I only wanted to point out that it seems everyone on here is talking about all this great intell 64 architecture which is being 'lost' or what not but why is everybody making it seem as if AMD would have needed to 'run off and make intell clones'?
Granted that the itanium may not have the same architecture as the Xeon which came out beforehand, but are people forgetting that to make the Xeon Intell had reverse engineered the AMD opteron?
It just seemed to me that everyone was giving credit to intell for making the first common 64 processors when it was AMD this time a fisrt, and later coppied.
Who cares as long as the job gets done in the end.
Slashdot Mirror
I only wanted to point out that it seems everyone on here is talking about all this great intell 64 architecture which is being 'lost' or what not but why is everybody making it seem as if AMD would have needed to 'run off and make intell clones'? Granted that the itanium may not have the same architecture as the Xeon which came out beforehand, but are people forgetting that to make the Xeon Intell had reverse engineered the AMD opteron?
5 ,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532
As i remember the article at the time, intell coppied everythign down to a typo in the documentation which AMD later fixed (as well as 2 instruction sets). I cannot find the article i read but doing a simple google search yeilds: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,156187
It just seemed to me that everyone was giving credit to intell for making the first common 64 processors when it was AMD this time a fisrt, and later coppied.
Who cares as long as the job gets done in the end.
And for the record AMD rules.