IA-64

[garfield]

Intel IA-64 will have a complete different instruction set. Don't they know what this means to the end user??? What are they thinking?

At the same time, AMD's 64-bit architecure is claimed compatible with the existing 32-bit ones. (I didn't verify this.)

What will happen???

[saphalline]

If you look at microprocessor history, you'll notice that processor 'bit size' has been doubling all along. The last doubling happened when the 386-class processors at 16-bit were replaced by the 486-class processors at 32-bit.

Hmm... come to think of it, that's how the whole 16-bit vs. 32-bit applications problems started, and wasn't Windows 95 supposed to fix that? %#&$, this round of 32-bit to 64-bit processors could get ugly!!

Let us hope and pray to the powers that be, let us pray that Microsoft, Intel, and AMD are able to come to a compromise. And a set of standards that actually works. What we really need is a 64-bit OS (Windows 64? haha!) to handle the pre-assembling of 32-bit apps for 64-bit processors. Essentially, that's what the Win 9x kernel does for older DOS and 16-bit programs, though not very efficiently.

Then again, with processor speed skyrocketing through the roof, will we really notice another inefficient 'bit size' transfer? Let's say that tomorrow, Intel unveils a 2GHz 64-bit processor and Microsoft unveils a bad 64-bit OS (the probability of the two happening simultaneously is nearly 100%!). Even if the inefficiency of the OS is rated at a 400% reduction in speed, we're still looking at running standard 32-bit apps at 500MHz, certainly sufficient for Office 2000. And because Intel and AMD have been promising everyone a 64-bit processor for years now, and because Microsoft is probably already working on a 64-bit OS (with all the time they saved on only releasing one OS lately), we're likely to see much faster 64-bit procs and a more efficient 64-bit OS by the time they come to fruition.

My main concern is whether or not the two architectures from Intel and AMD will spawn Intel and AMD OSes; a spin-off in Mac OS style, if you will. Overall, though, I think Microsoft will pull off a decent enough "bridge" OS to tide us over until 2nd gen 64-bit procs and apps come out (think about Win 98 and how much better it was than 95). No doubt about it, however, that it will be a rather bumpy ride, and one likely to leave a few of your programs and hardware parts behind. It always happens http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/wink.gif


* thank goodness for editing! it helps to proofread before you post, tho *

[This message has been edited by saphalline (edited 03-12-2002).]

[This message has been edited by saphalline (edited 03-12-2002).]

[hiredgoonz]

M$ already has a 64-bit OS, there is also a 64-bit version of Linux (this has been shown off running on AMD's new 64/32bit hammer series)


------------------
When all else fails, read the instructions.

Microsoft Knowledge Base (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;rid;kbinfo)

Google (http://www.google.com)

[garfield]

I don't like Intel's idea. It's not just about performance. I'm afraid I'll have to purchase the 64-bit version of all of s/w I'm using unless Intel has some secret weapon.

If this is true, I bet AMD will win this war.

[hiredgoonz]

It really seems like AMD had the better idea, but Intel has one HUGE thing going for it: brand recognition.

Intel is so big, and to be fair has made a superior product to anyone else most of the time, that it gives them an enormous amount of power in the market.

AMD is having trouble breaking into the business/server markets. Partly this has to do with distrust of 3rd party chipsets for AMD chips.

Intel does a pretty good job with its own chipsets and companies sort of follow the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. They've been using Intel for so long, they don't want to change...

------------------
When all else fails, read the instructions.

Microsoft Knowledge Base (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;rid;kbinfo)

Drivers (http://www.driverguide.com)

Google (http://www.google.com)

[mjc]

No, no secret weapon....in fact Intel an M$ are banking on the fact that in order to get the best performance you would need new software.

It is not that the current 32 bit apps would all cease to to work, it is they would not be as fast...

And there is current technology that could be employed that could have the 32bit programs "see" each 64-bit register as 2 32-bit ones, but I doubt that Intel would use such a measure, because in effect it would be like doubling the capabilites of the processor...for free, when run with 32-bit apps. It would be kind of like what happend with some of the early Celeron chips...they did not have the same cache as the Pentiums chips, but they could be wildly overclocked and outperform the PIII that ran at stock speeds, so Intel "locked" the multiplier setting so no matter what the multilpier is set to the chip ignores it and runs at the locked setting.....

So if the AMD chip is going to be able to run the current 32-bit programs and not suffer or artificially make them seem lacking, then yes it will "hammer" the Intel chips.....


------------------
mjc
Links list:Computer Links (http://www.dreamwater.org/tech/mjc/index.htm)

Celts are the men that heaven made mad, For all their battles are merry and their songs are all sad.

[hiredgoonz]

That's pretty much the idea with the hammer series...during the demos they had two 3d apps running at the same time, one 64-bit and the other 32-bit. Both ran the same.

It's almost like the situation with the Pentium pro...faster when run with only 32bit code, but the same with 16bit...

------------------
When all else fails, read the instructions.

Microsoft Knowledge Base (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;rid;kbinfo)

Drivers (http://www.driverguide.com)

Google (http://www.google.com)

[Ghost_Hacker]

I must admit I find the AMD way a bit baffling.

Why would anyone use a 64 bit processor with a 64 bit OS to run 32 bit programs???? (or worst a 32 bit OS) Since the 64 bit processor is proably going to be a server only solution for now. I can't see any shop investing in a 64 bit box till after they updated their programs to run on it. If AMD is going for the workstation market. Then I would guess that the same "rule" would apply. I just don't see a demand for 64 bit procs that can run 32 bit apps.

[hiredgoonz]

I think it's for backwards compatibility without a performance loss...even when people start using a 64-bit OS, they're going to need 32-bit apps, cause 64-bit versions won't necessarily exist yet.

Isn't it kinda like with 16-bit DOS code that you can run on 32-bit Windows?

The intel chip will still work with 32-bit software, but at a huge performance loss...

------------------
When all else fails, read the instructions.

Microsoft Knowledge Base (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;rid;kbinfo)

Drivers (http://www.driverguide.com)

Google (http://www.google.com)

[Ghost_Hacker]

Isn't it kinda like with 16-bit DOS code that you can run on 32-bit Windows?


Yes, it's the same situation but with one difference I think.
When folks where moving from 16 to 32 bit there was a "killer" app (PnP).
I installed Windows 95 just to get plug and play. Even though all my apps where dos games.

I don't see any killer consumer app for a 64 bit OS and without it there is no reason to install a 64 bit OS and use a 64 bit Processor. You would only do so if forced to by an OS makers upgrade path.


As I see it the 64 bit ISA is for servers and high end workstations where the move won't come till after those companies have migrated the bulk of thier apps to a 64 bit ISA. In which case backwards compatabilty isn't really that important.( unless you have some really big need to move to 64 right now.)

[This message has been edited by Ghost_Hacker (edited 03-13-2002).]

[hiredgoonz]

Yeah, I see your point...maybe AMD is trying to cut production costs by using a similar chip design for corporate and home solutions.

Corporate wants 64 now and eventually they'll need a 64-bit home solution...I don't know, just guessing...

------------------
When all else fails, read the instructions.

Microsoft Knowledge Base (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;rid;kbinfo)

Drivers (http://www.driverguide.com)

Google (http://www.google.com)

[mjc]

So basically what it looks like, for at least the next couple of years, is a slow crawl to 64-bit?

That could be better than the way the change over to 32-bit happened. At least we know it is on the horizon and someday will get here....

------------------
mjc
Links list:Computer Links (http://www.dreamwater.org/tech/mjc/index.htm)

Celts are the men that heaven made mad, For all their battles are merry and their songs are all sad.

[hiredgoonz]

It is funny though that there are STILL 16-bit DOS apps in use, while everyone is talking about 64-bit cpus...

------------------
When all else fails, read the instructions.

Microsoft Knowledge Base (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;rid;kbinfo)

Drivers (http://www.driverguide.com)

Google (http://www.google.com)

[garfield]

it's a good point about the migration from 32-bit to 64-bit apps. but i don't believe it would be that simple.

i thought the new cpu's instruction set was not compatible with the old 32-bit ones. i'll have a close look at their documents.

i also read (at www.mindshare.com) (http://www.mindshare.com)) that intel will not disclose details of their ia-64, except programmer's reference. what does it mean to the cpu industry?

[Ghost_Hacker]

I've been doing some reading on the Intel chip. So far it seems that the market for this chip is not the desktop user. Rather the chip is designed for massive SMP and high transaction database work and should compete with the newest Sun chips running 64 bit Unix. ( You can always tell a "server" chip by the size of it's L2 or sometimes L3 cache http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif )

There are some good articles here: Ace's Hardware (http://www.aceshardware.com/docs/articles.jsp) about the chip and many others.

i thought the new cpu's instruction set was not compatible with the old 32-bit ones


It's not, but Intel uses a hardware translator to convert x86 ISA to the "64" ISA. This is why the preformance drops off when running 32 bit apps.



[This message has been edited by Ghost_Hacker (edited 03-15-2002).]

[garfield]

thanks for the link, i bookmarked it. it'll be interesting to see what will happen to ia-64. and thanks for you guys' comments.

[iisbob]

Don't recall it being mentioned here; but AMD'S X86-64 and Intel
's IA-64 are two diferent architechture's; the X86 one from AMD will run current 32 bit apps with no modifications, whereas as GH mentioned, the Intel chip needs an emulator. When the first 32 bit CPU's hit the market ( 386's as i recall ) on most program's you had to run an emulation program in order for the 16 bit software to not be overwhelmed by the hardware, remember , this was about 8 years before the first windows OS ( NT ) and DOS { with accompying 16 bit apps } still ruled the PC world.

As in other PC hardware advances, i imagine that within 2-5 years all cpu sales will be 64 bit ( with 16 general purpose registers-not the 32 that CISC's have ) this is cheaper yet still provides the improved memory handling in the cpu. I'm also sure that Longhorn, after Blackcomb, will be entirely a 64 bit OS-as will the next gen of games, and other home software will soon follow suit.

Not to worry tho, all current 32 bit apps will run just fine on the new 64 bit CPU's; niether Intel nor AMD are so stupid as to put themselves out of the Personal PC market, the only caveat is that the software won't run any better on these new CPU's, but it will give you the option to handle 64 bit ( or 4 word ) programs when/as they are avaialable while still letting you use your old software.



------------------
iisbob

"It is by the fortune of God that, in this country, we have three benefits: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the wisdom never to use either."
-Mark Twain { Samuel Clemen's }

[garfield]

it was not mentioned explicitly. when i asked the question, i was aware of this. my question is about how intel can sell their new cpu without backward compability. this has been answered.

but your post reminds me another problem: microsoft has to support two different 64-bit platforms. as far as i know, windows nt no longer supports alpha. i don't know why. if it's difficult to maintain an os for two different platforms, ms may have to give up one of amd and intel.

i also mentioned intel would not disclose the 64-bit cpu design (see www.mindshare.com, (http://www.mindshare.com,) they cannot continue their pc architecure course because of this.) i don't know what this means to amd and other cpu manufacturers.