. Using PAE you can make it so that more than one piece of memory is at that address - its just paging.
Unfortunately paging brings a whole host of restrictions - see Microsofts AWE to get a list of them.
99% of the time the bottleneck is address space - NOT physical memory - PAE is exactly the wrong way around.
We need address space >> physical memory not
physical memory >> address space.
Notice in the text you quote how it repeatedly says *physical*, there's a reason for that - its not redundant text.
That's the single geekiest post I've read on Slashdot all day - you legend!! :-)
Which brings me to another point. What happens to buses and whatnot with the x86-64? Has AMD been quietly working away on a 64-bit replacement to AGP? Will we get rid of special graphics buses and go to a next-generation bus standard all round? Or will there be a collection of compatibility hacks to make it all work with existing graphics cards. Anybody care to speculate? :)
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
For now, at least. Let's never forget the dark ages when many seemed to think a megabyte would never be seen put to use.
The Opteron has 2 things that are vital for success. They are compatibility with the x86 instruction set architecture (ISA) and the ability to run Windows NT and variants.
Bye bye SPARC. Good riddance.
The Itanium was made to revolutionize all kinds of computing. All it could manage to do well in, is straight-line FP code.
unless you make tricky optimizations, like packing 32-bit variables into a single 64-bit register and doing operations on them simultaneously (which, in general, isn't that useful, BTW).
Don't tell that to Intel and AMD! Or Apple, Motorola and IBM for that matter! What you just described is called SIMD, and it's exactly what MMX, 3DNow!, SSE, Altivec, etc. are designed to do!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
bwwarrrr need to recompile your kernel to pwnz Microsoft.
16 exabytes ought to be enough for everybody.
16 exabytes ought to be enough for anybody.
16 exabytes ought to be enough for somebody.
16 exabytes ought to be enough for nobody.
I believe Intel doesn't have a push-foward committment of the 64 bit processor, saying that the market isn't ready for something like that.
Besides, in a business standpoint, if I was MSFT, I wouldn't wait for INTEL to produce a 64bit chip. I'd want to make sure I establish my software on the latest hardware and stay ahead of the game. Plus, keeping any possible competition, linux perhaps, from catching up or gaining any ground.
A 64bit msft platform will keep the 32bit server msft admins interested in working with the 64bit version. You wouldn't want them to even consider linux traning for the new 64bit server coming in. In a manger's standpoint, you wouldn't want to spend more money on training a sysadmin for linux training when you had him working on msft platforms for so long. (hmm, maybe this is how a pointy hair boss is born).
MSFT has the money to reseach such possibilities, especially when it wants to gain a sensible footing in the server market.
I understand a 64bit cpu has .. more "bits" at it's disposal to calculate and therefore some calculations will be much faster due to a single calculation or not having to "trick' it's way round a mathematical computation.....
This is true, but it's quite rare. 32-bit integers give you a range of 4 billion, which is usually more than enough for calculations, however there are some situations where it's not (cryptography is one that jumps to mind). This was a much bigger issue in the change from 16-bits to 32-bit chips. Floating point calculations are almost always done in 64-bits, even on "32-bit" processors.
I understand it can address more memory also.
This is the real reason for going to a 64-bit chip. A 32-bit processor can only address 4GB of memory without resorting to some REALLY UGLY hacks. A 64-bit chip can access some rather ridiculously large amount of memory (1.8 x 10^19 if memroy serves).
but what about the ways in which we speak to the cpu / entire system?
This is more or less independant of the processor core. Every x86 chip since the Pentium has used a 64-bit bus for talking to the rest of the system. The Opteron actually changes this around quite dramatically, using two separate buses. The Opteron has a built-in memory controller to talk directly to memory (the vast majority of I/O traffic for a CPU) and than one or more other buses using AMD's new Hypertransport technology to talk to other CPUs and/or I/O devices.
do we need a "64bit" pci slot? will that help - will it only help due to increased bandwidth on the PCI slot or will a 32bit pci slot
64-bit PCI slots as well as the newer PCI-X slots do offer more bandwidth for I/O, particularly useful on servers for things like RAID cards and gigabit ethernet. However, you definitely don't need a 64-bit chip to use these, you can get 64-bit PCI slots or PCI-X slots on existing AthlonMP or Xeon motherboards.
does a 64bit exe file contain more lines of code,....... does it contain more physical datA?
No and maybe. A 64-bit exe file should contain the same or fewer lines of code, however the address pointers will be 64-bits rather than 32-bits, so it will contain more data. Integers may also be 64-bits instead of just 32, but as mentioned above, this is rarely needed and therefore the default is to keep them at just 32-bits.
do we need a different file system
Not at all. Filesystems already use 64-bit integers when they are needed (they are needed occasionally). For a 32-bit chip, these are hacked as 2 32-bit integers, with a 64-bit chip, they can be done as a single 64-bit one, but otherwise everything remains unchanged.
I guess I should remember that even 32bit boards had 8bit isa slots......... but they slowed the machine down in general when being accessed right?)
This was simply a matter of using ISA. ISA was the most bass-ackwards, poorly designed piece of crap bus ever to see the light of day. Using ISA always slowed the system down, but when it first came out everythign else was so slow that this wasn't a big issue. Once we got 32-bit chips, this had become a major problem, which is why IBM tried unsuccessfully to kill ISA when the 386 came out. Of course, the market didn't bite until 5+ years later when PCI came out, and even then ISA still kept rearing it's ugly head every now and then. Fortunately no current bus is anywhere near as broken as ISA.
Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised to see the RAM limits increased when more ram becomes necessary. Right now, MS publically says due to lack of PAE support in Exchange 2000, there is no reason to put > 3 GB of ram in a E2k box. Once apps start pushing things on a more regular basis, MS will probably have to relent. Right now I think the people who really need 64 bits have it, and are using *nix. People who would like it, find ways to deal. AMD hopefully will commoditize 64 bit computing, and make it something we don't need to worry about.
64 bit processors aren't just about supporting more physical memory. There's a lot of benifit to having a larger virtual address pool as well. People seem to overlook that when they talk about 64 bit processors being useless because people don't need more than 4GB of memory...
Sorry, try again... those are vector processing units, which perform much different operations. They provide specific support for packing multiple datatypes into a single array for performing simultaneous operations on them. 64-bit registers in the Opteron are NOT designed for this!
For example, in MMX you could pack a pair of 8 byte arrays into two MMX registers and add them together. If you tried to do this using 64-bit Opteron registers, you'd get overflow into adjacent bytes, which is NOT a good thing! As a result, you're highly limited on the kind of packed vector-style operations you can do in a 64-bit register on the Opteron.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But what if you are trying to describe the interactions between all of the particles?
In other words, I won't be upgrading to a new processor from AMD until either A> they remedy this problem or B> the sledgehammer processors come down in price considerably from what I now expect them to be.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The previous poster was not talking about whether the x86 64 bit was an improvement over the 32 bit, they were talking about the x86 architecture as a whole being a 'hack' vs. chips like the PowerPC, Alpha, etc. That of course is another argument.
So there's 'no inherit speed benefit' but it takes longer to do 64 bit math on a 32 bit processor? Sounds like that is a speed difference.
What I was trying to get at is there are 32 bit CPUs with 64 bit registers. In fact, your floating point registers are all 64 bit wide on x86 CPUs. PowerPC's AltiVec unit has a 128 bit wide register for vector operations.
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
Comment removed based on user account deletion