Slashdot Mirror
Linus on Intel's 64 bit Extensions
ceswiedler writes "KernelTrap is running a thread on the Linux-Kernel mailing list about Intel's new IA-32e 64-bit chip. Linus complains 'what I found so irritating is that _hours_ after the Intel announcement,
people were _still_ confused about whether the new intel chip was actually compatible with AMD's chips.' It is, of course, but you have to do a thorough comparison of Intel's reference manuals to discover that-- they don't mention the fact that their new chip is instruction-set compatible with AMD's x86-64 chip." See the previous story for background. So it looks like the reason Intel was vague about their announcement is that they didn't want the WORLD TO KNOW THAT THEY WERE COPYING AND FOLLOWING AMD rather than developing some new thing on their own. Slashdot is proud to help Intel in this quest; wouldn't want the public to know that INTEL WAS SIMPLY FOLLOWING IN AMD'S FOOTSTEPS. Hope this helps.
Keep reading down the comments at the linked site and you'll see an even more explicit gem from Linus:
Actually, I'm a bit disgusted at Intel for not even _mentioning_ AMD in their documentation or their releases, so I'd almost be inclined to rename the thing as "AMD64" just to give credit where credit is due. However, it's just not worth the pain and confusion.
Any Intel people on this list: tell your managers to be f*cking ashamed of themselves. Just because Intel didn't care about their customers and has been playing with some other 64-bit architecture that nobody wanted to use is no excuse for not giving credit to AMD for what they did with x86-64.
(I'm really happy Intel finally got with the program, but it's pretty petty to not even mention AMD in the documentation and try to make it look like it was all their idea).
I don't think anyone is surprised by this -- Intel would be nuts to mention AMD in any press release about anything unless it's incredibly negative toward AMD (which this definitely is not), and even then it would be ill-advised from a amrketing perspective.
everything in moderation
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Mikael Pettersson wrote: ;)
>
> What about naming? IA-64 is taken, AMD64 is too specific, Intel's
> "IA-32e" sounds too vague, and I find x86-64 / x86_64 difficult to type.
> "x64" perhaps?
x86-64 it is. Maybe you can remap one of your function keys to send the
sequence
This whole "ia32" crap has always been ridiculous - nobody has _ever_
called an x86 anything but x86, and Intel is just making it worse by
adding random illogical letters to the end.
In contrast, x86-64 tells you _exactly_ what it's all about, and is what
the kernel has always called the architecture anyway.
Linus
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
>
> hmm, so the current x86_64 will be changed to x86-64 or
> will there be x86_64 and x86-64?
No. The filesystem policy _tends_ to be that dashes and spaces are turned
into underscores when used as filenames. Don't ask me why (well, the space
part is obvious, since real spaces tend to be a pain to use on the command
line, but don't ask me why people tend to conver a dash to an underscore).
So the real name is (and has always been, as far as I can tell) x86-64.
Actually, I'm a bit disgusted at Intel for not even _mentioning_ AMD in
their documentation or their releases, so I'd almost be inclined to rename
the thing as "AMD64" just to give credit where credit is due. However,
it's just not worth the pain and confusion.
Any Intel people on this list: tell your managers to be f*cking ashamed of
themselves. Just because Intel didn't care about their customers and has
been playing with some other 64-bit architecture that nobody wanted to use
is no excuse for not giving credit to AMD for what they did with x86-64.
(I'm really happy Intel finally got with the program, but it's pretty
petty to not even mention AMD in the documentation and try to make it
look like it was all their idea).
Linus
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> In the long term, x86_64 creates more confusion:
> - SuSE says AMD64 [1]
> - RedHat says AMD64 [2]
> - Debian says AMD64 [3]
>
> Renaming might be some work today, but it might actually remove
> confusion in the future.
Well, the thing is, I _like_ a vendor-neutral name.
I think it's important to have multiple sources for a chip, and I think
one of the problems with IA-64 was that it was a locked-in chip with
patents and no serious competition internally (ignore the Intel mouthing
about "open").
The x86 is so great partly because there's been real competition. So I
think it's very important to x86-64 to have real competition to make sure
nobody gets too dishonest.
So AMD64 is a bad name, partly for the same reason IA32 is a horrible name
(and who have you ever heard use the IA32 name except for people who are
paid to do so by Intel?)
What I found so irritating is that _hours_ after the Intel announcement,
people were _still_ confused about whether the new intel chip was actually
compatible with AMD's chips. Why the f*ck not just come out and say so,
and talk about it? It took people actually reading the manuals (which
didn't mention it either) to convince some people on the architecture
newsgroups that yes, "ia32e" was really the same as "amd64" except in the
small details that have always set Intel and AMD apart.
So I don't really want to change the name. "x86-64" is a good name. I just
wish there was more honesty involved, and less friggin *POSTURING*.
Linus
AMD and intel have numerous cross liscencing deals goinging on that ammount to Intel can use AMD's IP and AMD can use Intel's IP for, I believe, compatibility. I am not sure about the exact deals but in theory AMD can make a compatible implementation Intel's HyperThreading tech (via reverse engineering) and Intel can (apparently) in practice use AMD's 64 bit extensions with neither paying royalties or considerations to the other. Other examples from the other direction are AMD implementing MMX and SSE as 3DNow and 3dNow Pro.
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
They're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. They're doing it to stay alive.
To hyperbolize, you don't expect Microsoft to announce the next version of Office to be compatible with Joe's Software Shop's software.
You're right, that is a hyperbolic comparison. AMD64 is already outselling IA64 despite being much later on the market.
They're being ridiculed for not being up-front. That's dishonesty being practiced there. Yes, it's in their manuals, but they didn't say something like this: "Having seen what our competitor AMD has accomplished, we've decided to collaborate with them , at our request, and follow suit in extending the 32-bit architecture to 64-bit with seemless compatibility with said competitor."
Now I'm not some marketing guy, but I'm sure they could've put even more Intel-positive spin on this issue, rather than attempting to bury the truth in their manual, knowing that someone would see it and take offense for Intel not simply stating it by now. We should not encourage dishonesty where the public interest and common good are involved. i.e. collaboration for a common architecture can surely benefit the common good. No?
--SuperBug
RTA. That's actually what the thread was about, whether the arch would be called x86-64 or amd64 or ia32e or what. The consensus, I think, was that it would be x86-64, because it's vendor-neutral, but that it would be spelled x86_64 for reasons such as a) it makes autoconf happy and b) that's how it already is.
Dude... are you serious??
:-)
Take another look. Every article will give a sentence or two to downplay an intel feature and several paragraphs reminding us why such-and-such AMD feature is better.
Maybe I'm thinking of ATI vs nVidia but I'm pretty damn sure it's both of them. TomHardware likes the underdog just like everyone else that's cool.
All your pentiums are not belong to us! We set us up AMDs.
Moderation: +1 pwnage
Funny yes, but seriously though... doesn't AMD have a cross licensing agreement with Intel, originally favouring AMD being able to use any x86 family instructions that Intel develop? (AFAIK from the original court case allowing AMD access).
Now the shoe is on the other foot since x86-64 (AMD) is becoming more established and Itanic was a complete break from existing x86 architecture, Intel didn't exactly have to ask AMD for a license.
Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
here, check this out. First off, I want to say that Toms Hardware is pretty good at fairly representing all sides but I still think they favor AMD. Here's the opening paragraph to a Athlon XP 3000+ vs. P4 3.06 GHz article. And here's the link.
h tm l
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030210/index.
"It is pretty certain that hardly any x86 architecture processor has a longer history. The idea for the first Athlon core goes back to 1998, when Dirk Meyer of AMD impressed us all and, most importantly, gave a jaded Intel competition jitters.
It was a market revolution, and not long before the Athlon started its victory march, winning everyone's heart along the way. The essential ingredient was its very good price/ performance ratio.
From the very beginning, the focus was on the thrifty end user. Moreover, there was the option of overclocking, which helped countless freaks squeeze the same power as they could with much more expensive CPUs. In short: Athlon became a philosophy, a staple of conversation among sophisticated users, and, in part, the subject of heated debate, the likes of which sometimes degenerates into fanatacism." Wow! I think that makes look AMD look pretty good. Could just be though. Check it out.
Moderation: +1 pwnage
Here are the immportant parts of the article from CNET:
Because of the details of a lengthy 1995 legal settlement between Intel and AMD, Intel can in all probability create and sell chips that are completely compatible with AMD's Opteron and Athlon 64 chips, which can run both 32- and 64-bit software, according to the companies and legal experts. Intel won't even have to pay AMD royalties if it incorporates ideas from any AMD patents into its chips.
"My understanding, based on the licensing agreement, is that Intel has access to AMD's patents so patent protection should not be a problem," said Richard Belgard, a noted patent consultant.
Intel may have to rename some of the instructions, or commands, embedded in any chip that is similar to Opteron, but "the code can be 100 percent compatible," Belgard added.
For the full article:
Article at CNet
Sunny
Be my Friend
Intel and AMD have, and have had for many years, full cross licensing agreements. AMD could use MMX, SSE, and SSE2 from intel's original implementation, and Intel can use x86-64 directly from AMD's reference implementation. Similarly, Intel could use 3dnow instructions in their processors, but they simply haven't exercised that option.
These companies been `not reinventing the wheel` for quite a while not.
Are you serious? Tom? Is that you?
Here:
"There is nothing finer than raising the hackles of delusional AMD lovers. However, today I do so with a heavy heart. This is no time to take aim at the pompous, self-righteous head-in-the-sand-ostriches of the alternative chip lifestyle. One must embrace them, hug them and wipe away their tears.
They are the freaks of low-cost computing, the poor, downtrodden users of products that never seem to be able to match PR numbers to actual performance, now almost beaten into marginality for all time. "
(Ridiculous remarks curteousy of Omid, General Manager, U.S. Operations for Tom's Hardware)
You need some serious psychological help if you're crazy enough to believe that they're actually pro-AMD. They're not just pro-Intel, they're pro-$ADVERTISER. Generally speaking, their articles are skewed towards a select few especially heavy advertisers. They'll even work with different driver revisions and bios settings to maximize the advantage for Intel et al. There was even an article in which Tom himself admitted that he sent the results 'back to the labs for more testing' after the AMD chips performed a bit too well for his tastes. He didn't say why he sent the results back, but when you look at the articles surrounding it and see 9 articles with a pro-Intel slant, 1 with benchmarks that seem favorable for AMD, and the 1 gets the results sent back for 'further testing', you get a good indication of what's happening. Tell me this: why is it that Tom's benchmarks tell such a different story from virtually every other hardware sites'? Is it some massive AMD conspiracy? Why is it that Ace's says one thing, and Tom's says something totally different? (Ace's is a technical-minded person's hangout, as opposed to the consumer-oriented Tom's)
Wake up - Tom's is a propaganda machine serving up dumbed-down consumer grade articles with rigged benchmarks and non-sequitur conclusions.
It's a joke, and quite frankly, it's becoming pathetic.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Precisely what about the x86 architecture impedes it from scaling past 4 cpus? AMD's Opterons, which Intel is aping, each have their own memory bus. That alone should do great things for improving the scalability of x86 systems
ostiguy