Slashdot Mirror
AMD's New SledgeHammer: 64 bit chip
ChickenBomb wrote to us with word that perennial battle between Intel and AMD is continuing with AMD unveiling plans for their new 64-bit microprocessor, code-named SledgeHammer. Heck of a lot better name then Itanium, IMHO.
I'm so sick of all you AMD backers out there. Intel is a multimillion dollar company, with one thing in mind...profits. AMD is another multimillion dollar company...with one thing in mind...profits.
It's all well and good to have competition...as in a company that competes with Microsoft with a different OS, but I'm so sick of people treating AMD like it's there sweet uncle, working out of his garage, scrapping by with "Open Source" help.
Geez.
Now AMD is going out and building a 64bit processors that is NOT compatible with Merced? That's just what the industry needs.
Slashdot has really dropped into become a completely Pro-AMD...Anti-Intel website, and I for one am sick of it.
Go buy your Sledgehammers people...but give Intel SOME credit. They did make the computer industry what it is today, they ARE one of the greatest American success stories (one of the few successful American companies in the chip market), and the still make a great CPU (the Celeron).
With MIPS, Alpha, Sparc, HP, IBM and others all gunning for the 64bit market, this is a profoundly silly move for AMD. This is why investors punish this stock again and again.
I am sure I heard somthing about MS abandoning all current efforts to make a Win64. Mmm...perhaps it was just a wonderful dream.
I was speaking of the PC market. EXP. something I can find reasonably cheap.
g3/4 are good chips. unfortunately I STILL havn't been able to find one I can put together myself.
as far as other hardware... I have either been not impressed by it... or it is way too expensive for the mogamips.
Stupid people do stupid things... Smart people outsmart each other... --System of a Down
If you write decent C then your code will work "anywhere" once "anywhere" has a C compiler ported to it. And your code (again if you write it decently) will take advantage of many of the innate features of the hardware. Plus a C compiler will be available long before a java VM...
Don't get me wrong, Java was/is a neat idea. But portable, available, source code is so much better.
StrongARM is not dead. We should see the 2nd generation SA chips sometime next year. They'll be useful for PDAs, Cellphones, IO processors, and such, but I doubt you'll see on in any kind of conventional computer.
The SledgeHammer is the successor to the K7. The successor to the SledgeHammer is almost guaranteed to be a real dog of a chip (after all, it is the K9 :-)
I doubt this will be a great move for AMD. I think they should stick with there 32-bit market, because I have a feeling Intel will be moving away from that when IA-64 gets moving. Besides, they are just starting a design on 64-bit architecture. It took Intel engineers 6 years. So lets say they do start producing in 2001. I see one problem. Merced is well on its way to release. Hewlett Packard is work with Intel on IA-64. They will be making McKinley, which will be a generation after Merced. Then finally Madison, where Intel will take 2 McKinley cores and put them into one processor. So I see a possible bad situation: Merced is released mid 2000 SledgeHammer is release mid 2001 McKinley & Madison well on their way AMD is tries to compete with a processor already out for one year, and it is not compatable. Ouch...
Way to associate the worlds largest sotware company (unfair buisness practices and monopoly etc) with the genocide of over 6 million Jews and 20+ million russians!
I think I will take up the torch and recomend that everyone murder anyone who uses M$ products!
Now I hope that when 64 bits arrive in volume (and given that we'll still be alive) this #@$% 32-bit floating point rush that we have today will go away.
REAL MEN USE SCALED INTEGERS - SUCKERS GO WITH FP!
(Oh, I meant games and 3d-stuff if you didn't get it)
ppc is NOT 64 bit!
The time to market for a flagship CPU is four to five years (from initial architecture design, to volume production). For a chip with a new ISA, it is longer (the article said Merced took six years, but it actually took over seven years). In other words, I don't see how they think they will get this out by 2001.
Since they are simply making the IA-32 architecture 64 bit instead of developing a new architecture, they will be hampered by the IA-32 instruction set (e.g. all of the different funny modes, space for obsolete instructions, difficulty of instruction decode, etc.) They have an opportunity (in theory) to make a new (and good) architecture, but they are choosing to use the most backwards and difficult one available. TRUE, this is good for backwards compatibility, however, IA-64 is also backwards compatible AND has a different architecture.
The reason this architecture will fail is that all the software makers have done ports to IA-64. I am especially talking about the non-x86 commercial Unix's. Porting things like HP-UX, Irix, AIX, and Tru64 makes as much sense as porting those to IA-32. In the more PC type market it is viable, but only just: again, it depends on support from software makers, and I really don't see why they would all want to go out and support ANOTHER architecture which is totally unproven. It also depends on support from VAR's: could you imagine IBM or HP using an AMD chip in their high profit margin workstations?
Finally, I have the following to offer: If AMD was smart, they would license an existing 64 bit architecture (say, Alpha), and then engineer a die which would put that together with their IA-32 bit stuff. This would actually be a serious threat to Intel (but what AMD has now is a joke). It would have the advantage of have existing 64 bit operating systems and it would also be quicker to market (it might be cheaper also, depending on the licesing costs).
For one thing, those 21264 instructions are actually just 32-bits long IIRC ('tho they manipulate 64-bit data).
Question: What does instruction word size have to do with the quality of a processor? Address and data word size is the important part, AFAIK. "How much memory can you address?" and "How high can you count?" are the questions you are concerned with.
In fact, wouldn't a smaller instruction word size keep program size smaller?
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
256-bit?!
Wow!
If I store a flag in 'int' I'll have 0.39% efficiency. Cool!
The 16032 and Z8000 were buggy chips. They died of self-inflicted wounds.
I don't see how anyone can seriously compete with Intel. Their chip designs may be mediocre, but who else has the process technology and fab capacity to produce millions of high speed chips?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I would have guessed Hexium and Heptium etc. back then, but nope. Anyway - Itanium sucks, so does Sledgehammer. I'd prefer 'Brute' or something else I can relate better to ;)
--
"You rarely reach the target first by walking in another mans path"
Unable to read configuration file '/bigassraid/htdig//conf/14229.conf'
Geocrawler error message.
This reminds me of the time when Intel introduced the 8086. Back then, ZiLOG with the Z80 was a real force in the market competing with Intel's 8080, Motorola's 6800 and Rockwell's 6502.
Then came the 16 bit revolution (when we really needed more - the 16-bit minicomputers running out of space should have been the clue.)
The competitors were:
Intel with the 8086
ZiLOG with the Z8000
Motorola with the 68000
National Semiconductor with the 16032 (later called 32016)
In technical terms, the order of merit was 16032, 68000, Z8000, 8086. In marketing the 8086 was way ahead, but I think the 68000 was next.
Only two of these gained any substantial market share, and the 68000 had the advantage of being really a 32 bit processor. The 16032 was a better 32 bit processor, but it was just too late arriving.
If AMD have some technical feature of the scale of 32 vs 16 bits back then, and they are also far enough along with the development that they can ship at most a few months behind Intel, they have a chance of competing in this space. The more likely outcome of developing an incompatible processor is that we will see them reinvent themselves in some niche market in a few years time as ZiLOG have now done.
The Open Source community may well be able to use SledgeHammer when it arrives, but the software shipped as binary will ship for itanium first (or only), and that will be what counts.
This isn't so much a bad thing Merced was announced in a similar manner MANY years ago - people should take anything you heer this week about the distant future (ie 2+ years) with a grain of salt - chips take a long time to bring to market and always change a lot during the process - remember they are announcing their goal - not new silicon that's sampling to customers - these are VERY different things.
did not compaq stop the future of the Alpha Chip ?
AMD might buy some 64b technology from Compaq ?
Or maybe Transmeta really did some highly performant x86 emulator than AMD will use ?
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
Keep in mind that AMD hasn't even made their presentation at the MPF, yet. This article is most likely based on what little AMD has said/allowed to be said about the chip prior to their presentation. Hell, most of the information could very well come from whatever they have in the MPF press guide. AFTR, I've not seen the press guide or whatever literature is handed out at the Microprocesor Forum, I'm just making some (somewhat) educated guesses as to why detail is so abhorrently missing in this article (ooh, don't forget NDAs, as well :)
Yes, please tell us the details. (You'd think this would go without saying...)
Will everyone jump on the Merced bandwagon and abandon the new AMD chip?
well, I think yes. The only reason that people buy AMD is so that they can get relatively the same speed chip for a much lower price. They run the *same* programs, not *different* ones that their new 64bit will run. I really can't see developers *or* users wanting to buy a chip like this. The Macintosh may have been a better design, but who supported it, and where are they now?
Intel chips have no problems with more then 640k of ram. it was a design flaw in microsofts OS.
the 68k is another type of CPU the 'k' is sort for 000, ie 68000 68001, ect
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
A beowulf cluster of these to get my rc5 keyrate up ... or maybe 1000+ fps. (compulsory comment - surprised i didn't see this mentioned yet)
perhaps they could even get Lemmy to be their spokesman.
:)
a little bit of 'Speedfreak,' and you could bet your sweet biffy i'd con my wife into letting buy one.
"The things we wizards have to put up with."--Jethro Bodine
The Sledg-O-Matic is the handiest, the dandiest little damn processor you ever did see. It'll replace a whole slew of previous chips and processors in your boxen. It fits in all sockets, with a nudge and a shoehorn sometimes, but it'll go. And it smashes its way through software installs and kernal compiles. Need more bandwidth? Let the Sledg-O-Matic clear the way. Have a problem with programs that don't work? Use the Sledg-O-Matic on the CEO of the software company that made it. It's a lot more permanent than a pie in the face.
Next time you go to buy a CPU, remember the Sledg-O-Matic!
--Somewhere there is a village missing an idiot.
Maybe they should license the 64-bit code in Alpha's from DEC as well? Hmm... Sounds pretty nifty, 64-bit Alpha code in an x86 cpu with a fast-ass (they should be up to like, what, 300mhz?) bus? ooh!
linuxnewbie.com
I think AMD really is too soon with this. Shouldn't they concentrate on delivering enough Athlons first?
And now for something completely serious...
Flag - 1 bit used
Char - 8/16 bits used
Your average int - about 5-15 bits used....
There must be some data on average number (and dispersion for that matter) of USEFULL bits per a piece of computer data (word?) in average computing task.
Now it's obvious (for me at least) that if you'll get a 256 bit (or whatever) CPU - you'll actually be LOSING bandwidth compared to your average 32 bits one as you'll be tossing absolutely useless zeroes all around your computer.
Question:
Can someone calculate the OPTIMAL number of bits per word? Bandwidth-wise.
...that they get enough money from Athlon sales to go ahead and smash Itanium with their Sledgehammer(wow! I sound like a marketing type).
If they do make it to production, I know the Sledgehammer will be a superior chip, AMD has proven themselves many times in the past and won't let us down.
Dan
Itanium really is a stupid name for a chip. I think Merced was fine.
Now Sledgehammer is a great name. And instead of "Start me Up" by the Stones they could advertise with something by Motorhead! *wink*
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
If this Hammer really will be of x86 line it will be a 4-IN-1 chip:
;)
1. 16 bit - 'real' mode
2. 16 bit - prot. mode
3. 32 bit - prot. mode
4. 64 bit
Gee. I'm glad it won't have UNIAC instruction set at least.
(Spelling could be wrong
AMD needs to make a backend for GCC for their SledgeHammer so that they get all Linux nerds backing them. This plus a (hopefully) better chip than itanium would let them push forward into server space. Low cost hardware + Free software would really rock.
... is here.
perl -e 'srand(-2091643526); print chr rand 90 for (0..4)'
I for one love AMD processors. I'm running a K6-2 450 in my machine at home right now. And I'd LOVE to get my hands on the chip formely known as K7. But I just have a problem with one key aspect of this processor.
Backwards compatability. From what I've been reading in the past about processors, this is the key "feature" that keeps system speeds down. It's one of the reason RISC processors are faster than their x86 counterparts.
Intel finally has the right idea by moving to a completely new 64 bit platform instead of just adding to the x86 chips. And now AMD is going to take a step backwards.
Ahh.. screw em both. I'm going to save up for an Alpha, or a G4 to run Linux on.
32-bit numbers are limited in (AFAIK) two ways today:
:-)
You forgot the biggest limitatation of 32-bit machines: Address word size. 32-bit machines can address a maximum of four gigabytes of memory. A 64-bit machine can address four billion times that. It is not uncommon to want 8GB, 16GB, or even more memory in servers these days. And it will only grow larger as disks get bigger. A 2500 GB disk array wants a lot of cache.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
I think that it'll be a bit hard for AMD to persuade developers to write code that'll run on their platform rather than an Intel's - isn't this a bit premature? With the two key people having resigned, and market share lost through Intel's price drops, they're relying too much on the success of the Athlon to give them enough pull. At least, that's how I see it...
--
Everything I know in life I learnt from
AMD is the best chip on the market. period. They are fighting a war with Intel, one they may loose. I support them all he way. k7 chips are faster than any Intel chip made. period. (Whats this??? 700mhz???) I truly hope they succeed. PimpSmurf
Stupid people do stupid things... Smart people outsmart each other... --System of a Down
This seems somewhat surprising, as I would expect Intel to pay close attention to the needs of their good pal, Microsoft. So now you'll need the competition's chip to run 32-bit apps more efficiently... If what AMD claims is to be believed.
And Microsoft is still years away from having a decent 64-bit OS.
With the competition following on Intel's heels, will Intel be forced to whip their 64-bit chips into gear? If so, will they be forced to toss their alliance with Microsoft to the pigs, and move on into the realm of alternate 64-bit OS?
If so, they'll get a lukewarm welcome, I'm sure. They're not nicknamed Wintel for nothing. I think as the possibility of 64-bit platforms becomes more and more a reality, the relationship between Intel and Microsoft is being detrimental to Intel. And they're both likely to lose ground.
I dunno; maybe I'm reading too much into it. Maybe Microsoft will come up with their Win64 platform, and people will consider crappy performance to be the norm, and nothing will change. That certainly wouldn't be anything new.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
It will work well for AMD because it is a compromise solution. The PC industry is completely built on compromises because the masses like to take small incremental steps. That's just how evolution works; large mutations are risky, and escaping a local optimum is expensive. It looks like Intel tried to introduce real technological progress, and now they're going to face a threat from someone who is going to use their very own stepwise refinement doctrine.
I don't know whether to be happy or sad about this. I hate seeing low tech win again, but there's such satisfying justice in seeing Intel stabbed with their own weapon, wielded by someone who uses their old(?) philosophy. Yes, I hope AMD goes ahead with this, and makes a mockery of the PC industry for another 20 years. Maybe that's my hatred talking, but I just can't help it. Even if the new boss is the same as the old boss, it's going to feel soooo good to see the old boss suffer.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Do we really need another 64-bit CPU when there is already a really great one languishing on the sidelines? Alpha AXP runs Linux extremely well and is the fastest microproceesor out there. Don't get me wrong... I love AMD's offerings--I've got Linux boxen running on their 5x86, their K6 II and K6 III lines, and I'm hankering for an Athlon, but Alphas are a sweet machine, and you can get 'em now. I guess I'd have a more welcoming attitude if I thought it would help drive down entry-level price points for the other offering like Itaniums and Alphas.
One viagra in the morning before work; I just know I'm gonna be screwed
So the platform with the most software problems due to incompatible hardware will get divided once again. Who wants to support old 32 bit apps with incompatible multimedia extensions as well as new 64 bit apps for different instruction sets? It will be a nightmare.
The only good thing about Wintel was marketshare, being a standard in the industry. This is our chance to overthrow the Wintel hegemony.
As I have seen till now, the processor industry seems to change because Linux (and other free Operating Systems) make it possible for customers to use other microprocessors.
But which one should someone use? I, for example, really hate using these Intel or AMD chips at the moment because they are x86 compatible (the problems with x86 have been discussed often enough yet).
Yes, you're right. Alpha Microprocessors are a high-performance way to go, but they are really expensive.
The only things which are _really_ interesting are the StrongARM (from intel/digital) and the PowerPC Open Platform developed by IBM.
StrongARM seems to be dropped by Intel because you don't hear anything at the moment. On the other side, Netwinder's seem to sell well. I don't know what to think about that.
IBM's PowerPC Open Platform hasn't launched yet and the website is rather small at the moment, but it looks interesting. Is it possible to escape from these old x86 times?
If I would have to decide which platform to buy at the moment, I wouldn't be able to buy anything, because I simply don't know. All these interesting and good platforms seem to die in the future if there is not enough support by the customers. - Most user I know buy x86 chips because they simply "work". (They buy AMD if they don't like intel; It's a step in the wrong direction, I think. The decision is not AMD or intel; the decision is x86-arm-powerpc-alpha-sparc.)
Maybe someone is interested in discussing that.
Ha, made you look. ;) Seriously, since 64bitishness is mostly vapor anyway, I've been daydreaming for years now about what a 256-bitter would be capable of. That would be some serious throughput!
"How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
I happened to hear a conversation where a IT specialist tried to explain 64bit sofware to a newbie.
The joke is that the newbie said: "Processors available today are 32bit, right? And next CPUs will be 64bit? But that means two times larger software!!!"
:)
Bitanium, Titanium, TransMeta where is this going?
Clearly a successfull product will have backward compatability. What's a lum?
Then we'll have a CPU with a size of a frig eating enough power to make small african country happy and a couple of rooms of peripherals.
It will run Sun Linux of course.
And there we'll be a host of terminals connected to it.
And admin will slap your little hands on your every move.
Welcome back to the future.
(Arrgh. I miss personal computers)
All I can say is WTF. Ford didn't have to patent "5.0 Liter". Why the hell does Intel need to?
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
That's precisely what the AMD press release says they're going to do:
There's also this random quote in there, also indicating that they don't plan to introduce some Exciting New 64-bit RISC Architecture:
(Yeah, I just about dropped my teeth when I saw a quote from Cox in there....)
AMD is taking a big risk, here. Of course, the biggest risks pay off the best, but they can also fail spectacularly.
;-)
Consider: AMD has, in the past, made its money by doing what Intel does, but cheaper and better. While it did mean that AMD was always in Intel's shadow to some extent, it was a good market to be in. Being number two in the PC industry is a good place to be if you have significant market share, and AMD was doing well on that. It was also good for consumers to have a choice in their PC purchases.
Now AMD switches to an incompatible architecture. It may beat Intel's line in every way, but stuff written for Intel will not work on AMD. They may lock themselves out of a large market. DEC's Alpha CPU, for example, is a great design, but it sells a fraction of the units the K6 line does. We may also be back to having a single Intel-compatible OEM -- namely, Intel.
It will be interesting to see how this turns out, that is for sure.
Just my 1/4 of a byte.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
You mean Horium.
(Horrorium, Hornyum... I'm going to bed, it's way too late here)
This is an isolated case, and most like had more to do with the capabilities of the programmers and integrators than with the products themselves. Nobody who knows what they're doing actually spends $500,000 without a functional pilot system.
Many companies use Access (or SQL Server) and VB/VBA, and most of them are perfectly happy with it.
So, why exactly would I want to code for one of these instead of:
:)
Alpha on Linux/FreeBSD/Tru64.
Merced on Linux/Win64.
Sparc3, just because a list is too short with two.
Dunno. Especially when you consider the Alpha and Athlon are in a kinda symbiotic relationship wrt sharing EV6.
Anyway, all this next generation stuff is a bit up in the air. Just use the T-word.
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
All you need to do is keep the existing predecoder instructions add the ones for 64 bit and increase the pipelines and viola! You have a 64 bit chip based on a proven (or soon to be) design. They will probably add a unit in/near the predecoder to combine 32 bit segments for the 64 bit core.
Beyond that, its a great idea anyway. If done right, they will have a single chip that will compete with both intel's 64 bit and 32 bit (you don't think they are going to abandon destop users do you ?) offerings for many years to come. While intel works on two fronts AMD can focus on one. You didn't think they built the K7 architecture to only last for the next 1-2 years. Much of it will be around probably 4-5 years from now.
(BTW. I have seen no proof that the G4 is faster than the K7. They claim that it is ~3 times faster that the PIII in 7 of intels own tests. Look at the tests. They seem to be testing very specific aspects of the chips functionality. Wait for the real benchmarks to come out.)
penguinicide... when jumping out a window just won't do.
I miss the days when a 286 was a 286 and a 486 was a 486. Sure, you had different brands of 286's and 486's but they didn't clutter the scene with these stupid names.
I agree, it was easier to note the difference between chips back then...
...Yet, you didn't mention the 486sx, 486dx, 486dx2...let alone the odd 286/386 beast named "386sx". AMD 386/486 vs. Intel? Ever use a 186? Know the difference between the 8088, 8086, and a V20?
No matter what they're named, I doubt you were taken in back then and aren't today. I'm giddy that I can build an SMP machine for about $1,000 that can stomp on anything from the old days.
So they'll probably make its real name something stupid like Athlon or Wombatium or something. Slashdotium anyone?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Seriously, SledgeHammer was one of my favorite shows growing up as a kid. Wish someone would bring it back. HAMMER!!!
-Huang Bao Lin (Trust Me!)
And I bet it's a 64-bit version of the "CISC-86" external instruction set that Athlon and K6 and K5 and Pentium {, Pro, II, III} and 486 and 386 use, given what they said in their press release:
Yes, I guess one could, if one really wanted to, read that as saying "extend" in the sense of "add a different instruction set that only a little bit like x86", but I see no reason to believe that's likely to be interpretation AMD had in mind.
I was just about to post something saying this exact thing! I hope they named it after the show and not after regular sledgehammers you buy at Home Depot.
Using your assumptions that more complicated == faster, one could argue that CISC based cpu's are inherently faster than RISC based cpu's. We know this is definately not true.
"Put down the Java and nobody gets hurt." -Jesse Burst (in reference to Sun's court victory over Microsoft about Jav
The PPC _architechture_ is specified for both 32 bit and 64 bit (like MISP and SPARC). Motorola hasn't implemented the 64 bit version of the architechture, but I believe IBM has.
They trotted this good idea (At the time) out and pushed the heck out of it but it died a slow painful death in the PS/2 line. However, a little later the PCI bus was born. Which, looks a lot like the PCI slots we know and love.
SP
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." - Voltaire
the link is on the press release:9 9.ppt
http://www.amd.com/news/prodpr/99105.html
http://www.amd.com/products/cpg/mpf/speech/slides
According to them they are going to retrofit Athlon with 64-bit capability at the cost of 5% more silicon. I like their proposals, especially their 3-operand FP instructions (rather than the stack-operand FP).
I think their approach is quite decent. They should be able to come out with one by next year, running on the same EV6 motherboard. Some suggestions I would give them include:
1) explicit register renaming or more registers
2) more condition codes ala POWERPC
3) more predication support (conditional execution) especially on load and stores
4) support for speculative load and check
How much more silicon will that cost ya? another 5%?
Hasdi
Heh...they're gonna need -something- to replace Alpha. The way things have been going, I'd expect to see Sledgehammer hit before Itanium(snicker) or Itanium Pro or Itanium II or Itanium: The Revenge (whatever they're gonna rename McKinley, widely acknowledged as being the first -useable- generation of IA-64. It's also still up in the air whether it will have x86 compatibility in addition to PA-RISC compatibility. HP ain't interested in pushing low-ball boxes to legacy windows drones.)
SoupIsGood Food
A lot of people complain about Java because it's Run Everywhere theory isn't overly useful to them. They get pretty good portability from C, and why would they want to give up the processing speed for a questionable advantage?
But I see a lot of people here saying that AMD's "compromise" will succeed cause it won't force developers to port everything all at once. It'll save a lot of work, so it'll succeed over Merced. Some also bemoan that this means a lesser quality chip will win. A drastic change in architecture is too risky, they say.
But, Java is also portable to anything new that comes along, so an advantage of the VM architecture is there isn't as much reason to fear drastic innovation in the underlying hardware. This is major, IMO. My code will work anywhere, once someone ports the VM to it. A single port, and everyone's code is brought to the new hardware. This is why many people argue that the greater flexibility of the VM architecture is worth the relatively minor performance hit and even the larger memory hit.
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
To me, it's a bit like having to handle the metric system and the American system of measurement. It's useless and only clutters everything up.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
The iMac had no floppy, no serial, no ADB, no SCSI, and no ROM. People complained about that, but lately I haven't heard anyone who bought one complaining. Apple's been pretty agressive about ditching archaic technologies of late, and for a while they caught a lot of flak for it. But if backwards-compatibility is holding computer back, we'll start reaping the benefits when all Macs are running a fully native OS X on multiple-processor G5's, with USB, firewire, and 100-BT ethernet as peripheral technologies.
Whatever the merits of closed versus open systems, a closed system like the Mac does allow Apple to push new technologies more aggressively.
Not necessarily. PowerPC is very nice these days, with AltiVec and all. But it's still fundamentally a 32-bit processor. If 64-bit matters, IBM and Mot are going to have to take the 64-bit architecture of the Power3 down to the PowerPC level. And stop battling amongst themselves on who is and isn't going to support what feature. And get some real momentum behind an Open PPC platform with some real OS choices (the hell with Apple), maybe produce a G4 processor on the EV6 bus, to let it drop in to existing (or soon to exist) commodity motherboards. And so on...
-Dave Haynie
Stop spreading FUD.
Compaq are betting the high-end farm on Tru64/Alpha.
And even if Compaq went bust, Samsung have both design and fab rights.
No one has to license an instruction set, there's never been any special protection for this. Of course, Intel may have specific protection, in the form of patents, which would prevent anyone from cloning an IA-64 machine, or make it difficult. I would expect that AMD studied the IA-64 architecture, legally and technically, before making the rather bold decision to strike out on their own. At least that keeps things interesting. I suspect the rationale will fall out eventually. Could be they think the world will be slow to move to IA-64, that they'll be able to release faster chips before Intel does, or that there are just too many technical and legal stumbling blocks in the way of IA-64 clones.
-Dave Haynie
400 Quatloos to the first one who can identify the reference.
Well, they'll have to be careful about using sledgehammers (the tool) in their commercials when its released. Apple might want to sue because they are infringing on 'their' creative pioneering. (Apple's '1984' commercial with the person running in and chucking the sledge into the screen.)
How twisted would that be? The new Sledgehammer has that same ad except it says "AMD" instead of "Apple" and they debue the new processor in a box that is painted so it looks like one of the old Mac Classics...
I will agree with one of the other poster's about Peter Gabriel's song potentially being in one of the ads...even though I really don't care for the song.
Ok, back to work...
-Vel
You left out:
MIPS,
ALPHA,
PowerPC, and
UltraSPARC
To name four.
There's more to life than the Wintel morass.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Now we can honestly say that the SledgeHammer crushes Merced... in more ways than one! :)
Unfortunately Perl and TCL are complete crap languages. Java and Python are the only way to go. C++ is OK too.
From what I understand, they made the name Pentium because of copyright issues. Apparently a bunch of small no name chip competitors were trying to pass off their chips that had 486 on them, as Intel chips. People would see the 486, and assume it was an Intel chip, when it might not be. So Intel named the 586 the Pentium so those companies couldnt' trick consumers as easily.
This is hilarious idea. If anyone from AMD or associated ad agencies is listening / reading, please follow up on this!
... make fun of pompous, 'we're so offical' Intel, which Intel's bunnysuits are a lame attempt at ...
That show was vastly underrated; I haven't thought of it in many years. There could be a great funny ad series based on it
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
I seem to be on a shameless Apple-shilling streak here, but this is precisely what Apple did when it moved to the PowerPC. The first PPC Macs ran all of the 68k instruction set is software, and managed to do it so seamlessly that most users didn't even notice. This made the OS slower than it needed to be for a while, but they wrote the most critical components of the OS (particularly Quickdraw) natively in the first OS release, so that the OS didn't slow things down too much. They managed to ditch an inferior architecture completely, and the result has been that the G3's are tiny, fast, and low-power compared with PIII's and K7's. And as of 8.5, almost everything is running PPC-native, so they've left the old architecture behind completely.
AMD's problem is they'll either have to convince Microsoft to support their new instruction set and implement backwards compatibility, or they'll have to write all of that themselves. Anyone know if this can be done in a way that's OS-independent, or will the backwards-compatibility features need to be OS-specific?
I'm actually worried about the stress on backward compatibility...while it is good for desktop uses and such...the people that will be running their windows applications.
But for the majority of us who are using unices...why worry about backwards compatibility? Isn't a major point of open source os's/software the ability to recompile it on this new cpu, and have it go...why worry about backwards compatibility when we just have to recompile/run?
That is one of the reasons I like to run FreeBSD and/or Linux. I can upgrade my hardware to something else (switch to a PPC if I so wish) and recompile my linux programs, and I'm set. While this isn't true 100% of the time, a good 95% is good enough for most.
Just some thoughts...
You mean, NetBSD?
Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
I think it's getting real silly the names these companies are putting on their chips. You and I both know that sledgehammer is a cool name, but the Marketoids will never let it appear on the the packaging it comes in.
This is a boring sig
Well, I can't name names (that would be rude) but I am personally aware of at least two cases. So what you're saying goes beyond mere speculation -- it has actually happened. The situation was a bit more complex than merely buying Microsoft, though. It had more to do with trashing good systems (both hardware and software), spending literally half a million dollars buying new computers with all Microsoft products on them, and then, in the end, having a system that didn't work. The people responsible are no longer around. Now I'm cleaning up the mess. The MS OSes are being allowed to remain, and of course no one complains about the newer hardware. But the Windows apps are useless, and they're being replaced with DOS apps. (I'm talking about huge customized database apps here -- not spreadsheets, word processors, etc.) It's too bad they couldn't lose the office apps too, or else we could have just dumped the whole Windoze platform and moved 'em up to 90s technology. Oh well.
Anyway, just a word of advice: If you don't like your current job, start using Microsoft Access and Visual Basic. It's a great way to get extremely fired, if that's your goal. (That is some of the shittiest and most useless stuff I have ever seen.) You'll also make good work for people like me when we're called in to replace all that shit with stuff that works and can be maintained.
http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/whois/whoi s/whois?ALEREON-DOM
I bet their "x86 64" is a 64-bit version of the "RISC-86" internal op-set that Athlon uses, or something similar. Of course, all modern x86 chips are really RISC engines that run RISCified x86 op-codes of one form or another. This originated at NexGen, before AMD bought them or Intel used similar techniques in the P-Pro and PII. The original Nx586 could actually run "naked" RISC-86 instructions, though no one used it that way. Now, if you take the concept forward ten years, you could define and perhaps clean up the RISC-86 instruction set as an orthogonal set with more registers, but still very x86 flavored. To the point, in fact, where the op-code translator can take the true x86 op-codes and produce 32-bit versions of the RISC-ops, but they could run naked as well, this all being determined via a context bit somewhere, to allow an OS to switch modes. Pop this onto a Slot-A module, and they might actually have something, in the ability to upgrade today's 32-bit systems in-place and compatibly. The EV6 bus of Slot-A is already proven on Alpha 21264 64-bit systems, it's not screaming to be replaces as Intel's P6 bus is. Intel, of course, announced long ago that Merced would run on a yet-to-be-described "Slot M", and suggested a version of the Pentium would lead that bus in, but this hasn't happened yet. That's not to suggest any RISC-86 notion is going to be as clean or elegant as EPIC, PPC, MAJC, or anything cool and new. On the other hand, x86 has never been about what's cool, but what's practical. AMD could pull off a coup of practicality if this Sledgehammer thing comes out in a timely fashion. That would pretty much have to be before IA-64 is established anywhere buy in UNIX servers.
-Dave Haynie
Merced : Itanium :: Sledgehammer : ?
That is to say, Sledgehammer is only the code name for the Processor. AMD still has the chance of screwing up the name. Hopefully they won't, but they did come up with "Athlon"...
i dont display scores, and my threshhold is -1. post accordingly.
Discuss
If this news is true, then AMD will have faster chips than what Intel offers, because there's a such tremendous lag between hardware advances and software advances. They won't just offer economy, they'll have superior performance on old code. 386 software (i.e. "32-bit") didn't get popular until about about nine years after the introduction of 386 PCs. If, between 1986 and 1995, some company had made a processor that ran 286 code faster than Intel's chips, don't you think it would have caught on?
In fact, even as late as the mid-90s, something similar to that happened: Intel had the Pentium chip, and tried to introduce the Pentium Pro, which ran 386 code faster than the Pentium, but ran 86/286 code slower. What chip did most x86 users end up buying? The Pentium, because their software wasn't compiled for the 386. The "Pro" flopped. The market chose the processor that was better at running old code.
Perhaps I misunderstand you, but those sound like arguments in favor of the SledgeHammer, not Merced...
Oh, by the way, speaking of Macs... I think this is good news for the PPC. If Merced and SledgeHammer split the x86 market in offering 64-bit successors to the 386, and their 64-bit instruction sets are incompatable, it will hinder Intel's (and AMD's) attempt to establish a 64-bit defacto standard. That just makes the 64-bit market easier for everyone else.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
How about "Thor's Hammer" instead. If you remember, back when Carmack was doing his original research on the first Quake, the 'quakeguy' was going to be a badass carrying Thor's Hammer? Yup...
Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
i would define on the market to be something i can purchase by myself and build a computer around... you can't do that with any of the other architectures. Ever seen a SPARC chip for sale?
I mean, why bother having different brand names on anything? Which DVD player should I buy: RCA, Pioneer, Sony, Samsung, ...? Without looking at the tech sheets, all I have is the general impression the company name gives me (from familiarity with other products by that comapny and/or reviews by other consumers). Oh, and never mind that each company makes several different models of player -- I have to look up the differences between them, too. And of course, there's no distinguishable pattern in model numbers between brands.
--
Or Microsoft.
Or Intel.
So the Merced (er Itanium) is going to be more of a pain in the ass to code for. They still will. Its the accepted market practice, right?
I keep trying to pick fights, but I can't shake this Excellent karma.
"GuiAmp technical support."
"Yeah, my GuiAmp won't run right -- it's choppy."
"Okay. What speed is your machine?"
"It's a 5671."
"A what?"
"A 5671 -- It's a Compaq."
"Um . .
----------
Kick Ass Computer Game Requirements:
400mhz processor w/ 128MB RAM
300MB Hard Disk Space
The point of this being that a lot of people don't understand that a Compaq 5671 is a brand and not a chip or a clock-speed. They look at the requirements on the back of a cool new game and haven't a single clue as to whether their machine meets the requirements. What if instead of buying a Compaq 4563 with a SledgeHammer K4-800, you just bought a Compaq 786/800mhz? Or an IBM 786/800mhz? You still have the brand-name and ability evquivalent.
Should you (or a customer you have to deal with through technical support or otherwise) have to refer to a massive catalog everytime you simply want to know what chip is in the machine joe-blow is talking about? What if your friend had a Maxtor Killer HD 455? What the hell does that mean? That doesn't tell you how *big* the drive is.
There was a time when Cyrix was a big competitor along with AMD and Intel. And during that time, all three still used (I believe) the simple x86/mhz format for naming. It was simple. It was sensible. And it didn't make you feel like you were buying a fuzzy bunny for your two-year-old or a GI Joe doll for your nephew.
I know this is nit-picking, but while all of these companies are trying to make their machines sound friendlier by giving them cute or fuzzy names, they're confusing the new consumers who draw a blank when you ask them anything about the very machine they sit at ten hours a day.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
They have not released much info to say that it will be better than Itanium. Additionally, I am always cautious of things that promised to be easier and still yet faster. Engineers know that there is something called optimization. Usually, the ease of use variable and speed variable are competing ones. That is to say, if it is easier to program, then the chip is most likely doing more for you and will probably eat some cycles from your program. Just may 2 cents.
I can't help but think that if Intel and AMD are going to battle it out with different 64 bit standards, the real winner is going to be PowerPC.
Oh, and that little OS that has proved so portability friendly (and that distributes most of its apps as source code).
-
I didn't get my own computer untill the summer of 1995.... I was deprived :(
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Hi there,
Did you try reading my post at all?
I was not talking about data word size -- I am well aware of the benifits of 64-bit native arithmetic.
I was not talking about address word size -- I am well aware of the limitations of a 32-bit address space.
I was talking about instruction word size. That is, the size of the word each individual operation is stored in.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
But who will they get to promote it?
(Close up of an Intel chip. The chip suddenly explodes and we pan to show David "Sledge Hammer" Rasche reloading his silver Magnum)
Hammer:
"Trust me. I know what I'm doing. And if you know what you're doing you'll be sure to choose the right 64 bit processor -- the AMD SledgeHammer! It kills the competition and with it's easy-to-program x86 64 architecture even I can write efficient code!"
(Hammer finishes loading his gun while giving this speech, turns around to face a different camera and aims the weapon directly at the viewer.)
Hammer:
"So remember, if you don't want to end up a cyber-chalk outline on the cyber-streets of the cyber-future get yourself a SledgeHammer!"
If what they say about having faster performance with x86 code that Merced is true, then this is a good strategy. From what I hear its very unlikely Microsoft will have an un-kludged 64-bit version of Windows NT ready by the time Merced (or even McKinley) ships. That means we're likely to see people running 32 bit Windows code on 64 bit Intel processors, and seeing only trivial performance inprovements relative to what is possible, for some time to come. Remind you of anything ?
If take-up on the IA-64 instruction set on Windows is slow, and I strongly suspect it will be because of lack of (a certain) OS support and lack of software usage, this definitely gives AMD an opening for a new (or recycled) instruction set on a processor that will run 32 bit software faster than Merced. Maybe they can even pull it off.
So how will the sledgehammer compare to the 21264 or the Itanium (snicker)? The 21264 (Compaq) are very fast chips, and are only getting faster. Any theoretical specs out there?
-- Moondog
Isn't that the sort of thing that drives upgrading and all the rest? Really, if all I was doing was compiling code and doing minimal webserving (nevermind that that's exactly what I'm doing, yet I have a k6-2 300), I'd probably be relatively happy with a 1MB video card and a 486DX. My machine compiles code at a speed that's fast enough for me, so, if I'm looking for benchmarks that have nothing to do with FPS, why would I want to spend all the money on excessive hardware?
Save the children; quit overparenting!
Hey, did AMD not recently proclaim something 'bout Transmeta's interest in using their Dresden fab for their whiz-bang-gizmo-processor? Why not connect these together and create a Transhammer-Sladgemeta-whatever. I mean, that rumour mill want to be fed, right? And you have to forge the Itanium^Wiron when it is hot, not?
CC/F
--frank[at]unternet.org
Sh! Itanium
shite-aye-knee-um
__
Arse
my mistake.. i forgot the alphas.. you can actually buy them.
There already exists an Intel-incompatible 64 bit chip for a long time, called Alpha. There's also the UltraSparc. What's new and exciting is waiting for us in 2001 that we don't have now? I thought the whole idea of AMD was to produce Intel-compatible chips for a smaller price; if they're doing different processors then there are already plenty of them, and for a pretty small market too. AMD's market position blurs somewhat.
Unfortunately this article is rather short on details. What I would like to know is how
AMD intend to extend the x86 intruction set
into 64-bits. I really hope they don't
just tweak the old CISC x86 instruction set with new addressing mode or something like that.
It would be much better for them to design a new 64-bit instruction set (or base it on the Alpha).
They could do this while still maintaining compatibility as follows:
The modern generation of x86 processors
all use a 32-bit RISC-like core with a hardware
translation from 32-bit x86 CISC.
AMD could
design a 64-bit RISC core and a hardware translation from 32-bit x86 CISC to 64-bit RISC.
They could then allow programmers to
bypass the translation and program directly for the RISC core, while still allowing x86 code to be executed.
Actually, I strongly suspect that this IS the way that AMD will go. The old NexGen CPUs (which AMD bought) allowed programs to be written directly for the RISC core bypassing the x86 translation step. However, I don't think any programs were ever written to take advantage of this.
i've seen a 186, it was on some kind of communications device, i think the 186's are used in embedded applications
Need a Catering Connection
Answers: "16" and "Z8000".
(From the "AmZ8000 Microprocessor Family", 1978)
I don't know much about chip design, I'm but a lowly DBA, but would it be possible to put two chips on a motherboard? One to handle x86 code and the new 64 bit chip to handle the new code. With the prices of a Celeron or K6-2 being what they are it wouldn't be too much more expensive, and could eventually be phased out. Is this possible?
Non gratis rodentus anus
What will they really call this chip if and when it's released? The AMD Thorium? Includes a free sledgehammer sculpted out of thorium metal!
In some of the posts above, there's mention of cheap aplha hardware. I'd like to give a more clean architecture a shot, and the OpenPCs are too far off on the horizon. (And I have reservations about contributing to Apple, so that's not an option.) Do they sell mobos and cases? I've always been partial to building my own, but if there are cheap clones out there, I'd take a gander at them.
Thanks.
I'm not going to buy a SledgeHammer or Itanium because they have some consumer-friendly name. My decision, like most others, will be based on whether it can handle MP3's without skipping and what kind of benchmarks it achieves (and no, I don't mean how many FPS it gives you when you're fragging in Quake3).
Of course, I suppose we have Andy Groves and Intel to thank for this rediculous trend back when they were scared-to-death that they would lose business, not to a better product, but to the fact that they could not patent a number. (Sorry Davey, we can't teach you to count to ten because Intel owns the number five.)
Now every company employs legions of brain-dead marketing types who spend an entire year to come up with something as brilliant as Itanium. I could have asked a class of first-grade children to suggest more interesting and appealing names than these.
Whoops... Look what time it is... I better get back to my E-work on my I-machine before my Net-boss rips me a new A-hole. (After all, we're now being surveilled by a fleet of Radio-Shack cameras).
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
Interesting times up ahead for CPUs... Sun's UltraSparc-III should be selling by December, and looks pretty damn speedy. More and faster Alpha's coming. Merced is just a test/development platform btw, and won't be that great anyway - the IA-64 design itself has some designed-in limitations, and the Merced design is already a bit of a hack. (anyone want details?) btw, I was reading up some interesting info about Sun's MAJC chip, which is aimed at embedded designs with high-speed data processing, is in a couple of major ways it's actually quite like the IA-64 design, except it has a bunch of other extra spiffy things to make it faster. (want info...?)
This is definitely a compromise solution, but it could work well for AMD. I think that Intel is underestimating the need for backward compatibility (and high performance backward compatibility). Intel is convinced that they now have the market presence required to force the move to an entirely new architecture.
The only problem is if there is an alternative, and AMD appears to be poised to offer just such an alternative.
If they can deliver on the performance end, and I think they can, they will offer a much more attractive solution to users and developers. Users won't have to upgrade apps and OS to get better performance, and it sounds like developers of high end apps might have to make only minor changes to adapt their software to use the 64 bit aspects of the chip.
AMD has essentially decided to continue in the path that Intel has followed for the last 15 years. Intel has decided to veer off that path in favor of a new architecture. AMD has decided that there might still be a few years of profitability in it, and I think that they are right.
-josh
According to the article, the chip will still be compatible with IA-32 software. To use the merced instruction set wouldn't they have to license it from intel, and do you think Intel would cooperate? Seems to me, for AMD to enter the 64-bit chip wars, they have to design their own.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Would it be feasible for them to reimplement one of the existing 64 architechtures (Alpha, MIPS, SPARC, PPC) while keeping support for IA32 in the same chip?
when will the madness end?! i can't believe AMD would want to extend such a horrible arch to 64bits. even intel isn't that dumb! i have no doubt that people will buy this, however, just as i have no doubt that people will continue to buy inferior products from MS.
hopefully x86 will die in the next few years (of course, it'll still be around in the embedded world).
NEC made an 8088 clone with a few extra instructions and a faster clock. They also made a V30 chip.
This would solve the problem of having to bring in more non compatible junk into the market place, and they already share the same Bus protcol. If they were working togeather, with the linux/bsd/beos/sparc fans in mind, they would have all the games/graphics people happy with BeOS, and all the hardcore techies/sience/profesional people happy with the others.
just my 2 cents.
Loren
Intel?? AMD??
To heck with both of them! I'm saving up for a Transmeta!
the commercials could be made by the guy that did the music video... did you know he's the guy who does Wallace & Grommit?
Get off my launchpad!
When Apple (or anyone else) wants to buy 64-bit PPC parts, I'm sure IBM will deliver. In the meantime, the only real demand for them comes from IBM's own RS/6000 and AS/400 divisions.
... because if your app is in perl or python
or zope or ELF or even tcl you can move it
effortlessly from processor to processor. So
if AMD has a kick-a** cpu out in 2001, and
GCC works and the peripherals aren't too wierd
then Linux works, hence python works, hence you
can just move your app to the fast machine and
away you go.
This really works. We've done this with tcl
and perl apps between HPUX, Solaris and Linux
boxes.
-- cary
"(A 64-bit chip processes data in 64 chunks at a time"
Award: most obviously wrong statement about technology in a technology publication.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Hey, my first machine (if you could call it that :) was a V20. I loved it! i still have most of the parts in my basement somewhere. how about the C-64? Now that was a decent machine, totally open source, right down to hardware (I can't count the number of times I've soldered parts onto mine) Sometimes nostalgia is a good thing, even for those of us that are young enough that we should be able to remember this stuff.
Gnothe se Auton
You can buy one now loaded for under 2K
www.thelinuxstore.com
www.dcginc.com
www.microway.com
www.aspsys.com
I hope I'm wrong, but Athlon suits my profile, and that's bad for AMD. I just built a linux raid0 box with AMD K6-III 400, dirt cheap. Once upon a time I built an AMD 5x86 box, really dirt cheap. Now I'm lurking for Sledgehammer64 to bump down an AMD Athlon 32-bit crumb while it's still cake. I am mass-man, let me eat cake. Bad, bad mass-man, symmetrical multi-Twinkies are inhuman.
Is AMD spreading themselves too thin? Will everyone jump on the Merced bandwagon and abandon the new AMD chip? Does AMD have the ability to keep up with Intel? I think the first question is probably moot. I would imagine AMD has their share of engineers working on the Athlon. Now they've got to continue future development and that's exactly what they're doing. I can't argue with that strategy. Everyone has to keep pre-planning.
As to everyone skipping out on AMD to head for the Merced chip, I doubt it. Come on, we're all pulling for a new processor that brings us out of the bulky instruction set of 1978 (& probably earlier) 8086s and so forth. We'd love to see Merced be the "chip of the future" and everything else I'm sure Intel is boasting it as. However, we've got to face the music. If someone gives us an opportunity to avoid a drastic change in the x86 instruction set, we'll take it. It sounds like SledgeHammer should kick Merced's butt on running 32 bit code, and we're just gonna have that stuff running around. It doesn't sound like it will be too hard to port stuff to the new AMD chip while Intel's chip may take some work.
I think what it comes down to is AMD opens a new market. People who don't want to spend tons on new ports, but want their code to execute at speeds not limited by 32 bits and 100MHz busses and so forth. (233MHz Athlons soon? -- that rocks!) This then gives AMD an opportunity to produce another chip (Bulldozer perhaps?) that may support Merced, or may not. Depending on how Merced catches on.
I say kudos to AMD. They've got to make a move to pass Intel somehow and it can't come from following in their shadow. They've got to get this show on the road and make a presumptive move. I think they picked a great choice. Not getting stuck in the middle of the road, but not totally commiting to something completely different.
geisel
At least if it doesn't work no one can put it on the Periodic Table of Intel Chip Flops.
I just don't like it when companies say they are going to release a new product without any important specs. They say that they aren't going to be "compatible" with intel chips. Does that mean they aren't going to make the EPIC chipset? Is it going to be RISC? "x86 64"? Does that mean its going to be CISC? They didn't even release the starting speeds. These are little tidbits people need to know when they are planning to buy the 64bit AMD instead of buying the "Itanium". At least we know it won't be crap.
it would be interesting to see if someone took the name the wrong way and tried to break walls with it. I can see it now. "*blam blam blam* Damnit!" "whats wrong?" "this new sledghammer only breaks itself! And I spent $5000 on it!" "uh.."
Your mouse has moved. Windows NT must be restarted for the change to take effect. Reboot now? [ OK ]