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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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-->
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.
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.
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.
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.
Folks seem to have the idea that companies, chip or otherwise, are somehow single-tasking entities. This couldn't be further from the truth. Most chip companies work on several projects in parallel, and if it's a competitive line such as CPUs or 3D graphics chips, these projects overlap (this has been SOP at Intel & Motorola, for example, since the 80s). AMD previously mentioned that the design team derived from the NexGen team, the folks who did the K6, are not the people behind the K7. So, presumably, they aren't sitting around playing Quake III, they're working on something new. More than likely, it's a CPU, and since these folks have proven pretty hot on architecture in the past, doing so in the present wouldn't be a surprise. As for Athlon, it's in production. Unless they do any more true versions of the chip (eg, K7-2, etc) or have major production problems, there is no chip designer work left on the Athlon project anyway. Whatever they're doing now is more than likely process tweaks, die shrinks, etc. That's different people, unless there's some redesign necessary along with a shrink -- anyway, not enough work to occupy a whole uP design team. So these guys are likely on to bigger and better things now, too.
-Dave Haynie
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
- 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?
Intel?? AMD??
To heck with both of them! I'm saving up for a Transmeta!
Why do you think the Merced/IA-64 would be worse to code for? Unless you're doing hand-rolled assembly, the burden is pushed onto the COMPILER, not the programmer.
So yer C will work just like normal C, eh? You don't have to know about predication, VLIW, load speculation or so forth anymore than you have to obsess about how many bits are used by a branch predictor's history today.
On the other hand, if you, for some godawful reason, need to use 32-bit instructions on a Merced, then yes -- from what we know, you'll take a hit. But otherwise it's the compiler's problem.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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.
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 ]