Slashdot Mirror


Intel Shifting 64-bit Plans

OS24Ever writes "News.com has an article stating that 'Intel plans to demonstrate a 64-bit revamp of its Xeon and Pentium processors in mid-February--an endorsement of a major rival's strategy and a troubling development for Intel's Itanium chip' Is this the end of Itanium?" Looks like the rumors were true.

12 of 462 comments (clear)

  1. Well, Duh... by forkazoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Intel has already publicly admitted to having X86 processors with 64 bit extension in development. Also, take a look at microsoft, who refer to X86-64 as "64 bit extended architecture."

    Everybody and his brother figured out long ago that Itanium is not something that will penetrate effectively into the desktop market. It's hot, expensive, incompatible, etc. It requires a ton of work to get code running smoothly on Itanium. Th only amazing thing is how long it took intel to admit that it had egg on its face!

  2. Compatable? by petabyte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So the article doesn't really cover the issue I'm most curious about - are the x86-64 extensions (yamhill) compatable with AMD's Opteron or will they require different 64-bit binaries?

  3. Re:64 bits of nothingness by cujo_1111 · · Score: 5, Funny

    But the point is that a 3GHz computer will almost certainly run things faster than a 100 MHz computer.

    You have fallen into the Intel trap.

    There is an exit to your north, it is guarded by a man in a spacesuit.

    You have:
    - A wallet

    --
    If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
  4. Re:64 bits of nothingness by JanneM · · Score: 5, Informative

    People would rent time on huge (and hugely expensive) supercomputing centers; greatly simplify the models, knowing they introduce oversimplifications and errors; or, simply, not do the modeling they really wanted to do at all. A friend is working in a chip design company, and his simulations regularily run over an entire weekend, despite the hefty hardware they have.

    In some areas (like climate modeling and some kinds of neural simulations), people can _still_ not do the kind of modeling they would really like to do, 64 bit clusters or not.

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
  5. Re:64-bit rant [move along] by thesupraman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >The real question is have they finally dumped the
    >stupid x86 instruction set in favour of a
    >space/energy/coding efficient RISC set?

    Ok, yeah, right, umm....

    You DO know that RISC processors generally take up a lot more memory space for a given program, have more instructions, and are often more complex to code for, right?
    (of course this assumes you know what a delay slot is, or have understood the pain of manually doing indirect addressing, managing register windows during interrupts, or managing implicit instruction skip flags, the joys of RISC!)

    I thought not..

    as for the energy argument - get with the 90's - everyone is using similar internal execution units anyway - this is a red heering.

    Of course, who am I to stand in the way of fashion..

    RISC in it's pure form has not existed for over 10 years now.. neither has CISC, for that matter.
    It's about the same as attacking russians for being communist.. it's just not that simple.

    The x86 instruction set and successfully covered the widest range of CPU performance ever, and is available in by far the most computers... I would suggest by just about any measure it is by far the most successful ever.

    Of course, there seems to be a group of people who cannot stand the pain of thinking about their python interpreter running x86 code internally, or the fact that gcc is generating that for them.
    I truly feel sorry for them - they suffer on while the rest of us just get-on-with-the-job(tm).

    Sigh.

  6. Re:64 bits of nothingness by thesupraman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You mean you are running integer CFD Code??

    Amazing!

    All the CFD Codes I run here I run in double precision floating point. (sometimes single precision when the situation allows..)

    It must be some pretty funky code to be interger, never come across any real CFD code yet that is..

    I mean, 90+% of the runtime of our CFD codes are spent in LAPACK, etc.. so we use the (nery nice) intel optimised versions (ASCII Red was not just a hardware project you know..) which do very very well..

    Basically, I call BS!

    If you are using some integer codes, then you are the only people I've ever heard of in the industry who are.. it must be very painfull!

    And intel CPU's are really quite good at 80bit FP.. especially with the right libraries.

  7. Re:64-bit Performance by AusG4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, 64-bit computing isn't any faster than 32-bit computing. This is a common mistake made due to the surface facts.

    In reality, 64-bit computing is possibly -slower- than it's 32-bit counterpart due to the increased bandwidth required, though smart engineering in modern 64-bit CPU's tend to work around this.

    The advantage to 64-bit computing is, frankly, in the memory space that can be addressed. When you can address larger amounts of memory, you can make an application faster as less disk paging is necessary (assuming you have the memory to match). A good example of this are database servers. When you have 24GB of memory and a 20GB database, you can literally buffer the database in memory, this removing your slower disks from the equation.

    Mind, you can do this with PAE on Intel's current 32-bit offerings, but I digress.

    Ultimately, I think what Intel is -really- doing here is playing catch up on a modern variation of the "mhz myth game". Intel always took the hearts and minds of the average user, as a 3ghz P4 seemed better than an AMD processor running at 2.2ghz or a PowerPC running at 1.25ghz... even if in some or many cases, the "slower" chips worked faster.

    Now, the average user is seeing the G5 at 2ghz, but a whopping 64-bits... and the Athlon64 chips at 2ghz, but a whopping 64-bits... and they're assuming that they must be faster due to their deeper bit depth. This is really nothing new. Sony has been doing this with the PlayStation2 for a few years now... claiming it to be a 128-bit system when it's really just a MIPS chip with a 128-bit vector unit. On this line of thinking the G4 and G5 are -also- 128-bit chips... but Apple just doesn't market them as such.

    Intel had to act to counter this assumption, and the easiest way is to add 64-bit extensions to the P4, keep them clocked higher, and then win both of the wars.

    Does the average user need 64-bit? No. Does the user who does know where to get it already? Yep. Sun, Apple, AMD, HP and even Intel's Itanium have been offering 64-bit technology for a while now.

    This all comes down to marketing. That's it, that's all.

    --
    bash-3.00$ uname -a
    SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
  8. Re:RIP Itanic -- cpu buyers win by MonaLisa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Whatever, man. I have G5 and Itanium2 machines at my desk. The HP Itanium2 runs Linux and WinXP 64-bit edition (which came out last June). The Itanium2 (McKinley) is an old slow one that crushes the G5 easliy on everything (using Intel's compiler) by factors of 2-3x. The new Madison Itaniums are substantially faster (look at the SPEC CPU benchmarks). The Itanium is far superior to anything else out there, it just doesn't run x86 code all that fast, and the GNU compiler sucks on the Itanium because the optimzier cannot get the VLIW right. The Itanium is just ahead of its time. And most people are too stuck in the x86 mindset to even see it. CPU buyers lose as a result.

  9. Good Chips Can Die by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It doesn't matter if Itantium is better than AMD64, or Prescot64, or you name it -64. Alpha was better still, and it died. Itantium will die too because the other chips are good enough, and much cheaper. Intel will have to compete on price with AMD64, which makes Itantium a dead end.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  10. Re:saw it coming by forkazoo · · Score: 5, Informative

    As somebody who has worm a *lot* of tin foil hats...

    The tinfoil hat crowd would happily tell you that the reason there's no 64 bit windows is because Microsoft knew about this a long time ago and deliberately held off releasing Win64 technology because of some shady business dealings with Intel.

    I have to point out than Windows Server 2003 64 bit edition is currently a free download from MS's website, and comes with a one year free trial.

    I have it installed. I rather like it. But, it's damn well not ready for prime time. It couldn't pick up the ethernet on my Athlon64 without some headaches. Lots of people are having trouble with SATA. There is no hardware 3D, even with the latest detonators. My sound hardware apparently has no driver support of any sort.

    Seriously, it just isn't ready. MS is doing some respectable things with 2k3. No stupid luna theme, IE is way locked down by default, and it bitches at you if you try a weak administrator password. (it's even pickier than Linux about what it calls 'weak')

    Linux is in a much better state. Fedora Core .96 for AMD64 picked up my ethernet right off, and my sound seems to work for playing, but I haven't gotten it to record anything. The detonators are still a work in progress... I hear reports of people getting them running, but I have no luck.

    And yes, I really do mean that I wear a lot of tin foil hats. I even visited the Periodic Table Table whilst wearing one. I got into a discussion with Theodore Gray about the purity of the aluminium in 'Tin Foil' Hats, while I was at Wolfram research. I own a VAX, an Athlon 64, and I've made a pilgrimage to the periodic table table. Do I get a Karma bonus?

  11. Re:64-bit Isn't why Itanium is so great by hoof · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Andy Glew (the designer of the Pentium Pro) on EPIC vs. normal architectures:

    "Yes, but the IA-64 EPIC is not a modern architecture -
    it is a design by committee, with microarchitects who believed
    religious dogma instead of thinking.

    At least some modern microarchitectures have made optimization
    easier than in their predecessors. Apart from some egregious
    glass jaws (mea culpa), P6 was often less sensitive to optimization
    than the P5. The compiler folks complained that their unoptimized
    code often ran as fast as their optimized code.
    AMD's K7 and K8 continue in this vein.

    This is one of the reasons I jumped from Intel to AMD:
    the Intel P6 is philosophically a lot closer to the AMD K7 and K8
    than it is to the Intel Pentium 4 (Willamette, Prescott), or Itanium.
    Pentium 4 is fragile, just like Itanium."

  12. Re:64 bits of nothingness by ColaMan · · Score: 5, Funny

    There is an exit to your north, it is guarded by a man in a spacesuit.

    You have:
    - A wallet

    : look

    There is a PowerPC processor in the corner.

    : Get processor

    Taken.
    The man in the spacesuit fidgets uncomfortably.

    : Use processor

    You have no software that can run on this processor.
    The man in the spacesuit laughs at your predicament.
    A geek has also fallen into the intel trap.

    : Look geek

    He is pasty-skinned and bearded. He seems to shun the light.

    : Talk geek

    The geek says loudly ,"IBMAMDVIATRANSMETA".
    The man in the spacesuit screams and departs the room!
    The geek leaves the room, giggling.

    There is something on the floor near where the geek was standing.

    :look floor

    There is a a rewriteable CD on the floor.
    :get CD

    Taken.

    :look CD

    On closer inspection you notice the CD has been labelled "YellowDog" with a marker pen.

    :go north

    You are in a maze of twisty processor lines, all alike. There is a lot of hype here.

    :quit

    are you sure? (y/n) y

    --

    You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
    There is a lot of hype here.