Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AMD Predicts End of 32-bit Processors

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the end-of-the-longint-as-we-know-it dept.

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.

83 of 587 comments (clear)

  1. 32-bits is dieing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    AMD now confirms: 32 bits is dieing.

  2. You know..... by inteller · · Score: 4, Insightful

    .....forgive me for being captain obvious, but my old A7M266 board runs just fine with XP 2000+....they can continue dropping the price on these suckers so that eventually I can max it out with 2600+s and also plop two MP 2600+s in my A7M266-D.....I don't even use half the capacity now...I'll be blown away when I plop those in for $50 each in a year or so.....keep predicting the demise AMD, it's all fine with me.

    1. Re:You know..... by addaon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have to realize there's a certain minimum cost to retail processors, the same way there is to, say, video cards. You can't sell an AGP video card for $30 MSRP. The cost of packaging, shelf space, support, etc. outweighs the cost of hardware by so much at that level that, even if the hardware were essentially free, the product price would be around $30 or so. Ditto for processors; once a processor goes below about $40, it seems like it's no longer worth producing; the cost of packaging and so on outweighs any possible further reduction in price. On the other end, at $5 or so they become worth producing again (see PICs and such) because, at that point, no packaging or support is expected... but don't expect to ever find a nice $40 CPU to put in your motherboard.

      --

      I've had this sig for three days.
    2. Re:You know..... by randyest · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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
    3. Re:You know..... by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I run my A7M266-D, with 2 Athlon MP 1800+ processors, plugged into a Kill-A-Watt meter. All signs point to it being cheaper to buy a dual opteron over the not so long term simply for the power saving features at idle. I figure that the new machine would pay for itself in less than a year. I'll be buying as soon as there are new opterons readily available so the price on the old ones will be low.

      Perhaps you should try being captian not-so-obvious and look and see how much it costs to leave that dual Athlon MP, which uses about the same amount of power at idle as at full utilization, on all the time. Also, if you don't need the capacity, why did you buy it in the first place?

    4. Re:You know..... by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Informative
      poster wrote:
      You can't sell an AGP video card for $30 MSRP
      Why not? GeForce 64meg w. tv-out are retailing for about that now.
      Ditto for processors; once a processor goes below about $40, it seems like it's no longer worth producing;
      You can get a motherboard w. duron 2000 cpu for $100 CAN (about $75.US). Split the cost in 2 - half for mb, half for cpu, we are under the $40.00 price point already.

      Same w. CD-ROMS at $20.00 new, etc.

    5. Re:You know..... by Eccles · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why is that? Generally smaller geometries result in lower yields.

      Yes, but the greater number of chips/wafer almost always more than compensates. Remember the increase in the chips/wafer is the square of the inverse of the decrease. I.e., if you go from .15 nm to .1 nm, the chips/wafer increases by (.15/.1)^2 = 2.25 times as many chips.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    6. Re:You know..... by sfe_software · · Score: 2, Informative

      The cost of packaging, shelf space, support, etc. outweighs the cost of hardware by so much at that level that, even if the hardware were essentially free, the product price would be around $30 or so.

      Then:

      On the other end, at $5 or so they become worth producing again (see PICs and such) because, at that point, no packaging or support is expected...

      I'm not so sure I agree with this logic. You can buy OEM CPUs today, even for high-end CPUs, with no packaging other than a small grey box (no sink/fan/documentation/etc). I recently purchased an Athlon 2400+ like this, and it was about $20 less than the full packaged version with sink/fan.

      I've seen older CPUs in computer shops going for $30 to $50, from old MMX 233 Pentiums on up to mid-range PIII chips. I see no reason the AMD 32-bit chips won't be sold at a low price once the manufacturer calls them "obsolete". It happens all the time...

      --
      NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
    7. Re:You know..... by randyest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Huh? Do you know what yield is in this context? (Hint: it's not the same as in recipes). It's not how many they can make, it's how many that work out of all they make.

      Yield = (number of working dice) / (total number of dice manufactured)

      Making more total dice does not increase your yield. You must improve the ratio of working to failing dice in order to increase yield.

      Also important, recipe-style yield (total output) doesn't go up as you suggest either because, as I mentioned before, die size for a given design does not scale with gate size as you think it might. Wires in 90nm processes are not 1/2 the pitch of wires in 0.18um processes. It's more like a 25-30% reduction, and no matter how small your gates are, you still need the same number of wires (and the die area that does with it) to connect them. It's about time mfgr's started quoting wiring pitch along with gate size (some do) -- this might help avoid confusion from over simplifications such as yours.

      --
      everything in moderation
    8. Re:You know..... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, there are people that thought that one couldn't make a PC for less than $2000 for many of the said reasons.

    9. Re:You know..... by shepd · · Score: 3, Informative

      >(turns out that msi doesn't have a bios that works with the Barton 2500+ at 333, you have to up the voltage (voids warranty) and use kingston memory - but kingston says they no longer support this (brand-new) motherboard, because they've had too many problems with it)

      That's odd. I've sold a lot of those boards using PC2700 RAM without any problems at all. Perhaps kingston is supplying garbage memory. I don't know. I do this without making a single change to the BIOS, except to set the CPU to the proper speed.

      You must use an AGP card for video to get this to work if you are talking about PC3200 RAM. AOpen, using the same chipset, warns that you cannot use such highspeed memory and expect stability with the onboard video.

      It's all pointless anyways as the speed increases are infinitessimal compared to the heartache of an unstable system.

      Ask anyone selling the low end stuff their return rates and compare it to the high end parts. There is a difference. I've seen it as a retailer for both end of the spectrum.

      (BTW: Some PC Chips boards that don't include hacked and pirated BIOSes have been known to have bad IDE controllers that randomly corrupt data, due to their false advertising. I've been bitten by this a few years ago. Never again.)

      PC Chips mode of business:

      - Fake Cache
      - BIOS Hacking (as above)
      - "Customizable" chipsets (translate to: We use our inhouse garbage chipset with broken IDE support and remark it to whatever you like)
      - Fake CPU speeds (*STILL!* K7SOM/K7SEM users beware)
      - Paper thin PCBs (my experience)
      - Website served from 56k modem (or so it seems), written by ESL students.
      - No support after you buy it (If you get more than 1 working BIOS update you are so very lucky)
      - Above is likely due to them PIRATING BIOSes from other boards (own experience, not unusual)
      - Deceiving naming of products (That's a 666 Mhz VIA board)

      There's also unverified rumours that the owners of PC Chips were into CPU remarking.

      Think about that next time you buy PC Chips (or, *shudder* ASRock or ECS [same company, PC Chips has a need to change their name often, I wonder why!])

      Oh, and before you think I'm just doing this for my business, I try to add more margin in for the junk parts as I know I'll just need to deal with returns right away.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    10. Re:You know..... by shepd · · Score: 2, Informative

      >You can get a motherboard w. duron 2000 cpu for $100 CAN (about $75.US). Split the cost in 2 - half for mb, half for cpu, we are under the $40.00 price point already.

      Yes, I know about those. They're a scam, there is no such thing as a duron 2000.

      They are infact Duron 1.3 processors on PC Chips (aka "ECS") boards with BIOSes hacked to display "PRO 2000+". If you boot such a machine in linux it will disregard the incorrect BIOS info and show you the true speed.

      You are right, though, the spilt is roughly half and half between the board and CPU.

      The common names for such boards:

      K7SOM+
      K7SEM

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    11. Re:You know..... by jaoswald · · Score: 2, Insightful

      $5 isn't just a different price point---the PIC is a different beast entirely. It is dramatically biased toward low transistor count and low usage of Si real estate. Try to find a PIC with more than 8k of RAM and you'll see what I mean. You can also get PICs in 8 pin packages. I don't know very much about the fab processes for either, but I'm guessing the layers of interconnect and critical fab requirements on a PIC are very few compared to an Athlon.

      A modern main processor has tremendous need for I/O and on-chip memory. Tens of millions of transistors and hundreds of I/O pins, all of which have to be packaged and tested, and every transistor is a potential failure that reduces yield. The size of the chip is huge compared to a PIC, but even if you shrink the die, there is no way to reduce the test requirements, lead count, and number of fab steps to economize for low-cost production.

      The PIC is a design meant to hit a low price point. The Athlon is a design meant to hit a performance target. Even Moore's law doesn't (by itself) change the latter to the former.

    12. Re:You know..... by shepd · · Score: 2, Informative

      >ASRock are actually 100% owned by AsusTek

      *Were* owned by them. Don't go about saying that!

      It even threatens legal action against Asrock customers who associate these motherboards with Asustek, in a surprising example of Chinese Walls.

      I have to explain to enough people bamboozled by this sort of half-truth I don't need more people saying that!

      >ASRock boards are EOL Asus products.

      Now that is completely wrong.

      Many AS Rock boards carry PC Chips parts, part numbers, and PC Chips designs. PC Chips and ECS are pretty much the same company (or at least sell identical products, down to everything but the color of PCB), however, ECS is the "high support" (as in they can speak English properly) version of PC Chips.

      The quality of Asrock boards is entirely different from the quality of Asustek boards, the memo continues.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    13. Re:You know..... by rainer_d · · Score: 2, Insightful

      tomhudson wrote:

      >> poster wrote:
      >>
      >> I'm sure you're getting a super board for that
      >> price too. What's it a 1/2 layer ECS fire-hazard?
      >> Perhaps something printed out by someone's inkjet
      >> printer?

      > After losing a week being screwed over by an MSI
      > board w. the nvida2 mb chipset at 4 times the
      > price

      Well, that's why in the end, I settled for a Tyan board. High price, but at least I can get definitive lists of RAM-chips and CPUs that are supported.
      And it works very nicely.
      I have little sentiments for people who buy 30 bucks K7S5A boards in 50 bucks cases+PSU and wonder why it bombs out now and then.
      Of course you can buy them in dozens for the same price as a Tyan Tiger + "Expensive Case+PSU" combo, but the question is: do you want to get things done on your box or is building, modding, breaking and un-breaking it its only right to exist ?

      Rainer

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
  3. bah by fjordboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    you young-ins and your 32 bit processors...I'm using 16 bit and I have no plans on upgrading now. You'll be back...

    --
    The anti-salmon
  4. Obvious by Geccoman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With the prices rapidly dropping, and the performance (for the most part) seeming to be worth the money spent, this seems like the obvious direction. As far as replacing 32 bit machines, its just a matter of time, anyway.

    --
    I'm on a chair.
  5. Good news/bad news for AMD by burgburgburg · · Score: 3, Funny
    Good news: I agree in the quickly coming obsolescence of 32-bit chips.

    Bad news: I'm getting a dual 1.8Ghz PowerMac G5, baby! Yeah!

    I have to go lay down now.

  6. Massive gains in cooling tech? by PierceLabs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unless AMD or someone else has a massive gain with respect to being able to cool these monster CPUs along with shrinking the die so that they are suitable in general consumer electronics, I don't think anyone is going to stop producing smaller/cooler CPUs. While the 64 bit chips are great and all, I just can't imagine seeing one in a phone (for example) or even a PDA in the timeframe that they suggest.

    Maybe they meant to include that they won't go into these markets which limits their desire to produce low footprint, low heat chips.

    1. Re:Massive gains in cooling tech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Slashdot headline is (once again) misleading. AMD predicts that THEY will stopping manufacturing 32bit PC prosessors (Athlons) by the end of 2005.

      AMD has already low-power chip for PDAs and it won't be 64bit anytime soon.

    2. Re:Massive gains in cooling tech? by PierceLabs · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you're going through all this trouble to down clock a processor, wouldn't it make more sense to just use something that runs at a lower clock? Its like putting a Farrari engine in a car that is only ever intended to move at 35 MPH - sure you could do it, but wouldn't it make sense to just get an engine more suited to the task.

    3. Re:Massive gains in cooling tech? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The low-power CPUs are usually low-power in both senses of the word; they may use less power, but they also do less per clock cycle. Your non-low-power CPUs like the Athlon XP or P4 simply do more per clock cycle than, say, VIA EPIA, which isn't even superscalar.

      The Athlon XP does more per cycle than the P4; the P4 does more per cycle than the C3. Think of the C3 as a 1.5 liter toyota motor, the Athlon XP as a V8, and the P4 as a turbo straight six, if you must apply automotive metaphors. The C3 is small and efficient, but it simply cannot do much. The Athlon is big and maybe inefficient, but it can do a lot. The P4 is also big and maybe inefficient, but it can do a lot too - However it gets its power from RPMs and not from displacement.

      If you are going to be running a lot of processes at once, it makes the most sense to have a P4 or Athlon XP, not a C3 or an EDEN; Especially with P4's hyperthreading, if you are in a position to use it. Regardless the significantly superscalar nature of a non-budget CPU is often well worth it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. adaptability by DenOfEarth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a user of open source, I think this shouldn't really be a problem at all, should it? I mean, once gcc can compile 64-bit code, than we should simply be able to recompile all of our current apps for these new processors, shouldn't we? I'd be happy if someone out there could point me out as not being in the know...

    1. Re:adaptability by RevMike · · Score: 4, Informative
      As a user of open source, I think this shouldn't really be a problem at all, should it? I mean, once gcc can compile 64-bit code, than we should simply be able to recompile all of our current apps for these new processors, shouldn't we? I'd be happy if someone out there could point me out as not being in the know...

      The Linux-on-Alpha project already did all the heavy lifting needed to run 64 bit almost ten years ago. Linux and *BSD is already running 64 bit on PowerPC. Virtually any package you can download that has an active support community is already 64 bit ready.

    2. Re:adaptability by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That pretty much is true, along with the fact that GNU/Linux has been running on other 64-bit platforms for many years now.

      The biggest problem I'm having building a custom install for my AMD64 machines is the fact they have 32-bit compatiblity. On the Alpha is was easy, the lib directories contained 64-bit libaries, because the machines were 64-bit, period. But with the AMD64 the lib dirs are still supposed to contain the 32-bit libs, with the 64-bit versions installed in a lib64 variant. This causes problems because almost no libary packages are setup to compile twice once in 32-bit and then over again in 64-bit mode with a simple ./configure.

    3. Re:adaptability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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).

    4. Re:adaptability by Eric+Sharkey · · Score: 2, Interesting
      On the Alpha is was easy [] because the machines were 64-bit, period.

      This is not strictly true. I believe Linux on Alpha is purely 64-bit, but other operating systems (such as OpenVMS) allow programs to be compiled to use either 32-bit or 64-bit virtual memory spaces. Link

  8. I hope the editors realize... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:I hope the editors realize... by the_mutha · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, the REAL issue is memory space. 32 bit just won't cut it anymore for large database servers and the like, regardless of the movement for clustering.

      The thing is, in the desktop it will take longer for machines to require more than 4/8 GB of memory.

    2. Re:I hope the editors realize... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      a 32 bit machine working on 64 bit numbers involves multiple iterations of the same units... obviously a computer can work on arbitrary sized bit fields.. it can do 900 bit math, too.....

      but at it's heart, it's doing 32 bit stuff.

      Not true. Most modern processors have silicon dedicated to processing 64 bit numbers. In fact, most processors can do 128 bit numbers thanks to SMID instructions (e.g. SSE, 3DNow, Altivec, etc.)

      The current definition of a 64 bit processor is one that can use 64 bit memory addressing.

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
    3. Re:I hope the editors realize... by damballah · · Score: 2, Interesting

      output from my box: Tue Jan 19 03:14:01 2038 Tue Jan 19 03:14:02 2038 Tue Jan 19 03:14:03 2038 Tue Jan 19 03:14:04 2038 Tue Jan 19 03:14:05 2038 Tue Jan 19 03:14:06 2038 Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 2038 Fri Dec 13 20:45:52 1901 Fri Dec 13 20:45:52 1901 Fri Dec 13 20:45:52 1901 Linux t 2.4.21-0.13mdk i686 unknown unknown GNU/Linux

    4. Re:I hope the editors realize... by G-funk · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, the REAL issue is memory space. 32 bit just won't cut it anymore for large database servers and the like, regardless of the movement for clustering.

      Every intel chip since the PPRO can handle 64gb of ram

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
  9. 16-bit? 16-bit? by burgburgburg · · Score: 5, Funny
    You're soft. Why, in my day, we sent rockets to the moon with 8-bit processors, and we considered ourselves lucky to have them.

    16-bit? Why don't you just go lay down on a feather bed and let servants peel your grapes for you? Harumph.

    1. Re:16-bit? 16-bit? by JordanH · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Ironic maybe, but not true. I don't know for a fact, but I would guess that very few or no 8-bit processors were involved with sending men to the moon. The 8008, which was the original 8-bit microprocessor, came out in late 1972. I doubt that any of these were used by NASA during the Apollo program, which ended in late 1972.

      There might have been some odd 8-bit machine that I don't know about that was used in NASA, but I would expect the bulk of the computing work for the Apollo program was done by Minicomputers and Mainframes which had basic addressable memory sizes of 12 or more bits.

    2. Re:16-bit? 16-bit? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Informative
      Looks like the Apollo guidance computers were 15-bits. From a random Google hit:

      Each computer had two types of memory, erasable and fixed. The fixed memory contained the programs, constants and landmark coordinates using 36,864 terms or words, each of 15 bits length. That came to a grand total of 74 kilobytes of memory. The erasable memory, which was used to store variable data used in calculations or as registers for logic operations, had only 2,048 15-bit terms.

      I remember reading elsewhere that the 36 Kwords of ROM were hard coded by hand threading the bit patterns with tiny wires and magnetic cores, and then they were sealed in a block of epoxy. Turnaround time to fix bugs took weeks.

    3. Re:16-bit? 16-bit? by SoSueMe · · Score: 2, Funny

      In my day we had 1 bit processors. But it wasn't even a bit. You see, we didn't even have binary, all we had were zeros!
      That would explain the relative value of most A/C posts.

    4. Re:16-bit? 16-bit? by shut_up_man · · Score: 4, Funny

      Listen you cocky young whippersnapper, in MY day we broke the Hun's codes with 1-bit difference engines the size of buses, running on vaccuum tubes infested with poisonous moths bigger than your hand. We entered our programs with sledgehammers, completely from memory, during air raids, in the dark, while we were completely drunk!

      And you tell the kids of the day that, and they don't believe you...

  10. a word from the Processor Growers Association by G4from128k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder what applications will drive the adoption of 64-bit computers? Besides playing the latest games, most real-world applications seem to run fine on older 32-bit processors, even sub-GHz processors. AMD's prediction is self serving.

    That said, I have my eye on a new dual G5, so I guess I've bought into the hype that size (word size) matters.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:a word from the Processor Growers Association by WoTG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think 64 bit will take root at the servers and quickly force 64 bit processors out to the workstations. Even now, 4 GB of RAM in a server is a constraint in many businesses, and it will be much more pronounced in only a couple years.

      Given this situation, Microsoft is bound to polish and market 64 bit Windows Server (which will soon be available for x86-64) because they know that 64 bit Linux distros are out or will soon be out. MS's place in the server world is far from secure, so it's in their interest to be as competitive as possible in this regard.

      So, with servers (and high-end workstations) moving to 64 bit really soon, and the fact that one of x86's strengths is in volume manufacturing, the natural step (especially for AMD) is to move all chips to 64 bit in a fairly short time frame. Besides, the incremental cost per CPU is minimal, AMD claims somewhere around 10% die space. And, it takes more money to design and manufacture separate 32bit and 64bit chips than it does to sell a single product line.

      I guess I don't think that any "killer app" is really required above and beyond what is out there already. Big fat database, email, and application servers that could use more than 4 GB of memory NOW.

  11. hrmmmm I don't have to worry about bits. by zaqattack911 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm betting by 2005 my 32bit cpu well become self-aware and upgrade itself.

  12. Re:Finally by DoraLives · · Score: 2, Funny
    Finally the more advanced processors will become commonplace

    Now just how long have people been saying this?

    --
    Is it fascism yet?
  13. maybe.... by mwilli · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't think that they are predicting that all 32-bit processors will be phased out by then, but will probably not be manufactured anymore. It's the next logical step in the progression of microprocessors. 32-bit will phase out just like the 16-bit, whether it will be in 2 years or no we will have to see, but my comp is good for at least 5 more years as is.

    --
    My sig beat up your sig.
  14. Ah, teenagers. always wanting the trendy machine by Pac · · Score: 2, Funny

    You expend too much, youngster. My 128K 8 bit Apple II still works fine - I have Visicalc for my spreadsheet needs and the CPM card allows me to use the wonderful WordStar, the king of the word processors. Who needs anything else?

  15. Re:Ohh yea? by paitre · · Score: 2

    Nope.
    Besides, the Yamhill extensions are supposedly AMD64 compatible...even Intel doesn't want to piss of the Beast of Redmond.

  16. I can see it by steveha · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  17. 32-bit processors will still be around by dtjohnson · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think that AMD is just saying that *they* will stop making 32-bit processors by 2005 but not that 32-bit processors will be dead by then. It is reasonable for AMD to end production of the 32-bit processors because AMD does not have a lot of manufacturing capacity and they will want to make their 64-bit processors rather than 32-bit processors with the capacity that they do have. Also, AMD's 64-bit processors are also better 32-bit processors than many of the 32-bit processors that have been sold in the past.

    The 32-bit processors will obviously be around for a long time yet but they just will not be made by AMD. Intel will keep making them and probably other companies such as VIA and that chinese 'red storm' company (can't recall the name of it) will make them for many years to come. The old 16-bit 286 processors are still made today, even though Intel stopped making them years ago.

  18. Re:How Long Until 128-bits? by tomstdenis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Most of it is hype. The biggest problem aside from lack of address space is the fact that the x86 instruction set sucks and was never meant to run this fast. That's why you get a 10x or more difference for power consumption of ARM and x86 cores.

    128-bit ALU's won't be useful at all, ever. Aside for things like bignum math co-processors you don't need it. Heck for the most part 32-bit ALU's are over kill. For example, when I hit submit on this form it will prolly strlen() the buffer. Chances are I won't write more than 64KB so why do you need 32-bits to count that?

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  19. IPv6 by RevMike · · Score: 4, Funny
    Finally the more advanced processors will become commonplace, if it is not just a rumor. Even if it is a rumor, it is bound to happen eventually.

    64 bit PCs will be here long before IPv6 makes significant inroads in replacing IPv4. (Ducks out of way of ensuing flame war)

    1. Re:IPv6 by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Because the advantages dimishish. the progression from 4 bits -> 8,16,32,64 is not exponential, but an exponential of an exponential. The more 'natural' progression would be word sizes increasing by some constant number of bits every generation, which would imply the range of arithmetic (and memory sizes) increasing exponentially. But it is technically easier to have word sizes that are themselves a power of 2. We have now reached the limit where 32 bits is barely enough to address the amount of memory desirable even for a small machine, but with 64 bits increases that tremendously. If it took 30 years to get to 64 bits, it should take another 30 years to get to 128.

      Of course, this is completely independent of things like memory bandwith tricks (I/O with multiple words at a time) and vector processing (operating on multiple words at a time). But that is orthogonal to the underlying word size. '256-bit GPU' is just a marketing term, that has nothing to do with the amount of memory it can address or the number of bits of precision of the arithmetic, which is what is really meant by the CPU word size.

    2. Re:IPv6 by Sunlighter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      '256-bit GPU' is just a marketing term, that has nothing to do with the amount of memory it can address or the number of bits of precision of the arithmetic...

      Actually, what they mean by this is that the GPU can grab 256 bits in one bus cycle.

      GPUs also use SIMD, which probably means that you can add 16 16-bit integers to 16 more 16-bit integers with signed saturation, or something like that, in the GPU.

      You're right that the GPU can't address 2^256 bytes of memory and it doesn't use 256-bit integers or floats. But '256-bit GPU' is more than just a marketing term.

      Since so many graphics modes are 32 bits per pixel now (and even more if you include a depth buffer, stencil buffer, etc.), you're probably talking about 8 pixels per bus cycle. This is of great advantage for GPUs.

      --
      Sunlit World Scheme. Weird and different.
  20. Re:Ah, teenagers. always wanting the trendy machin by RevMike · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have Visicalc for my spreadsheet needs and the CPM card allows me to use the wonderful WordStar, the king of the word processors.

    What is sad is that I'm only 30 and I can tell you that Ctrl-B reformated a paragraph in WordStar. I usually used wsn, however, to edit my C programs, which I then compiled with my lattice C compiler. Those were the days when men were real men and clocks ran at 4.7MHz.

  21. How can you say that? by Orien · · Score: 2, Interesting
    IMHO though 32-bit systems will never die.

    How can you say that with a strait face? Doesn't that sound just a little bit like "no one will ever need more than 64k of ram"? ALL technology has built-in obsolescence. It probably won't be in three years like AMD wants us to believe, but 32 bit systems will eventually be obsolete, just like the horse drawn buggy you will only be able to find them in museums and in the basements of fanatic collectors. I feel like writing a cron job that will remind me to look you up in 2023 and remind you of that statement you made.

    --

    SCO.com uses Linux

    1. Re:How can you say that? by CaptKilljoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How can you say that with a strait(sic) face?

      Because he actually knows what he's talking about. Here's a hint: the market for 8-bit processors is absolutely enormous even today. There's even a small but significant market for 4-bit processors. Do a little research.

      (I can't believe the parent post is modded +3, Interesting.)

    2. Re:How can you say that? by Hoser+McMoose · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure there is a market for 8-bit processors now, but will there be in 10 years? 50 years? There was a market for vacuum tube-based computers after transistors made them totally obsolete, but you sure as hell don't find anyone making vacuum tube based compared anymore (actually, knowing the Slashdot community, there probably is some wierdo out there doing just that, but I digress :> ).

      The market for 8-bit chips is already starting to disapear. Why? Not because they are no longer useful, but because the difference in price between an 8-bit and a 32-bit chip these days is negligible, and if you can standardize ALL of your development on a single chip, so much the better. Why bother have one $2 8-bit chip to do one task, a $2 16-bit chip to do another task and a $2 32-bit chip to do a third task when you can do all three using $2 32-bit chips.

      This is the same reason why AMD plans to stop making 32-bit desktop processors in the not-too-distant future. Already the difference in price between making the 64-bit Athlon64/Opteron and a theoretical 32-bit version of the same chip is very small (5% difference in die size according to many previous AMD documents, so probably about a 1-3% difference in total cost of production). That number will fall over the next two years to the point where it's totally pointless for them to bother making 32-bit chips anymore.

      32-bit chips aren't going to disapear after 2005, but sooner or later they will. Hell, eventually ALL processors as we know them today are likely to be replaced, probably by something that none of us can even guess about today.

    3. Re:How can you say that? by Talez · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah... well... 16-bit processors will never die.

      God forbid the day Motorola stops making 68K chips.

  22. Yes, but, by gillbates · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Yes, but, by dmayle · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't know why I'm doing your work for you, but you should try educating yourself.
      Check out BIOS32 services. It's a 32-bit entrance for BIOS services, and it's an industry standard...
      PDF link

    2. Re:Yes, but, by the_greywolf · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Uh... You might want to check out the architechture spec on the AMD64 IA. It's not got ANY 16-bit or 8-bit backwards x86 compatibility.

      yeah, i've got the AMD programming manuals buried here somewhere. in the 64-bit "long mode", 16-bit operations are illegal. however, it initializes in 16-bit mode, and all 16-bit instructions are valid instructions at that point.

      16-bit instructions only become illegal in 64-bit "long mode." please make sure you remember to clarify that point in the future.

      --
      grey wolf
      LET FORTRAN DIE!
  23. Embedded Market by tombou · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Even when the desktop market moves on completely to 64 there will still be the embedded market that can use the 32 bit procs for processor intensive applications.

    The new via eden is attractive ...

    http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/031014/145512_1.html
    ht tp://www.via.com.tw/en/Products/eden_n.jsp

  24. Re:32 bits alive and well. by njdj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hell 16 bit processors are alive and well!

    most industrial PC104 form factor PC's are running 386 processors.

    The 386 is a 32-bit processor.
    (There was a later variant called the 386SX that used a 16-bit bus, but it wasn't popular, and anyway the CPU was still 32-bit).

  25. John Titor? by Aero+Leviathan · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh.. so the 2038 problem is nearly fixed? So this John Titor guy is a fake, right?

    Whew!

    --
    ~ Aero
  26. 384,000km? by billstewart · · Score: 5, Funny

    Kilometers? In my day, when Americans went to the moon, we only had *miles*, and only had 238,000 of them....

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  27. Red storm rising (Cray & AMD) by Space+cowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    According to Computer Shopper, AMD and Cray are collabarating on a new chip interconnect method, which they claim runs 20x the speed of current solutions, called 'Red Storm' ...

    Just a 'news in brief' item, so no real details...

    Simon

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
    1. Re:Red storm rising (Cray & AMD) by parkanoid · · Score: 2

      Here's a link with some details. Apparently it's a direct hypertransport tap between the CPUs. Interesting, I was thinking of something like this when I first heard about AMD64 using hypertransport.

  28. obsolete 32-bit systems in less than 3 years by pmz · · Score: 2, Funny


    My six-year-old Sun Ultra workstation won't be obselete! What a relief!

    --
    Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
  29. Re:Ohh yea? by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "I was sure that Intel had announced plans to integrate it's 64bit "Yamhill" extensions into the Prescott chip which should be launched early next year."

    They haven't, and they wont, unless the Athlon64s begin to eat away at too much of Intel's market share. Intel's problem is that if it releases 64-bit extensions in Prescott, it will be forced to do so for the Xeon line as well. The problem with this is that it would send 10 years of research and development, along with countless Billions of dollars down the drain. Itanium relies on one thing and one thing only: a need for 64-bit processing. The few Itaniums that are selling will be the only ones sold if Intel's customers can get 64-bits on a Xeon.

    Unless Intel is forced to, it's simply not going to do "64-bits on the cheap". Intel has nothing to gain by announcing or implementing 64-bit extensions now; we don't even know if the Athlon64s are going to sell. On the other hand, they have everything to lose if they do open up Prescott to 64-bit quickly. What Intel is probably doing now is scrambling to come up with ways to sell Itaniums to its customers once 64-bit Xeons are available. Itanium's miserable sales to date show that it has enough trouble just selling it as-is. Take away the one advantage it does have, and they may as well take it off the table now.

    Aside from that, we have absolutely no idea how well Prescott's 64-bit extensions perform. We have no idea if they've been perfected, nor what kind of problems Intel has with them. We have no idea if bugs exist in the instructions, nor what sort of benefit we'd see from them. They could very well be based off of AMD's own 64-bit extensions (Intel has licensed the technology), which would make it rather embarassing to release them to the public. It would also constitute a huge and embarassing shift in position on the topic of 64-bits for home; something Intel has publicly stated is not something the market currently needs.

    I'm not saying Intel wouldn't possibly announce 64-bit instructions in the near future - it could be tommorrow for all I know. All I'm saying is that everything points to Intel keeping the 64-bit extensions under wraps for as long as absolutely possible. As of right now, the only 64-bit instruction sets we know of (when it comes to Intel/AMD), are EPIC for Itanium and the ones from AMD. It's doubtful that Intel has secretly developed a whole brand new instruction set just for the P4, and it's even more doubtful that they somehow rigged the P4 to use Itanium's 64-bit instruction set. Thus, we're left with Intel banking on limited adoption of AMD's 64-bit CPUs, which does not appear to be the case thus far.

    P.S. All signs point to Intel releasing the first handfull of Precotts around Feb of 2004, with volume closer to early Q2. Solving voltage leaks that push your operating temp to extremes isn't something you throw a bandaid on; it's something you design around. I just hope, for Intel's sake, that they aren't rushing Prescott out the door as they have on other chips (P3 1.13GHz).

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  30. DO NOT DISPAIRE!! by bsDaemon · · Score: 2, Funny

    IPv6 will be out in time enough to boost the number of players in the Duke Nuk'em Forever online free for alls!!

  31. Key point: Devs like 64-bit by ErikTheRed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think that the key point of this article is that developers can now develop and test 32- and 64-bit apps on the same machine. With many high level languages (and even, to a certain extent, C/C++), it's fairly trivial to develop a version that compiles under both archs, especially if you're starting a new project (just have to watch your int & pointer sizes, etc). I think that a key attraction in CPU-intensive apps (games, multimedia creation/editing, scientific, etc.) will be the extra 8 general purpose registers available in 64-bit mode. They can produce order-of-magnitude performance increases for parameter passing, many inner-loops, etc.

    --

    Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
  32. Re:Amazing by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "This may have been true but the average user just wants it to look good on paper."

    (Bob) "Hey, Bill. I just got a new computer!"

    (Bill) "I was thinking about getting a new one myself. Did you get one of those new Pentium 5 ones?"

    (Bob) "Nope, one of the tech guys at work was telling me how those are only 32 bits, so I got one of these Athlon ones. They're 64 bits."

    In the battle of bigger vs better, AMD has 64, Intel has 32. AMD introduced the model numbers for precisely the reason you raised - the average user has no idea what actually influences performance. The new AMD CPUs are set to ramp up in clock frequency very quickly, which will cause the model numbers to shoot up fast as well. What you'll end up with is Average Joe Consumer looking at Athlon64 4400+ & Pentium(?) 4Ghz. AMD is likely to pump up the "Their's is 32, our's is 64!" marketing, and regardless of whether the consumer has any clue whatsoever what that means, it makes AMD look better on paper.

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  33. Limits of Underclocking by Detritus · · Score: 2, Informative

    Many processors use dynamic logic that prevents them from operating reliably below a specified clock rate. Check the spec sheet for your processor before you underclock it.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  34. Re:Amazing by Zathrus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  35. Re:Learn to write by Kenja · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's is it is is it?

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  36. Old microprocessors never die by TheLink · · Score: 2, Funny

    "IMHO though 32-bit systems will never die"

    Old microprocessors never die. They just end up embedded ;).

    Hmmm. That's strange, I don't see something like this in those "Old xxx never die" lists. Looks like a new one :). So here's it for the lists:

    Old microprocessor engineers never die. They just end up embedded.

    --
  37. Reading too much into a comment. by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think the original poster meant that 32 bit computing won't die in the same sense that 8 bit computing is still alive, in controllers, etc. The same is true for AMD. All AMD said is they don't see themselves producing 32 bit processors around the end of 2005. The Athlon64 is the replacement for the venerable Athlon, first introduced in 1999. Athlon was a replacement for the K6. AMD stopped producing the K6 a couple years after the introduction of the Athlon, why would they produce 32 bit Athlons a couple years after the introduction of the Athlon64? After the first process shrink it's about as expensive to produce the new higher-transistor chip with the new smaller process/feature size as it is to make the old chip with smaller transistor number, but larger process/feature size. Many people seem to think that AMD not producing 32 bit processors means the end of 32 bit computing. That's obviously ridiculous as it'll take many years before 64 bit OSs are the norm. Remember that the whole point of the Athlon64 over the Itanium is that the Athlon64 has very good 32 bit support to make a transition go far more easily.

    --
    AccountKiller
  38. Re:WordStar? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh, you've got one of them newfangled //e's, then, not a ][.

    And what's an 80 col card? :)

  39. Re:Well, of course it won't be in your phone by Hoser+McMoose · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The larger addressable memory space is the primary advantage to using 64-bit chips. You also get 64-bit integer registers (generally speaking, though the addressable memory size and integer register size aren't always linked on all architectures, though if you have only one of the above I wouldn't really call it a 64-bit chip). For most applications, 64-bit registers don't get you anything, but there are a few situations where they do help.

    As for 64-bit on the desktop, I think that now is the time to start the move. Installed memory on desktops tends to double every 18-24 months. Right now 1GB is the norm for a high-end desktop. That means that by mid to late 2005, 2GB will be the norm, and that's pretty much the max for 32-bit chips without resorting to all kinds of ugliness. Sure, you can still address 4GB of memory with a 32-bit chip, but that's your virtual address space. Having more than 2GB of memory on a 32-bit chip means that you need less virtual memory than physical memory, which is fine for a system like Linux, but not so good for BSD or Windows (due to differences in how they use virtual memory). You also start running into some issues of memory fragmentation. In short, a 64-bit processor becomes a real advantage any time you have 2GB of more memory, which as mentioned above, will likely become common place for new systems sometime in mid to late 2005.

    So why move to 64-bit now if you don't need it for two years? Simple, software is much slower (and more expensive) to move to new architectures than hardware. AMD's 64-bit chips have been out for 6 months already, and they were at least 6 months late before that, yet we've only just recently started seeing the first versions of AMD64 Linux. WinXp for AMD64 still isn't year (won't be for 6+ months), and applications will take time after that. If you wait until the last minute to start shipping 64-bit chips, you won't have an operating system to use it for.

    As for the Jurassic Park thing, even if I had the most powerful render farm in the world with nearly infinite resources, I still don't think that I would be making Jurassic Park. That sort of thing takes a bit more than just processing power! :>

  40. Re:x86 bashing by Scott+Wood · · Score: 2, Insightful
    That's just it. The ARM core doesn't need OOO, register renaming, etc... It actually has more than 4 registers!

    So why do Alpha, PPC, etc. have those things, when both have 31/32 registers?

    The proper answer is, "ARM doesn't need them because it is targeted at low power applications, not high performance."

  41. Re:64 isn't fast enough by ChaoticLimbs · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I agree. What we really need is a processor that scales well for a cheap price. How about a 64 bit MP capable processor design that stacks like legos? Water cooled multiprocessor lego goodness.

  42. 64 bit cpus are not a magic y2038 bullet ... by dougmc · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I'm not in a hurry to ditch any of my 32-bit machines, so long as I get them replaced by 2038.
    64 bit cpus may indeed handle 64 bit numbers internally rather than 32 bit numbers, but that's hardly a magic bullet for the y2038 issue.

    If your filesystem only allocates 4 bytes to a timestamp, it's going to break in 2038, 64 bit cpu or not. Any file formats or structures that only allocate 4 bytes to a time value will have the same problem -- and there is a LOT of them out there. And to make matters worse, if you change the format to allocate 8 bytes to the timestamps, then it's almost certainly not going to be compatible with old software anymore.

    Also, porting things to use 64 bit cpus rather than 32 bit cpus isn't particularly easy. Yes, you can run in `32 bit mode' and they'll work fine, but many (mostly C) programs work under the assumption that integers are 4 bytes and so are pointers. In a 64 bit cpu, running in a 64 bit mode, this is not true. This really isn't a big problem, however, as the AMD 64 bit cpus can and do emulate a 32 bit cpu as needed.

    And we don't need 64 bit cpus to fix the problem anyways -- we could use 2 32 bit ints to store the time stamp if we wanted to. It's a bit more work, but it could certainly be done, even with 32 bit cpus.

  43. Workstation memory and "Moore's Law" by linux11 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The doubling every 18 months seems to apply to workstation memory just as much as it applies to CPU speed. This shouldn't be a surprise since more applications tend to depend on memory for speed than raw CPU cycles. After all, if a section of code/data needs to be swapped from disk back into memory, all a faster processor can do is more NOOPs or context switch to a different process. So, while around 1980 a nice home computer would need about 64k to be "beefed up," now that about 15 cycles of 18 month periods have passed we are seeing beefed up workstations having around 2GB of memory or 64k*2^15. Next cycle is 4GB which maxes out the address space for 32 bits. We nearing the point where "power" users will start expecting workstations with over 4GB of memory and that definately calls for phasing out 32 bits on the desktop/laptop.

  44. Re:32 bits alive and well. by apharov · · Score: 2

    Actually current PC/104 and PC/104+ systems are commonly based on the Geode processor that was originally developed by Cyrix for low-end laptops. Geode design was then bought by National Semiconductors and most recently by AMD.

    Most recent versions of the Geode chip are roughly equivalent to low-end Pentiums, so it's really a far cry from 386s. New developments in the field are PC/104 CPU modules using the most recent VIA processors, which are quite a bit more powerful than the Geodes are.

  45. Re:Itanium wouldn't go away if Xeon had 64-bit add by Loki_1929 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "An HP Superdome with 64 Itaniums running Oracle 10g was the first ever system to do OVER 1 MILLION transactions per minute."

    And how much does that cost? As I said, the Opteron isn't designed to compete with the Itanium at this level. When you're looking for a comparison, you really need to look at the sub-$25,000 market to see where Opteron's upper-end target resides. Where Opteron will really shine is in the blade market. The low-power chips due out shortly are going to bring a whole new level of performance to these types of servers in areas where space is nearly as important as speed.

    Show me how a 1 - 4 CPU Opteron looks in a price/performance ratio with a 1 - 4CPU Itanium box; that's where AMD's upper-end target market is. The large cluster deals we're seeing here and there are fun and nice press, but the sub-$25,000 server (reasonably high volume while maintaining an excellent profit margin) is really what AMD's shooting for. Breaking into this market will pave the way for higher end stuff around 2008 or so. Until that time, it's going to be Opteron (K8) and Opteronx2 (multi-core, K9) that power AMD's vision of the do-it-all chip.

    This is really the market Intel would be throwing away if Xeon got 64-bit extensions. Intel wouldn't see any sales of sub-$25,000 servers using Itaniums simply because customers would use Opterons or Xeons. This becomes a problem because Intel's going to face massive competition above $25,000 or so, what with mutli-core Power5s from IBM (8 cores?!), Sparcs, etc. Don't forget that this is still fairly new territory for Intel as well. Itanium has only been sold for about 3 years now, which makes it barely an infant to an enterprise looking into $100,000 systems. The problem Intel faces is that Itanium would be left sandwiched between Xeons/Opterons and Sparcs/Power5s. Right now, Itanium has the entire 64-bit market to itself once you're under the cost for a Power4 or Sparc box. Intel's margins on these babies are its financial counterpoint to the P4 market, which has been massively discounted to compete with AMD.

    By the way, I haven't looked just yet, but I'm guessing a SunFire 15k would most certainly "touch that right now". Though, for $6 million or so, one would certainly hope so. Aside from that, I'd bet real money that a nice little cluster of Opterons could also match/beat that mark, at probably less cost. I'm not saying that Itanium is scrap silicon, only that 10 years of joint research with HP plus billions of dollars spent yielded a large, hot Opteron with poor 32-bit performance. :)

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  46. *cough* paged *cough* by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

    You're still limited to 4GB-(kernel prot.) per process.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON