Slashdot Mirror
AMD Predicts End of 32-bit Processors
DDumitru writes "Infoworld
reports that AMD predicts it will stop producing 32-bit processors by the end
of 2005. By depending on price cuts for Athlon-64 and Opteron, AMD is predicting that
it's sales of 32-bit CPUs will fall off and obsolete 32-bit systems in less
than 3 years. This is either a push forward, or a tactic to try to capture the 64/32 bit
standard leaving Intel in the rear. Or it could just be hype." I'm not in a hurry to ditch any of my 32-bit machines, so long as I get them replaced by 2038.
I'm not in a hurry to ditch any of my 32-bit machines, so long as I get them replaced by 2038.
I hope the editors realize that 32bit processors CAN process 64 bit numbers. In Java, for example, the date is handled by a 64bit number that tells the number of milliseconds since Jan 1, 1970. Amazingly enough, that clock won't run out for another few billion years.
Oh, and most Unixes have fixed the time problem. The real issue is getting the programs to switch over to the new APIs.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
AMD has said that next year they will be shipping Opteron chips that only dissipate 30 Watts. An opteron runs 32-bit code faster than an Athlon, and totally owns if you run it in 64-bit mode. If you could buy a chip like that, for the same price as an Athlon, why would you want an Athlon?
(If there was a problem getting a good motherboard for the Opteron, that would be a good reason to still want Athlons, but there isn't a problem. There are plenty of good motherboards for Opteron and Athlon64 already.)
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Why is that? Generally smaller geometries result in lower yields. It's worse when the process is first rolled out, and yield does improve as a process matures (which 90nm has by no means done yet), but in general, a larger geometry process results in higher yields.
If you care, this is because defect densities in the silicon remain relatively constant, and although die sizes may be reduced somewhat with smaller geometries (not as much as you would think, though, due to wiring density not scaling linearly with gate size), the odds of a defect being fatal (i.e., falling into one of the increasingly dense "wrong spots" on the silicon) increase exponentially with gate size decrease.
everything in moderation
The real question is how long will it be before the BIOS is 64 bit protected mode?
Probably never.
I still write in 16 bit assembly because the BIOS still runs in 16 bit mode. It would be nice if AMD broke backward compatibility for once and started off with 64 bit firmware so I could at least write 64 bit assembly. The mixed-mode stuff (16 and 32 bit) that I would have to do for OS programming is getting ridiculous:
- I could write in 32 bit mode, if I wanted to write drivers for every single conceivable piece of hardware out there. While this would be ideal, it is far from possible. And since the processor starts in 16 bit mode, I'd still have to write at least a little real mode assembly.
- I could still use 32 bit mode if I wanted to use a call gate to call the 16 bit code of the BIOS, or:
- I can write 16 bit code, call the BIOS directly, and only have to worry about the 64k and 1M memory limitations.
I don't like any of these solutions, but it's a lot easier to fit kernel modules in 64k than it is to write call gates for BIOS services. The reason why I like using the BIOS is because it is standard across differing computers - I don't have to write a different driver for every single video card and hard disk controller that I might come across. Plus, if it uses the BIOS, I can be reasonably certain that it will run on an arbitrary PC; I don't have to do any hardware probing or detection.Well, it's a pipe dream, I guess.
Those of us who like to program their own hardware took a serious hit when the 32 bit OS became the standard. We either ended up jumping through hoops to use the 16 bit BIOS from protected mode, or we just decided not to use more than 1 megabyte of the machine's memory. If they had installed 32 bit BIOS's when the 32 bit processors came out, we would never have had these problems.
But no, we still have a 16 bit BIOS because the manufacturers are afraid that some fool might want to run DOS on their 3GHz Pentium 4 with 1 GB of RAM....
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I am not sure what you mean :
1) Gcc 3.3 actually compiles to AMD64 (i.e. Athlon 64 and Opteron)
2) Gcc 3.3 generates pretty fast code too, as you can see on spec.org where IBM submitted results obtained with an Opteron, Suse Linux and GCC 3.3 : the baseline is above 1100 whereas Apple said that a Pentium 4 at 3.06GHz only achieves 880 with GCC 3.3. So it seems that the Opteron is a better processor for people who use GCC.
3) I write this text on my Athlon 64 running Mandrake 9.2 RC1 for AMD64. I can tell you that there is litlle left to adapt because it works pretty well. In fact you could hardly tell the system is the AMD64 version...
4) running 32 bit programs works fine : I have to use Java 1.4.2 for Linux x86 since the AMD64 version is not available. To do that, you just run the 32bit Linux program and it works at native speed.
As a conclusion, the Athlon 64 is good but it is still expensive (I paid 450 euros for my processor).
This may have been true but the average user just wants it to look good on paper
Ok, so go ask Average User how fast the CPU in the HP Pavilion 3000+ is. Odds are they'll say 3.0 GHz, which isn't true but is proof of AMD's success in "looking good on paper".
The issue that AMD has long had is poor motherboards. Via had a long, long time with poor chipsets/drivers which lead to crashes (this pretty much ended with the KT133A, but it's popped up every now and then since). They also had issues with MS not including the drivers for the chipsets with the OS (which is a death knell, especially for something like a motherboard -- the boards worked without the drivers, but they were dog slow). They also had some thermal problems, which were wonderfully overhyped by the hypemasters at Tom's Hardware (no, I won't provide a link -- if you don't know it you're better off).
Nowadays those issues are in the past. Nvidia has been producing rock solid motherboards for over a year now. Via has finally worked out its issues as well. Via even has chipset support in XP (and Win2k/ME IIRC). Anyone who spouts heat issues is an idiot -- Intel chips now have higher power consumption and heat dissipation than AMD does at the same effective processor speed.
AMD's had issues breaking into corporate PCs though, and still does. Most PCs sold for corporate use are Intel only. They've also had problems breaking into the notebook arena, and they're making a slow go of it in both areas. AMD has long had the enthusiast market, particularly the value-oriented gamers, but it's by no means a lock, and it's really not a very large market.