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.
.....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.
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
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.
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...
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
16-bit? Why don't you just go lay down on a feather bed and let servants peel your grapes for you? Harumph.
I'm betting by 2005 my 32bit cpu well become self-aware and upgrade itself.
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
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.
64 bit PCs will be here long before IPv6 makes significant inroads in replacing IPv4. (Ducks out of way of ensuing flame war)
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.
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).
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
"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."
"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."
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.