Slashdot Mirror


Will Intel Ship an x86-64bit Chip This Year?

Solid Paradox writes "According to The Register, American Technology Research predicts an x86-64-bit processor will 'soon' arrive from Intel and in another story, they also predict that Sun and IBM will be the major players in the future 64-bit boom. Meanwhile the Inquirer has a somewhat related article entitled Senior Intel PR man talks 64-bit extension talk, which follows their Pentium V will launch with 64-bit Windows Elements article that says that the chip is to be sampled internally this month."

7 of 336 comments (clear)

  1. Pentium V by GameGod0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Quoted from the article:
    "The Pentium V is likely to fly along at between 5GHz to 7GHz, have 2MB plus of level two cache, be built on a 90 nanometer process, and have a stackable design." So, you'll have a 64-bit module sitting on top of your 32-bit CPU?
    Sounds like Sega's 32X to me... except it'll play Doom 1 faster.

    1. Re:Pentium V by JanneM · · Score: 5, Informative

      Turbos? Yes, they're around, and quite common too. Difference is, they're not pushed as some kind of macho add-on anymore; instead, the technology is mainly used to improve efficiency (by, among other things, improving accelleration so you can use a smaller, more efficient engine and retain the performance you want). And among small diesels (common in Europe), I'd say turbo diesels are a lot more common than the non-turbocharged variety.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
  2. Re:Itanium by urmensch · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, It is a new arch (Intel Architexture, IA64) - That's one of the big deals about the AMD 64 bit chip, it is x86 compatible.

  3. Re:Windows XP 64-bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The rumour is that Microsoft said a firm no to Intel requesting support for an entirely new 64-bit variation, but they worked out a deal where Microsoft would delay their x86-64 version of Windows until Intel was able to develop a compatible processor. The Intel x86-64 processor might even contain a few extra instructions that AMD doesn't have, just to ensure incompatibility.

    These kinds of rumours may not not have anything to do with reality, but at least they can explain why Microsoft has not released the x86-64 Windows for sale even though there have been fully functional betas available for almost a year now.

  4. Re:Dumb question - deserves a straight answer by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 5, Informative
    The best answer to your question is : not necessarily faster. Variables in this equation include but are not limited to:
    • good motherboard support
    • good OS support
    • advanced multi-bit path to ALL hardware interfaces (eg them newsystem buses which are mostly not yet vailable)
    • good fast RAM
    • software recompiled to the 64-bit CPU
    • actual use of 'benefits' of 64-bit computing (eg consumes unearthly amounts of RAM)


    For you and I, JimBob and JoeBlow, a good fast 32-bit system will kick much 64-bit arse. At least until
    • full OS (and driver) support for 64-bit mode
    • apps recompiled for 64-bit
    • fast mother with fancy-schmancy ultra-wide ultra-fast system bus
    • new cards (*especially* video) on said new bus
    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
  5. x86-64??? by Glock27 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    x86-64-bit processor will 'soon' arrive from Intel

    Do you mean AMD64? Will the Intel chips really be fully compatible with an AMD-designed instruction set?

    If this happens, it will only reinforce the fact that Intel has lost it's leadership position in the x86 compatible market. It will also severely impact any eventual large scale adoption of Itanium.

    AMD just needs to bite the bullet and actually do some marketing. It has clearly superior products at this point. The Athlon 64 3000+ looks like a great buy, and a nice way to check out 64 bit computing at a low price point. If you have the money laying around, though, you really can't beat the PowerMac G5s. :-)

    BTW, it's also too bad that Microsoft has delayed 64-bit Windows. It shows all too clearly that the "Wintel" partnership is alive, well, and smelly. On the other hand, it does provide a nice platform for Linux to tout it's superiority - "What's taking so long Microsoft, we've had an AMD64 version of Linux for months already!". So much for the "advantages" of Microsoft's software development practices... :-P

    --
    Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
    Score: -1 100% Flamebait
  6. Intel, AMD, etc by sjd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All of the posts I've read only talk CPUs. Hasn't anyone noticed that MS now (quietly) has a multi-platform software virtual machine? .NET strives from cross-platform compatibility, just as Java did years, and years ago. MS realised this IA-32/IA-64 was going to happen, and .NET quietly solves the problem. MS is pushing people to migrate their IA-32/Win32 apps to it. As a current .NET software engineer, the specific Windows platform becomes irrelevant. You could easily argue that MS is delaying the 64-bit world to give developers more time to migrate to .NET. Sean