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.
for clarification :)
Now slashdot will clarify things that businesses cannot ;)
I could change the world, but GOD won't give me the source code
Whoa easy on the caps there cowboy :)
In any business, when you are getting your arse kicked, you look at your competitors to see what they are doing. Why reinvent the wheel and all that....
[ Don't reply to this ]
I think it needs more cow bell...
Intel has to be very careful right now, for years they have been seen as the innovator in processors. Now AMD got the jump on them and they don't dare not respond, but they have to respond in a way that seems like it was thier choic.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
Why would Intel be embarassed or whatever to "follow in AMD's footsteps"? I mean, sure Intel's bigger and badder than AMD, but can't you learn something from the little guy sometimes? Don't things like this happen all the time in the car industry with various technologies?
Isn't it interesting how you come to recognize posters based solely on their sigs???
All your instructions are belong to us.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
Good for Intel. You may think that the important thing is that they are "following in AMDs footsteps," but I think the important thing is that people won't have to write for two architectures now.
..but are still accurate.
Intel will never, ever, ever put anything out that their name isn't all over it.
Example: Firewire. An industry standard. Does Intel put it in their motherboard chipsets? I remember old Intel comments stating their 'commitment to IEEE-1394' but it was all a load of crap. The PII and PIII chipsets could (and should) have had it on board.
Here, finally, Intel has decided to take someone else's tech. But even now, they won't admit it's someone else's tech.
What a bunch of arrogance..
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
This is how technology goes mainstream and becomes inexpensive enough for the everyday consumer: following.
Being a trailblazer may get you bragging rights, but you risk fragmenting the industry and the market you feed. For the longest time in the 90's AMD and Cyrix went on a follow-quest, and breached the low-cost PC market. Not only did they enhance choice and lower prices, they kept the number of standards down to a minimum. Just imagine what would occur if AMD, in the 1990's, came up with something completely different, but can run exactly the same thing Intel chips can at the same price: the market gets fragmented, prices remain high and stagnant, and no one is the winner until one of the two gets clobbered, eliminating competition in the market and raising prices even further.
It's not characteristic for Intel to follow AMD, but IMO, it's the smart thing to do to be competitive.
Oh yes, just because they are following, doesn't mean they can't do it better. AMD did in the 90's and today.
------
Amadaeus
The last bastion of Mathie-ism
So we are ridiculing Intel for supporting common architecture and collaborating with competitor? I guess the implication is that the proper thing Intel should have done is develop its own set of 64-bit extensions, making it absolutely incompatible with AMD's offering. The world would be a much better place then, right?
And Intel doesn't really have to advertise the fact that it's AMD-compatible, it's not like AMD owns more than 80% of the market, and Intel is below 20%. To hyperbolize, you don't expect Microsoft to announce the next version of Office to be compatible with Joe's Software Shop's software.
AMD needs to wait until Intel is completely involved in x86 32-64 and then launch a complete advertising compaign to the General Public about this. Show benchmarks. Help manufacturers freindly to their product push their wares. And really nail them hard. No Blue Man Group silliness. No stupid ads. Just plain facts and examples. But they must do so in mainstream media. Telling a bunch of geeks about their products doesn't work, they already get all the information themselves. And they buy based on reasearch anyways, not on advertising.
Intel had no choice but to use AMD's instructions if they wanted their chips to be Windows-compatible.
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
I'd say that LAYED TO REST should be spelled LAID TO REST, but some grammar fascists would probably tell me it should be lain to rest, lay to rest, etc. etc. ad infinitum. :)
All your customer are belong to us ;)
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
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
Even back in the Apple ][ days when you had no choice in the matter?
but does anyone else find IA-32e to be a STUPID name for a 64-bit processor?
I think it needs more cow bell...
<bink>ceswiedler <bink>writes <bink>"KernelTrap <bink>is <bink>running <bink>a <bink>thread <bink>on <bink>the <bink>Linux-Kernel <bink>mailing <bink>list <bink>about <bink>Intel's <bink>new <bink>IA-32e <bink>64-bit <bink>chip. <bink>Linus <bink>complains <bink>'what <bink>I <bink>found <bink>so <bink>irritating <bink>is <bink>that <bink>_hours_ <bink>after <bink>the <bink>Intel <bink>announcement, <bink>people <bink>were <bink>_still_ <bink>confused <bink>about <bink>whether <bink>the <bink>new <bink>intel <bink>chip <bink>was <bink>actually <bink>compatible <bink>with <bink>AMD's <bink>chips.' <bink>It <bink>is, <bink>of <bink>course, <bink>but <bink>you <bink>have <bink>to <bink>do <bink>a <bink>thorough <bink>comparison <bink>of <bink>Intel's <bink>reference <bink>manuals <bink>to <bink>discover <bink>that-- <bink>they <bink>don't <bink>mention <bink>the <bink>fact <bink>that <bink>their <bink>new <bink>chip <bink>is <bink>instruction-set <bink>compatible <bink>with <bink>AMD's <bink>x86-64 <bink>chip." <bink>See <bink>the <bink>previous <bink>story <bink>for <bink>background. <bink>So <bink>it <bink>looks <bink>like <bink>the <bink>reason <bink>Intel <bink>was <bink>vague <bink>about <bink>their <bink>announcement <bink>is <bink>that <bink>they <bink>didn't <bink>want <bink>the <bink>WORLD <bink>TO <bink>KNOW <bink>THAT <bink>THEY <bink>WERE <bink>COPYING <bink>AND <bink>FOLLOWING <bink>AMD <bink>rather <bink>than <bink>developing <bink>some <bink>new <bink>thing <bink>on <bink>their <bink>own. <bink>Slashdot <bink>is <bink>proud <bink>to <bink>help <bink>Intel <bink>in <bink>this <bink>quest; <bink>wouldn't <bink>want <bink>the <bink>public <bink>to <bink>know <bink>that <bink>INTEL <bink>WAS <bink>SIMPLY <bink>FOLLOWING <bink>IN A<bink>MD'S <bink>FOOTSTEPS. <bink>Hope <bink>this helps.<bi<bink>
How is that?
- - - - - - - - - - -
I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
You sir are absolutely correct. Without all the uppercase MICHAEL MIGHT BE IN DANGER OF ALMOST APPEARING SOMEWHAT PROFESSIONAL.
Nah. On second thought, there was never any danger of that.
Download my free songs!
What you say is true now but AMD could do some real damage though by launching a series of commercials with some catch phrase (think "Intel inside") that plays up the fact that Intel chips are based on a standard developed by AMD. Something to effect of "Why pay more for a processor based on AMD's standard when you could be paying a lot less and using the real McCoy?"
Not exactly phrased that way, but you get the idea. It could be a real plus for AMD if they could find the right way to market it. Hence Intel doing the smart thing and trying to burry it for as long as they can.
Downplaying the announcement wasn't just to keep down the shame of following their chief rival, it was also to confuse those in the current market for a new server. From what I understand, Itanium/Itanic has been a serious flop thus far. What will the motivation be for IT departments to buy Itaniums now if they know something more compatible and better for them is coming along Real Soon Now?
I have a fever!... and the only cure... is more cowbell!
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
Which is more misleading, engineering chips with an impressive clock speed but a mediocre instruction-per-cycle ratio, or to engineer chips with an impressive instruction-per-cycle ratio and market them as comparable to the industry leader's equivalent processors?
I'm not crazy about AMD's processor ratings, but I understand the necessity. Joe Blow doesn't know squat about processors, all he knows is that higher clock numbers are (supposedly) better. At least AMD keeps their marketing department out of the engineering meetings.
That'd be the Engish anguage, if you pease.
Even in those days, not everyone did things half-ASCII.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Oh, snap! Someone used too many capital letters. Boo hoo! I am so offended! Let's make a big deal about it while silently letting slide those who happily exchange ``it's'' for ``its,'' ``cant'' for ``can't,'' ``your'' for ``you're.''
``Hey, look at me! I cant spell seperate; its too hard. But that's OK---oh, crap in a hat! I just used two capitle letters in a roe! Seeing capiddle letters causes me phizicle pain! Oh the humanity! Woe is me! Armageddon is here: somebody just posted a slashdot article containing sequential capittel letters! Will the madness never stop? I must band together with other concerned posters (you know who your) and set the capital poster straight---wait, did I just spell capital correctly? I cant take it anymore. Its just to much for me! Goodby, cruel world!'' [Blam] DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD [Hand falls to keyboard, simultaneously holding down the Caps Lock and D keys.]