Slashdot Mirror
Intel's 64-Bit Pentium 4s Hit The Streets
ThinSkin writes "Nearly 18 months after rival AMD released its 64-bit processors, Intel quietly added its first 64-bit Pentium 4 microprocessors to the market on Sunday. Four versions of the Intel Pentium 4 6XX series were announced at speeds up to 3.6-GHz, a frequency grade lower than the existing 5XX series. Prices will range from $224 to $605. Intel also added the 3.73-GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition to its lineup, a $999 chip that is fabricated on a finer 90-nm process than its older 130-nm P4EE components. As Slashdot previously reported, the 64-bit series will likely be the major enhancement to the Pentium 4 line before the introduction of the Pentium D "Smithfield," Intel's first dual-core part, which is slated for next quarter."
He's a good man, I've worked with him for over a decade. He's no Bill Brasky, though/
Now the A46 prices should come down a bit.
Um - A little slow? I've had an EM64T "630" for about 3 weeks now.
Was it just me or did anyone read that as the Pentium D "Seinfeld"?
Not that there's anything wrong with it...
Anyone know how much heat these put out?
Now Intel can cook my toast using more than 4 GB of memory!
I love you suckers out there who are buying these top of the line, bleeding edge chips. It brings the price of "outdated" hardware back to reasonable levels.
Now if you excuse me, I have a 486 DX4 100MHz that I've been keeping an eye on for a while.
Does that come with... uh... Intel Extreme Graphics? Sweet!
It would be interesting to see how much business Intel theoretically lost to AMD as a result of their failed first 64-bit attempt and subsequent delay.
You know, it's just struck me as being somewhat odd that Intel is naming it's chips Pentium 2, 3 and 4. Does anyone have any ideas why they stopped going from 486, 586 to 686 etc. I seem to remember the Pentium being associated with the 586s, and this name has stuck.
The Inquirer is reporting that Intel will counter the AMD Turion 64 Mobile Processor with a Pentium M Extreme Edition. It is an alphabet soup of potential Intel Pentium M releases and you'll probably have to read it through twice or thrice to understand it all, but an interesting and inciteful read nonetheless.
There's another interesting article about the future of 64-bit as it relates to Intel here.
And of course, we can't forget our beloved Celeron.
Are they really AMD-compatible?
Ever notice how Apple was doing really poorly when they were providing dozens of different system configurations on a fairly large handful of Mac platforms, and were suffering because of it?
The problem was that the consumers simply didn't understand which computer most favorably matched their criteria.
I see the same thing here with Intel's lineup. What is what? Why is this M? Why is that Centrino? WTF does "Extreme" mean in relation to a CPU?
It wasn't until Steve Jobs was able to cut through the bullshit and bring the Mac lineup back to 2 basic consumer platforms that Apple was able to enjoy the benefits of the Apple brand. Until Steve came back, it was just another PC outfit. Now, with Jobs at the helm, and through his seemingly infinite ability to grasp consumer wants and needs, Apple is enjoying a resurgence in popularity and relevance.
Without someone with a grand vision like Steve Jobs, Intel is going to continue suffering through doldrums trying to guide the market with its "alphabet soup" (which you so very astutely coined) without actually listening to the consumers.
Sure, there is loads of programs that make use of the full 64 bits. Several vendors offer 64bit flavours of their distributions, such as Fedora, Ubuntu, Gentoo, and Suse.
The performance gain is found in how the chip itself works. 64-bits breaks the 4GB memory process limits of 32-bits. In 32-bits, a single process can access 2^(32) bytes -> 4 GB of linear memory. In 64 bits, you can therocally access 2^(64) bytes. Pratically, in Windows x64, a process is limited to 16 TB of memory. Plus, there's extra registers that a program can use.
I talked to some of the few people who were testing these. Apparently it couldn't keep linux running for more than 4 minutes. Lets hope Intel was able to fix that "issue"
Methink these new pentium64s should pay tribute to Rodney Dangerfield, coz they get no respect from nobody either.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Now it's time for game makers to get with the game [dum dum TISHHHH]. I'm tired of seeing 32 bits of my AMD 64 wasted every time I game, and now that every major player has 64 bit processors succeeding 32 bit, they need to get with the program and stop wasting bits.
The Peanut Gallery, Ubergeek, Biblically Sober
NCAAbbs.com: Thousands of fans, Hundreds of teams, Just one place
Yeah, but I'm still waiting for Valve to release a version of HL2 that supports 64 bits. IIRC UT2k3 was released with 64bit support over a year ago, what is taking these guys so long.
Will this be backwards compatible or support 32bit software.
Its nice to be important but its more important to be nice
Amen. This x000+ crap has got to stop. I'm t hinking we need some sort of ISO standard for clock speed, something we can compare PowerPCs, AMDs, Intels, and the like together without having to pull out a calculator and Google for benchmark tests. However it wont happen due to some stupid reason or other.
-Eric Smith
Wow its about freaking time! Consumer 64bit computing here we come! On a side note, who bets that these chips will be as defective as the first 386's (double sigma anyone?)
erm.. are you an idiot?
4000+ = 4 gig+ in Intel numbers, the system is simple as hell. AMD processors get more power out of a smaller clock speed because they do more cycles per second.
So no, they just label their products to compare them to the Intel line easily.
I like muppets.
Wow, and only 10 years after Sun's UltraSPARC, 13 years after the DEC Alpha, and 14 years after the MIPS R4000
Yes, I have or something simulations to run!
(is it ok to use * and HTML emphasis?)
What's the plural of emphasis?
Shut up. OK.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Question... do any of these processors come in the socket 478 form factor, or is intel forcing us to upgrade our motherboards yet again? If I have to buy a new mother board, I might as well go AMD this time around!!
Bryan
If you can get all the manufacturers to agree, comparing systems based on FLOPS would be effective, because it would remove the irrelevant clock speed argument, and thus allow you to compare how much work can be done in a time frame by the processor.
Unfortunately, I doubt you'd get the manufacturers to agree to it, since it would make too much sense and allow an easy and unbiased comparison between their products.
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
That "Stupid Reason" is that clock speed is not everything, Thank you for proving to Intel that it's marketting is worth it though, There are a lot of other factors regarding chip speed.
> I'm thinking we need some sort of ISO standard for clock speed
I know!
We could call it "Hertz" (abbreviated as Hz), as a measurement of frequency where one Hertz means one cycle per second.
When used in relation to CPUs it could be prefixed with the SI multipliers G or M for Giga and Mega, and be used to refer to the speed of the internal clock by which the CPU synchronises its instructions. It however will say nothing about how many instructions happen in a cycle, or what those instructions actually do.
So I'm guessing you don't want a standard for clock speed, you want a standard for performance.
But regardless, if you make your entire purchasing decision off the numbers on the box (no matter what they mean) then you deserve whatever you get.
Advanced users are users too!
Donate anything 300mhz or above to your local school district. I am a computer tech for my local district and we need all the help we can get.
The AMD numbers are also useful because they cover more of the factors that affect performance. AMD often sells CPUs with the exact same clock speed but different XXXX+ numbers. The performance difference in that case is due to different cache sizes or CPU architecture generations, but you can get a rough guess for their relative performance just by glancing at the model number. You don't need to be familiar with the details of their entire product line just to get a feel for what each chip will do.
I'd mod ya down if I werent replying, but not because you're pro intel, just because your logic is flawed.
Its called marketing, you do whatever you can thats legal to get people to buy your product.
If a dumbass consumer things 4000+ is 4000MHz, especially when there is a asterik saying that the processor actually runs at 2.4GHz, then they're probably the ones who dont understand the 9/10ths of a cent at the end of all gas prices. Intel made processors all about MHZ and thats what AMD has to compete on. The processor ratings are somewhat accurate (varies depending on benchmark).
And FWIW, a 4000+ does outperform a P4-2.8GHz.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Its VERY hard. Want to standarize on Spec_INT? Intel has optimized their compiler to perform better (that it actually can in real world conditions) in the SPEC benchmarks.
Flops (floating point Ops per second) arent that good because while a processor can process so many Flops per second, stuff like branch mispredicts and caching strategy can affect operation throughput and deliver a lower than theoretical FLOPS figure.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
And I thought I was just a low down dirty bastard.
At least according to what I have learned from the Simpsons.
Patty: The easiest way to be popular is to leech off the popularity of others.
Selma: So we propose changing our name from "Springfield" to "Seinfeld".
Intel can start making processors with names that make sense!
Pentium D Costanza!
- This is our newest budget-aimed processor which will deliver today's technology in ways you can't imagine. The Costanza will answer your multimedia needs thru experimentations that one would never dare to even think of.
Pentium D Kramer
- We are very proud of this processor. The main audience are the gamers in general who don't want to spend too much money on something as radical as this. The Pentium Kramer will deliver spontaneous performance boosts thru applications and make random noises whenever the cpu is overheating.
Pentium D Steinbrenner
- Our flagship product, the Pentium D Steinbrenner will deliver performance beyond your expectations. Not only does it come with 2MB of Cache but it also comes with a special software that has been added into the cpu which will warn the user when he's about to click on something that may be a virus. We call this feature the 'Steinbrenner Alarm':
STEINBRENNER ALARM: Of course. Of course you can do it. Things get done all the time, I understand. Don't worry, your job'll be waiting for you when I say so! Get better user 'GEORGE'! Get betteeeeeeeeeer!!!!!!!
Yeah.... now I so want one!
I think your right. I have seen benchmarks on the AMDzone forums which show that while AMD gets a speed boost (on average) from 64-bit mode, Intel takes a performance hit (again, on average) when in 64-bit mode.
Intel is just trying to be compatible with AMD64. They won't have a serious product for another quarter or two (or three).
I am a viral sig. Please help me spread.
Our antenna design group is eyeing the 64-bit products with intrest. Their simulations always use up all the memory in their systems. Well right now, only option for 64-bit with their software is Sun hardware. That's really expensive and it doesn't tend to perform as well (the chips are more server oriented, less vector math). So they are quite interested in a 64-bit Intel or AMD system with 64-bit Windows. If they could get like 8+GB of RAM, they'd be interested. $1000 for a chip is fine, that's downright cheap compared to the Sun solutions.
If you really want them buy a 64-bit system *and* you want them to leave you alone, then tell your family member to buy an iMac. Advise them that it's different from what you use, but that you've heard that it's easy and powerful (which is true). Since you're telling them that it's not what you use, they know not to bother you with their computer problems.
Just a suggestion from another crazy mac user.
Just a question...
So many versions of the Pentium4.
So many cores. So many variations. So many significant architectural differences.
Seriously... when it it enough to be the Pentium5? I seriously doubt there is as much difference between the Pentium-3 and the IV (original P4) as there is between ANY other P4 cpu and this one.
Seriously... what's the deal?
Other than the 5-for-$5 jokes (Pentium 5 being a rather redundant name, after all...)
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
65C? Under what conditions? What heat sink? Where is it measured?
Most important is the power dissapation figure. That shows how much energy has to be dumped by the cooling solution.
Look, just because it says 64bit, doesn't mean it has a 64bit instruction set!. the EM64T stands for Enhanced Memory Technology. It allows you to access more than 4GB of ram, that's pretty much the end of it. IF you want a 64bit machine, I suggest you go get a Sun, a Power5(not the wimped out G5 machines) or a Mips proc. For those of you on a budget who want true 64bit stuff, go and get a DEC chip...
It was my understanding that the AMD processor numbers were based off a 1Ghz(?) K7.
I talked to some of the few people who were testing these. Apparently it couldn't keep linux running for more than 4 minutes. Lets hope Intel was able to fix that "issue"
Assuming of course the issue is Intel's not Linux's. Yeah, heresy, sorry about that.
Actually I should also say assuming the hardware is not flaky. How's the 64-bit WinNT beta run on that system?
Does anyone remember what a VAX-780 cost? That was a 1 MIPS CPU.
Bruce Perens.
Now it's time for game makers to get with the game [dum dum TISHHHH]. I'm tired of seeing 32 bits of my AMD 64 wasted every time I game, and now that every major player has 64 bit processors succeeding 32 bit, they need to get with the program and stop wasting bits.
No, it is not time for 64-bit ports, well at least for game clients. Servers are a different topic. First your CPU is probably not your bottleneck, you graphics card probably is. Secondly, developers don't optimize for the high end, they generally spend what little time they have on optimizing the low end. The low end needs the help, the high end is fine as is.
So why would Intel slap the 64bit name on something that's not truly... 64.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
It's sort of like throwing a few billion dollars in the fireplace.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
All of this is for Joe Sixpack. Not gamers and enthusiasts.
If you want to go 64-bit, pick up an Athlon64 2800 for about $100, or Athlon64 3000 for abt $130. AMD motherboards also work out cheaper, since they have been around for a year and a half.
The 64-bit market is just opening up, expect the pentium prices to come down significantly soon. By 2006, most processors will ship with 64-bit capability. There are not many 64-bit native applications available now. Games are still 32 bit. Windows XP 64 bit is just coming out next month. And Linux still does not support Joe.
If you are price concious, NEVER buy anything quite recent. Save the money, and buy dual-core 64-bit processors a couple of years from now.
Life is just a conviction.
Your understanding is... wrong.
The numbers are based on a "hidden" series of benchmarks used internally at AMD.
Since it's a model number, it's no guarantee of performance, it's just a shopping guide for retail consumers.
AMD's corporate options are labelled more obfuscatingly, for instance the Opterons have numbers like 244 and 424.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Intel and AMD have been "secretly" (they don't talk much about it, but every one knows it) copying each other for years. to be truthfull, it's usually AMD copying Intel. But every time the other one adds something spiffy (or not so spiffy), it gets copied. Why? Because consumers like it that way. Really, do you want to see what would happen if you couldn't move things between them seemlessly? Evey developer (including M$) would have to develope two different versions of everything. So, you'd have 2 different versions of Windows, which might not even be compatible with each other. IMO, Intel has a better rep for quality, but that's not the point. My point: I don't care who copies who, as long as it's easy to swap between them afterwards so that I could always choose based on speed, and not worry about compatibility.
The problem with comparisons in MIPS (millions instructions per second) is that for different architectures, it takes a different number of instructions to accomplish the same amount of work. This doesn't matter for AMD/Intel (Athlon/64/Pentium/Xeon) as they all use the same (mostly) Instruction set. It would matter if, as the gp said, you wanted to compare Sun, Apple, Intel Itanium, or Intel Pentium, since they use differnt ISAs.
Flops are a little cleaner, but still only test the Floating Point units. What if a chip has good floating point, but really shitty integer (it could happen). It would still suck to use for a lot of things. The only decent way of testing something (AFAIK) is to run it with the programs you intend to use it for and compare.
immediately they're overtaken by AMD64s and G5s once they get on the freeway. They're really easy to spot with an infrared camera, too. Kinda like overheated, broken down cars.
Nobody is copying anybody. AMD and Intel have a crosslicencing agreement and they have had one in place for as long as I can remember. In effect, they each have things the other wants and it makes better business sense to flat out trade everything than it does to licence each and every thing. AMD gets to use the x86 instruction set and Intel's hokey alphabet soup of mumbo-jumbo whatchamacallits and Intel gets... Something worth their while, I'm sure. After all, they keep renewing the agreement.
I believe AMD owns key Hyperthreading patents, and we all know that Hyperthreading is an Intel marketing juggernaut. Now there's the whole x86-64 business too, which Intel wasn't interested in until AMD proved that it was commercially viable and that people really did want it.
~Someday, I hope to be an aspiring author.
and another reference here
perhaps someone should edit that then, but I must ask where you got your information
Wow it was 20 years ago the memory protection bit a.k.a. NX was seen in 8086 en 80286, after it is was lost. Intel needed 20 years to find thair new implementation of the bit. the OP-code was always available in the intrstuction set of the intel 80x86 procesor for compatability reasons and never used in the real world.
With Athlon64s and Opterons we're fully set up.
Sorry Intel, we're all AMD here now.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Will existing x86-64 Linux distributions Just Work on one of these processors?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
All our secrets are out. It's true.
They've been on the market longer than that. We've carried them at Dell in our high end for the past 3-4 weeks.
*ring* "Where is the Start button? I can't find My Computer!"
hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
In short, yes. Any code compiled for x86_64 will run on these chips, which, as previously stated, have actually been out for at least a week. The prescott cores that make up the 64-bit chips also have 2MB of L2 cache now.
In theory of course.
In practice, you can get up to 1GFLOPS on a pretty simple machine, just put all your resources on doing flops asap. Ignore branches in your design, just make it run as many floating point instructions in a row as quickly as possible.
In real situations however, both FLOPS and MIPS say very little. There's a damn good reason it's commonly transscribed as "Meaningless Indication of Processor Speed"
Somewhere around the time of the 3 & 4- 86, competitors started making compatible chips and giving them 3- & 4- ??? names. Intel tried to sue to prevent them from doing this, but the court ruled you can't copyright numbers. Thus their next iteration had a real name, the 'Pentium'.
Someday we'll all be negroes
It's possible that Linux might be quicker off the mark to support the chip - you might even be able to patch it yourself with the right gcc & kernel - but since you said Dell you're really talking about XP. And XP isn't going to see support unless Microsoft produces another service pack to shore up the gulf of time that exists between now and their next release. Even if they do release SP3 with 64 bit goodness, you're still talking 6 months or more and the chances are that it will only offer token support in a limited number of places.
On top of that, buying unsupported bleeding edge hardware is always a bad proposition. Its expensive, doesn't do anything and will probably be obsolete by the time that something comes around to supporting it. It would have been as foolish to buy AMD64 back when it was released.
Well, everyone who does the effort to get as many as 700000 UIDs must obviously be clueless. I mean, I could imagine that there's a value in having two or threee UIDs (although for me personally a single one is clearly enough), but who on earth needs 700000 of them?
:-)
SCNR
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
True, but back them you programmed it in assembly, and avoided software bloat, today half the power is spent on eyecandy and gui.
Freedom or George Bush
Don't forget to go socket 939, otherwise you have no upgrade path in the future.
One of the big advantages of 64-bit CPUs for gamers is that 64-bit addressing will open up new horizons in gaming. One of the problems with todays 32-bit computers is the memory limitation. With 64-bits memory sizes, it is possible to put lots of GB RAM, and then have truly huge game worlds.
This is especially important for FPSs. Take HL2, for example. Although it boasts 'big' maps (well, bigger than previous efforts), the gameplay is based on limiting the player into one possible path. Each map is really small if one explores it using 'noclip'. With 64-bit CPUs, game maps could be huge, allowing for multiple routes and much greater variety, and increased re-playability.
Rating machines based on MIPS has always been part of the old RISC vs CISC debate. MIPS ratings give RISC machines an advantage because the instructions are simpler and execute faster. If a valid comparison were to be made, it'd have to take into account the decomposition of CISC instructions to internal RISC operations that the P4's microcode/trace cache performs. Good luck getting any information on that, though.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
I'd mod ya down if I werent replying, but not because you're pro intel, just because your logic is flawed.
But slashdot doesn't have a "-1, Stupid (and Wrong)" moderation, more's the pity...
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Retail 64-bit windows is coming out very soon.
Those bastards at Micro$oft waited for Intel to catch on with AMD.
It wouldn't be Wintel without that.
All of this is for Joe Sixpack. Not gamers and enthusiasts.
Except that Joe Sixpack doesn't understand the point of 64-bits. Okay, you can have a lot more memory, but then you hardly run into any average computer users with more than 512 megabytes of RAM anyway, and *zero* who are maxing out what a 32-bit CPU can handle.
Not to mention Joe Sixpack's reaction when he finds out that upgrading to 8 gigs of RAM is going to cost more than his entire PC did.
err , linux already does run on 64bit processors. Suse linux has supported this for over 1 year now. I cant speak for the applications in KDE, but the Distro definitly comes with a 64bit kernel on the other side of the DVD.Since Intel seem to have quietly reverse engineered and copied the AMD Instruction set , I don't see why It should not work with 64 bit Linux.More here : http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1561875 ,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532
I don't know why the parent is modded informative. Linux has been running 64-bit since the x86_64 machines were available (over a year). I run a fully 64-bit Linux distribution (Fedora Core 3 x86_64). Windows is lagging, that's true. But that's nothing new.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
I'm thinking we need some sort of ISO standard for clock speed
:)
How about the amount of time it takes a processor to do a full-text search on the entire Library of Congress?
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Now tell me which AMD64 version of Linux works out of the box with an Intel 64-bit processor. I'm sure both processors are mostly similar but they're not identical, that's for sure.
Why is 64-bit so desirable?
Mostly hype right now. Most people have no clue what 64-bit buys them over 32-bit other than it's the latest thing from AMD and it's ubar!!!1!1!
Is there much performance gain?
This greatly depends on what you are doing. Some things (like encryption, GIS, and other application areas) can get good speedups. Most things will get marginal to no speedup. A few things will actually slow down in 64-bit mode (code that uses lots of pointers may slow down because pointers now take up 2x the amount of cache than in 32-bit mode, leaving less room in cache... this may be a problem for Java, C#, and similar systems).
Other obvious benefits are to programs that like lots of memory. Databases love memory so can benefit at least as much by 64-bit addressing as for using 64-bit processing instructions, for example.
Because from what I understand not all programs use 64-bit instructions yet.
Depends. On a 64-bit OS (personally, I use SuSE 9.2 AMD64) there are many applications that are native x86_64 compiled. On Windows, you need to be running Windows XP64 to have any.
It's a small historical point but the first 64-bit AMD processor was released in April, 2003 which was 23 months ago, not 18 months ago as the article states. I remember this because I started using a 64-bit Opteron 240 workstation with an ASUS SK8N motherboard in July, 2003 which was 20 months ago. The 64-bit Windows XP and Linux OS's as well as a lot of 64-bit software were developed on 64-bit AMD systems since there were no 64-bit Intel x86-64 systems existing.
2GB is not overkill. It's nice to be able to cache whole levels so you're not the one holding things up and you get to the buy screen faster :)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Something that i have seen here that is a bit of a misconception is that some people seem to think 64 bit processors are twice as fast, or can handle twice as much data as a 32-bit processor. This is not so. 4 types of data run through a processor: Integer Address String Floating Point in a 32 bit processor, the ranges are as follows Integer - 32 Address - 32 String - 64 Floating Point - 128 in a 64 bit processor, however, the ranges are as follows Integer - 64 Address - 64 String - 64 Floating Point - 128 All that is simply saying, by saying a 64-bit processor, is that the processer can handle 64 binary instructions per clock cycle, twice as many as a 32 bit processer, only in the integer and address ranges. so it is not truly twice as fast, and neither can it truly handle twice as much data, just 2 of the 4 types of data have been doubled. theoretically, a 64 bit processor could address 16 exabytes of ram (i believe this is 16 million gigs of ram) but obviously there are limitations to this. and interesting fact i thought i would stick in here :p
ps. - my ranges for floating point and string might have been reversed, now that i think about it i cant remember whether floating point is 128 bit or whether string data is 128 bit.
"Potpourii doesn't taste as good as it smells." - Dark_Link2135
So I guess no one would be interested in a cluster of 64bit P4s?
Seriously though, I'd love to see them start to increase the cores from 2 to 4 then 8 etc.
Could the chip be designed like a parking lot, such that if a processing core is being used the request is sent to the next available core?
Time to make the chips smarter without relying on enhancements from the OS community.
Just trying to punch a hole in this paper bag.
I moved from 1GB to 2GB receantly (I play with samplers that feature multi-gigabyte sample sets, my drumkit alone is 2.4GB) and I haven't noticed any improvements, even in World of Warcraft. It seems that after a point, games just run out of things to eat up memory with and you don't get any benefit from more.
Once Linux supports it properly (as in having been tested on production machines), and XP 64 appears and the likes of Dell produce a 64 bit machine then there might be a point for telling someone to get it. At that point the weight will shift into the 64-bit world and the market will take care of the rest. But at the moment there is little point.
Have you seen any unscheduled downtime on your 64-bit machines? We haven't seen any.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
At least Gentoo apparently. That's how linuxhardware was able to get benchmarks of various linux software on 64-bit AMD and Intel, and compare the speeds of 64 vs 32 bit binaries on both. Presumeably other AMD64 distros shouldn't have a problem.
EMT64 is basically identical to AMD64, by design since they went off of pre-release documentation for AMD64 in order to be compatible (ha! what a historic reversal of roles!). The only differences that exist between EMT64 and AMD64 are almost certainly due to errors/changes in the documentation that Intel used. These differences don't seem to stop OSes for AMD64 from running.
The enemies of Democracy are
Perhaps this is what was meant?
"As Slashdot previously reported, the 64-bit series will likely be the last major enhancement to the Pentium 4 line before the introduction of the Pentium D "Smithfield," Intel's first dual-core part, which is slated for next quarter."
Must-not-watch TV!
These new chips are not true 64-bit chips. The EMT64 chips just add support for more memory, and will "support" 64-bit operating systems (they're just doing some fancy emulation).
i ons/faq.htm i ons/index.htm
http://developer.intel.com/technology/64bitextens
http://developer.intel.com/technology/64bitextens
We shouldn't see a TRUE 64-bit chip from Intel for a year.
The courts ruled that you can't trademark numbers.
I suppose you're just not aware that while the 64 bit pentium 4 is new the 64 bit xeon has been out for a year now--the only difference is that the new chip is marketed at desktops rather than servers. All the amd64 linuxes that I know of work fine on intel's implementation.
You are wrong.
"have to" means "must", whereas the second "have" mean possess. "have to have" could be paraphrased as "must possess".
In the other phrases you give, the repeated word has an identical meaning. Even so, I don't see what is wrong with them. "I need a license to get a license.", is a well formed and meaningful (if slightly ambiguous) English sentence. I could even see situations in which it could be used - in the UK at least, you need a Provisional Driving License to get a Driving License, and a Driving License to get a Public Service Vehicle License.
It isn't a particularly pretty choice of words, but maybe you'd care to explain exactly what gramatical rule you think this is breaking?
If you thought someone should "Get a Dell" - as opposed to building their own, getting a good whitebox, or even getting a better name brand computer - then it's pretty unlikely they are going to benefit any from a 64bit chip. I'd not worry about it.
Right, because I can count the number of G5 based clusters in the top 500 with 2 fingers.
Sure are a lot of Intel Xeons in there though.
...as long as what you're planning to run software that needs lots of FLOPS. Personally, FLOPS are completely meaningless on my servers; infinite FLOPS aren't going to make buildworld, run my mail filters, or serve Zope pages any faster. You might find that to be a meaningful number but I have no interest in it, and such is the nature of benchmarks.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Assuming that the 64-bit CPU's ALU can process numbers at least as fast as a comparable 32-bit CPU's ALU, then the 64-bit version can do any of the forementioned operations more than twice as fast as the "narrower" processor ("more than" instead of "exactly" since it has at no more than half the number of intermediate carry-bit operations to muck around with). That's one of the huge wins that we're all looking forward to testing.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
As a couple of posters have pointed out, I was a little short-sighted on suggesting using FLOPS as a benchmark for processors. Serving web pages, building software, etc. doesn't require floating operations, so FLOPS are irrelevant to that type of work.
So, I propose that manufacturers list
Basically, tell us all about how a chip performs in each area and let us make the decision.
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
Joe Sixpack doesn't need to need to understand 32 versus 64 bit. Even when I was a kid and didn't know jack about computers, I "knew" that the Sega Genesis was better than the NES, because the Genesis was 16 bit and the NES was only 8 bit. A same level of (almost absent) understanding is enough 64 = 2*32, therefore I want the 64 bit one.
Best Slashdot comment ever