Slashdot Mirror
Intel Shipping Merced Engineering Samples
JDC writes "Apparently, Intel has first silicon on their IA-64 processor. I wonder how long till I can play Descent on one of those babies... ;) " Linux has been working on the simulators, and is reported to work on the actual silicon. However, contrary to prior reports, Windows does boot and run on the engineering prototype.
The original article said that Windows wouldn't run on the Merced and that Microsoft was embarassed and had assigned "armies of developers" to fix the problem. Evidently the armies succeeded. The original article said that Windows *didn't* run, not that it would never run.
1) Windows doesn't have 16bit code for hardware support. At least it shouldn't. Who uses that kind of hardware these days? 32bit processers have been around since the *386*. It's about time Microsoft stopped supporting the 286, don't you think?
2) How many drivers has Microsoft written. I'd suggest that they've probably written fewer than the Linux folks have. Remember, we've only very recently got support from hardware vendors. Everything had to be reverse engineered in the past. It's a wonder we support as much as we do!
3) Linux is Y2K clean. Remember, Linux is the kernel. (Duh). GNU/Linux may not be, but that's up to the application writers. If ipopd doesn't work, then get one that does. And again, we don't know how many of Microsofts *applications* aren't going to run. (Regardless of the fact that Windows doesn't even come with a POP daemon. But I think I've made my point by now).
Yes, if it comes from Microsoft it's almost always bad. And if it's good, it's because Microsoft bought it from somebody else. (VC++, IE, etc)
Actually, MS only pulled the plug when Compaq did. Windows 2000 beta has had both i386 and alpha builds up to now.
Well, yes and no...
1. 64 Bit Memory and IO
IA32 has 64 bit memory bus and instruction that can access with 1 atomic operation. However,
there's no 64-bit single cycle arithmetic...
(unless you count CMPXCHG8B, CDQ, FILD, FISTP, MOVQ, SHLD, SHRD, and MMX packed bit instructions)
2. Virtual/Real memory access. With IA32, you can access more memory than 2^32 *bytes* of memory
(up to 2^36 *bytes* just not linearly), but not as much 2^64 *bytes*...
However, for the most part, those are the main differences between 32bit and 64bit architectures.
Never-Nt-User
the i64 asrchitecture uses compile time optimization. In the i32 arc. a compiler generates machine code, then the procesor is in charge of geting the moust out of it (it moustly look for code segments that can execute in paralel (outoforder exec., pipe lines ...) ).It has to do it in real time, not knowing most of the code,... so it can't do a very good job. In the i64 arc. moust(if not all) of the job is than by the compiler.It looks for the same thing s as the i32 cpu. With teh diference that the compalier sees the hole program, it sees it source code , it has all the time it wants,. At the end he outputs special machine code,called (or used ti be called )very long words(VLW). VLW are set of macihne codes that can exec in paralel. A i64 CPU does have to just for starts nad end of VLW to know what can be exec in paralel so it can be simpler and faster. this is as i got it...
It's not just 64 bits in this case; there are several new processor technologies. The most significant of which are: very long instruction words (the compiler packs multiple operations into a single instruction word); asynchronous memory reads, writes and asynchronous stack management (tell the processor to do a load several instructions before you need it and then check if it was successful later, stack management is done by allocating registers and the memory stack writes are automatically done in the background); true speculative evaluations (conditions are built into the instruction set so there's no loss when a speculative instruction never executes); register rotation (a group of number registers can be rotated so that several passes of a loop can be evaluated at the same time(using VLIWs)).
Despite the processor changes, the harder challenge has been to write a compiler that can take advantage of these features which are actually the cause of the greater performance.
G4 info here:
d uctor/cpu/7400.html
http://www.mot.com/SPS/PowerPC/products/semicon
and lots of it. Anyone know estimated spec, MIPS, or GigaFLOPS for Merced at a certain MHz?
There is no need for 128bit chips, now or ever.
64 bits is enough to address 18 million terabytes.
More than the number of atoms in the earth...
Don't fall into the trap of thinking 64 bits
is twice 32 bits... 33 bits is twice 32 bits, each
bit doubles what you address.
the only intresting comments posted where about Gcc and parallel nature of the code
IA64 is all about paralleling the intructions
(althougth im intrested in the switching registers bit V funky)
has anyone looked at the backend part of gcc that intel are donateing ?
they have spent just over 2 years on the compiler and I want to see what its like
linux relies on gcc
will an intel compiled linux be better than gcc ?
(I think so is this right)
regards
john
a poor student @ bournemouth uni in the UK (a deltic so please dont moan about spelling but the content)
And look how they make things look. They try to convince that G4 is only a pretty toy, making big noice about design. What about Intel? Intel CEO is potrayed like all knowing Lord of the Chips staring to the vast horizons of eBusiness. What does it say about chips performance if its aimed for eBusiness? Absolutely nothing. Or maybe it says this chip is so big and heavy piece of steaming shit that you need A BIG BOX to accomodate it, a server box, with air conditioning. It's ironic that PPC chips are getting smaller, cooler and faster, while Intel chips are getting bigger, hotter and more bugier.
> Typical Linux drone. If it comes from Microsoft it's bad, if it's Open Source it's good.
Sorry; most "Linux drones" that I know are more honest than that: our actual position is If it comes from Microsoft it's probably bad; if it's Open Source it's probably good.
And when open source writers do screw up they admit it and fix it, rather than (say) blaming it on the actions of an elite hacker group with esoteric knowledge of obscure system internals like (say) http strings.
It's all a matter of track record. Microsoft doesn't have a bad reputation because they happen to be called 'Microsoft'; they have a bad reputation because they make crapware and lie their asses off about it. And pay astroturfers to help them mislead the public.
p.s. -- Notice, if you will, that we scrupulously avoid comma splices as well. [Ouch! Sorry! I couldn't help myself!]
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
OK, but there are even more atom in th universe, and sooner or later we are gonna simulate a chunk of it
ja@linux.nu
send + more == money?
Need to keep the kids away from the coffee.
...at an R&D facility for the bigname company that I work(ed) for. Can't say who, but there's been a patent flap lately...
The guys at the plant hate the stupid thing. 32 bit software runs pitifully on it. Got to see an 8-by Tanner box running though, that was cool...
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
don't moderate it down, somebody had to say it, i propose, that rob should automatically generate a few standard posts like: 1st post, beowulf, ms sux, etc. so i don't have to bother sending them in. :)
Minor quibble with your post:
"the reason the first Pentium Pro's didn't do so well when they came out was due to the fact that they didn't support 16-bit code very well."
Not exactly, but close. The Pentium Pro's run 16-bit code like a screaming demon. The problem is that Win95/8 frequently switch between 16 and 32 bit mode (thunking?) and that operation was very slow on the PP's.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
Wow, get with the program.
Alpha, Sparc, MIPS, PPC are all shipping 64bit and are cheap to boot, are you really that far behind the times?
Hell, Cobalt have dirt cheap 64bit systems shipping in volume right now.
What... You're waiting for Intel to say 64bit is good?
Deleted
Just see it as an expansion of your home network. Those slow ass Intel P3-450s can always be made to do something like printspooling
Since when does a comment about PR spin constitute FUD?
Talk about knee-jerk reactions.
The really funny point to all of this is that we're talking about 'samples'... which means things can and will change. Personally, I'll wait till the boxens are out, the OS's are shipped and we can really bang on things then.
Use the right tool for the job...
--
Neurowiz
and running and *crash* rebooting and *crash* and... After all they say history repeats itself, over, and over.... :^)
Anybody know if there are 128bit chips on the way?
Deleted
Uhm right, it is a bit offtopic, but if you liked the mmx extensions, you are just gonna love this baby.
(And if you thought mmx was "too little, too late", then G4 might have just that little extra to make it a natural entrypoint to vector processing on a chip)
ja@linux.nu
send + more == money?
Hrmmm. Like:
"NT will be a better Unix than Unix"
"Windows 95 will be Y2K compliant"
"Bob is a revolutionary new interface"
Just 'because' 'windows boots and runs' according to Bill:
1) They could be lying
2) Parts do not work. (like M$'s y2K compliance)
And to think:
If Micro$oft didn't have a history of lying and delivering broken products, no one would be saying the things I've said above.
(Hint M$ flamers: If they did not have a history of lying, no one would be assuming they ARE lying)
MS didn't pull the plug on Alpha-NT-64 (win2k betas run on it fine) but COMPAQ withdrew the development team. Jeeze, you could at least read the articles before opening your gob.
Nowhere does it say that they actually booted and ran a 64 bit version of Windows on Merced. It is *implied* everywhere, but carefully worded in such a way as to *avoid* saying that a 64 bit version of Windows boots and runs on Merced. The closest they get is saying "Intel demonstrated 64-bit Windows running on a Merced processor-based system at its Intel Developer's Forum." That doesn't say that the operating system booted in 64 bit mode, nor does it say that it actually ran. It just says 'demonstrated'. For all we know this 'system' is the software emulator. Furthermore, nowhere does it say that they even ran a 32-bit version of Windows 2000. For all we know, the operating system that they ran on Merced prototypes was Windows NT 3.51 in an 32-bit Merced emulation mode. We know Linux runs on 64 bit processors fine. We know there are applications that can be compiled and run for 64 bits to take advantage of the OS. 64-bit Windows is a big unknown. Microsoft is promising 64 bit apps, but being a 'I'll belive it when I run it' kind of guy, I am rather sceptical. I hate to be such a party pooper for Microsoft, but I'm sure if Microsoft got a 64 bit version of Windows to boot on Merced silicon prototypes, then we would see the words "64 bit version of Windows 2000 boots and runs on Intel Merced silicon prototype." all in one sentance. Microsoft is a Master of Marketing, and wouldn't pass up a buzzword rich phrase like that if they could prove it.
It describes the first VLIW system and the compiler that made it work. This was a machine from a company called Multiflow (RIP). The book starts out good and just gets better, as all the pitfalls and problems of creating a good parallelizing compiler are examined. The book is very well written, too -- easy to understand and fun.
The most astonishing parts of the project (to me) was just how hard it was to get relatively optimized programs for VLIW machines. The Bulldog compiler took *hours* to run on reasonably sized programs. Now, this was a few years ago, and typical workstations are now much faster -- but programs have gotten bigger, too.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
After reading the URLs posted in this article, Microsoft has stopped Win64 for alpha chips... not Merced. So I fall to understand the reasoning for the "However, contrary to prior reports, Windows does boot and run on the engineering prototype. ". Contrary to what reports? That article had nothing to do with Win64 running under Intel's Merced.
There has been a 64-bit PowerPC implementation for a very long time now eg the PPC 620
Can anyone see this story on the main page? I can't. I only got to it by going from my user info to my previous comment to the story. What the fuck?
About the hotmail hack... my understanding is that right now, the street is saying that there was no real hack, and that indeed, it was all about a backdoor left open. Now some claims it was passport, some other talk about a simple cgi script.
Whatever the truth is, hole or not, the bashing started on this forums BEFORE people were even aware about NT server, passport, or whatever.
At the end of the day, the only thing I notice is that I'm myself confused by all the information that comes out of this forums, and that most of it is generated by fanatics who should know better...
Anyway... happy threads!
Regards,
S.Tual
I share your sentiments. I wonder if it's just an animation that makes the computer look like it's actually doing something.
They did that originally for Windows. I seriously doubt they've improved their morality since then.
I can't stand people who continually dis Intel, esspecially Linux and BeOS people. Haven't you ever heard not to bite the hand that feeds you?
Seriously, Intel puts millions into helping out our favorite OS[es], and all we do is bitch about "Wah Wah Wah...I hate Microsoft....I want My Athlon!....Even if AMD is in bed with Bill....Wah....I want to support my 10 year old POS platform...."
I think we need to realize that unlike 90% of other companies, Intel is one group that understands a few good things:
1: Never fix a technology that isn't broken.
2: Keep your options open. Always.
3: When you upgrade technology, don't forget the older stuff....
4: Thinking up great product names...
(for 4, Yes, i think "Pentium", "Xeon", and "Celeron" are great names for chips)
Wrong. The thunking was pretty much as fast on PPro and a P2. The reason the PPro was slow was the 16 bit code does segment/selector switching a lot. The Pentium had a cache for the entries for each selector in the GDT/LDT whereas the PPro didn't. This cache was readded in the P2 to speed up the performance in 16 bit code.
The reason (in case it isn't obvious) that 16 bit code does a lot of segment/selector switching is that each one can only access 64k of data, which isn't very much in modern OSes.
John Wiltshire
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
If thats the case, my computer is going to be a workstation. I really want to move beyond 32bit, with the security of having a fair idea of the architecture.
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
I think Intel have really painted themselves into a corner with Merced. Everyone knows that it hasn't been achieving the kind of performance that it was expected to, and it's being overtaken by other chips more rapidly than originally forecast. It's pretty much a dead end. I can wait for the next generation, thank you.
May be this explains why there is no longer an alpha-NT alliance. It's not needed in MS mind, may be?
What does 64 bit offer that 32 bit hasn't got? What I'm asking is, is there a big difference in raw performance because of the increase in bits, or does it have more to do with addressing etc. I was never very good at hardware at University, so can someone enlighten me?
Anyone else notice the article said they demonstrated Merced running on W2K and Linux? Surely it should be the other way round -- W2K and Linux running on Merced?
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
as far as saying the evaluation period was over.
at least linux ran an application as well (Apache)
see the register's note on it.well.. maybe showed some stuff is putting it a little better.. but it probably ran because merced is still backward compatible. it has a 32bit part IIRC.
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
No point to be sorry, let's run the Mindcraft becnhmark again. And with 1GB Ethernets. They are 64 Bit ;-)
...
I have done some prteliminaries on non-interl arch and the results were very mindcrafting
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
I mostly agree with your post but take exception to your complaint about the Hotmail bashing. Microsoft deserved to get bashed for the Hotmail fiasco. Whether it was running on Solaris or NT is beside the point. They bought the company that provided the service and opened up a humongous security hole when they tried to "integrate" it into MSN with their passport "technology." If my understanding is incorrect please correct me. But if it is correct, then Microsoft deserves all the bashing delivered to it. Can you honestly think of a larger security hole? A simple URL that just about anyone could remember quickly and BOOM! you have instant access to anyone's email account? Come on, you can't complain about complaints about that!
Go Read the IA64 developers Architechture guide. IMNSHO, it's a programmer's nighmare! I'll be surprised if ANY compiler can generate efficient code any time soon (if ever).
This news actually made me sad. Why couldn't you keep the truth from me?
Come on, Intel is full of crap. This is just a marketing ploy to get our attention away from the superior chip Athlon.
When have we seen news about this sort of thing before? Oo, we just sampled the first 486, oo, we have beta silicon on Pentium II it runs some apps, but others it won't!
Who cares!! When you can run a Quake3 timedemo on that sucker then call me up!
Everyone go make some noise at the motherboard manufacturers to get those Athlon boards out so we can see some real performance NOW!! The chips are ready, if AMD had the marketing clout that Intel does then the boards would be too and I would have a brand spanking new Athlon running on my machine at home now.
...
1:PowerPC is 32-Bit 2:Alpha, Sparc, MIPS are all WAAAAAAAAAAY more expensive than any 32-bit Intel/AMD/Cyrix chip available. 3:Intel 8-way systems are being touted as a viable alternative to any 4-way you just mentioned. That give you any indication of how overpriced those chips are?
What? You mean you want to re-use the same hardware over and over. That would be way to logical. Don't damn us yet. I still have to make it to retirement.
~Billkr
Unfortunately MS has so richly deserved severe bashing on sooo many occasions that they have lost their right to appeal...
Microsoft has supposedly been working on Win64 (for the alpha) since 1994 or so. One would hope that they nearly have something by now!
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Unless it's a question. 'Nuf said.
Most of the reviews I read seemed to use the Matrox Millenium (one of the fastest at the time) which did write combining in the driver. It was only DOS games that really let you use FASTVID.
Actually, my PPro BIOS lets me enable write combining in the BIOS which really messes up your 16 colour modes.
The P6 core has had a few improvements over the PPro version.
John Wiltshire
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
The Register has some pictures of the Merced box: http://www.theregister.co.uk/990901 -000036.html
When will gcc be able to produce efficient code for Merced? I heard it was tricky to exploit the new features in Merced.
I only want to hear bad things about Microsoft. I don't want to hear about MS software running! I want to hear about security problems and how they are clueless about writing and kind of decent software. I want to see stories of how they gave Mother Theresa a hard time about bundling software in the Vatican. I want to see Bill Gate getting a pie in the face. Ziff Davis has a story a day about Microsoft evil rampage against good people in the computer industry. Why cant you! DAMM YOU LIBERAL SLASHDOT MONKEYS
Um, is it just me, or is the typical reaction to a first-silicon of a supposedly very fast CPU not that "gee, this will be the new engine for e-business"? Sounds extremely silly to me. Instead of attempting to refute Apple's praise of the G4 (hrm, with its Velocity Engine -- where do these people get their terms?) they start talking about engines for e-business. Weird.
main(O){10<putchar(4^--O?77-(15&5128 >>4*O):10)&&main(2+O);}
...and that's the polite term. So what, the Linux community bitches constantly about Microsoft FUD and then turns around and does just the same thing, except that there is no central information source so everyone can deny starting the lies themselves.
Expect more of this behavior as the "world domination" brand of Linux zealots work on destroying Microsoft by becoming just like it. In the end, it will be just like the Russian Revolution: everyone loses, except the top leaders of the movement.
Let's see... "Microsoft® Windows® operating system is booting and running on engineering prototype systems based on Intel's Merced processor. " Hrm. That tells me nothing. Does it make it past boot? Can you actually *DO* anything? But ah... the *lack* of details is very telling. This is great PR misdirection.. make it *sound* like something is great... without really saying so. The next part is really telling... ""We are very pleased with the outstanding progress Microsoft has made on the development of its 64-bit Windows operating system for Intel's Merced processor," said Albert Yu, senior vice president, general manager, Intel's Microprocessor Product Group." Hrm. Not that we're pleased that Microsoft has something already running.. just pleased at the 'progress'. Well, guess I'll make sure to have Linux/64 around when Merced is shipped. :)
Not exactly, but close. The biggest single reason for poor P6 performance in Windows9x was the lack of support for video write combining in Windows video drivers. Once this was fixed (with FASTVID) the P6 became the Windows9x CPU of choice, by a substantial margin. The 16-bit-vs-32-bit performance issue was largely a red herring from the beginning, propagated by uninformed magazine reviewers. If you're running the latest, greatest PIII-600, you're still using the P6 core at heart.
It seems that point of view is migrating from achitecture to OS... of course tanks to linux.
They showed a clip of windows running on merced at that conference the other day. All I saw was a DOS window running and then right before the end of the clip a big error message popped up.
Huh, sounds just like many peoples attempts to get KDE 1.0 or Gnome 1.0 running on long established hardware and those were "released" applications. And what did Linux do on Merced? Boot, and....hmm, thats it. Impressive (not).
Win9x isn't 32 bit clean because of legacy support, how much hardware does Linux support these days? 10% of what Win9x supports?
Is Linux Y2K "clean", I don't think so. Have you tried changing the date to something past 2000? Be prepared for pop3d to be hosed and require a re-install (which isn't really a big deal) to get it to function correctly again.
/.ed already? That's gotta be some kinda RECORD!!?
> Since Windows doesn't fully run in 64-bit mode on the alpha even after all these years, are we supposed to believe that it suddenly runs in 64-bit mode on a brand new chip?
um, yes. 32-bit windows not "fully running in 64-bit mode" on the alpha doen't make me blow any fuses over the notion that 64-bit windows runs in 64-bit mode on a new processor. it would have done the same thing on the alpha platform as well, if alpha support hadn't been dropped.
for a while, it was a major possibility that the alpha version of win64 would be out before merced was available. microsoft isn't married to intel (politically) in the same way they once were.
And another astroturfer boldly steps up to defend Bill's honor and fortune. (Or is he merely defending his own stock options?)
Since Windows doesn't fully run in 64-bit mode on the alpha even after all these years, are we supposed to believe that it suddenly runs in 64-bit mode on a brand new chip?
Oh, yeah. Intel provided backward support hardware for 32-bit software (by demand of the Neanderthal lobby). You can probably run Windows 95 on it. (Oops - I take that back -- Wind9x still isn't 32-bit clean, is it?)
I'll be surprised if W2K is Y2K clean by this time next year, let alone 64-bit clean.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
It doesn't matter that Win64 was running. The original poster's point is still valid: A large reason why W2K ran at all is probably due to the large amount of legacy 32-bit code that's supported by the IA32 emulation on the chip.
After all, the reason the first Pentium Pro's didn't do so well when they came out was due to the fact that they didn't support 16-bit code very well. So, even though everyone was running a Win32 platform, most people didn't get much bang for their Pentium Pro buck due to the 16-bit code laying around under the hood.
--Joe--
Program Intellivision!
well forget that new Motherboard that I just bought, here comes a new socket probably. And probably new ram, new slots, new case, etc... oh well (dam intel)
:)
ClarkBar
This isn't meant to bash MS...but they are the kings of mis-direction and marketing hype. Okay..so they can get it it to boot...I'll believe that. But does it run ??? Is it even close to being functional ?? Heck..they can get NT to boot on Alpha..but they pulled the proverbial plug on that because they couldn't get it anywhere near right.
So for me..this is just another story of the little boy who cried wolf.. after beign deceived so many times I refuse to believe anything that MS says until I SEE it.