Intel's new 64-bit chip

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » February 18th, 2004, 11:04 pm

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,114820,00.asp
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,114835,00.asp

Aggressor Prime · February 18th, 2004, 11:24 pm

Yes.
Finally Intel joins the AMD64 race.
With AMD64 as the standard, Intel will not only help themselves out, but also AMD.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » February 18th, 2004, 11:26 pm

It sounds like Intel is actually developing a new instruction set that is compatable with AMD64, its not AMD64.

Aggressor Prime · February 18th, 2004, 11:49 pm

The situation is this:
Itaniums for public
or
Intel 64 for the public
or
Intel w/ AMD64 for the public

Results:
Itanium- Too expensive, hot, and bulky (slot, not socket).
Intel 64- Too long of time for programs to be compatible with
w/ AMD64- Perfect, Windows 64 is already out and programs are on the way

PS: You can't make an instruction set that will be compatible with AMD64, you have to use AMD64. More here.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » February 19th, 2004, 3:27 am

uh.. When windows 64 is out... Intel 64 can use it becuase guess what IT IS 64 BIT

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » February 19th, 2004, 5:43 am

Let me explain.
Yes, it is 64-Bit.
But...
Windows XP 64-Bit IA-64 works only with IA-64 instructions (Itanium)
Windows XP 64-Bit AMD64 works only with AMD64 instructions (Athlon 64 and Opteron)
You have to make an operating system that not only is 64-Bit, but is also compatible with the hardware.
It took about a year to launch the compatible version for AMD64.
Microsoft worked its fastest on this and Intel does not want to wait one year.
So they just adopt AMD64 Instructions.
Besides, please click on the link above and read. I wasting my time sumerizes what experts say.

HARD TRUTH YOU CAN'T DENY:
2 Windows XP 64-Bit
-IA-64 (Itanium 1 and 2)
-AMD64 (Athlon 64, Opteron, Pentium 5, Pentium 5 Xeon, and Pentium 5 Celeron + any others like Centrino or whatever)

Intel 64 will cost Intel too much, will delay the launch of 64-Bit for average Intel users (people that don't waste >$1000 for a CPU), and will make the world less universal (people will have to be careful when buying software that is in 3 formats, 2 of which are most popular)

Intel 64 would just mess everything up. It would save Intel if they just use AMD64. And this is what they plan to do. Of course they can spend billions on coming up with their own and go out of business due to 1 year of slow 32-Bit CPUs and cheap CPUs. But Intel is not like that.

Of course you are wondering, am I bias about this. I can faithfully say I am not. While I do not like Intel for taking AMD's architech (they would be crushed or close to it if they didn't), if they take it; we can expect AMD to slap them in the face (K9). Aren't CPU wars so interesting. It helps the population a lot (price cuts and faster CPUs).

smileymattj · Post by **smileymattj** » November 20th, 2004, 1:55 am

oh my god shut up, WinXP 64 bit was out before atlon 64 how could they make it for it, and was made for servers not home computers, bet it was compatible with the operon,

also wonder why the intel 64 bit processor is not highly compatiable for the average user

average users are stupid

the itanium was made for servers. compare what is compariable.

Intel doenst have a 64 bit processor for average users because the need is not there, do you see any 64 bit apps selling in walkie-mart, dont worry when 64 bit processors are needed for home comptuing Intel will have one designed 100 times better. now they just stick to were it counts.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » November 20th, 2004, 2:01 am

amd users are "average" users

meaning you Connor

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 20th, 2004, 2:02 am

AMD64 was just an inexpensive upgradibility path.
For gamers, it means extreme gaming performance increases.
64-Bit is ~17% than 32-Bit.

smileymattj · Post by **smileymattj** » November 20th, 2004, 2:07 am

what the f84350897435897klfsdh uigkb4ytilfsdjlkfd rukt;hsDLJKFHDGSEDF
amd IS way more expensive for their almost good s&*t

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 20th, 2004, 2:16 am

Huh?

Intel Pentium 4 3.46GHz EE

AMD Athlon 64 FX-55

Yep, AMD is really more expensive than Intel.

Even the AMD Athlon 64 3200 (90nm) beats the Pentium 4 3.46GHz EE.
That is a $860.00 price difference in favor of AMD, and AMD still wins.

smileymattj · Post by **smileymattj** » November 20th, 2004, 2:33 am

wonder why intel has more cache, anyway its way better than the 64 fx you posted so it should cost more.

although this one is still better than the AMD, its a closer one to the AMD

http://store.compbus.us/inpe4380lg1m.html

also AMD is lagging behind with DDR2 and PCI express, read up on them, that teamed up with the intel will murder AMD.

dont know where you got that chart but its way wrong, looks like you through it together useing word.[/url]

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 20th, 2004, 2:38 am

Click on the chart.

Also, AMD has PCI Express through nVidia, ATI, VIA, and SIS chipsets.
AMD even has SLI through the nForce 4 SLI.

And about DDR2.
Until DDRII800 comes out, it is worthless.
A huge latency damages performance, big time.

smileymattj · Post by **smileymattj** » November 20th, 2004, 2:45 am

what ever, if the chart is wrong then the site you got it from will be wrong, ive already shown you a gaming chart indicating intel better, and im not posting all over the place like you,

this is a help forum moderators arn't supposed to strat flame wars.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 20th, 2004, 2:47 am

How do you know I'm a moderator?

smileymattj · Post by **smileymattj** » November 20th, 2004, 2:51 am

the smartest person in my school alt to know.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 20th, 2004, 2:54 am

What does that mean?

smileymattj · Post by **smileymattj** » November 20th, 2004, 3:03 am

means im to smart for my own good, any way, im tired of arguing im going to get a life.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 20th, 2004, 3:13 am

Being the most intelligent at one school doesn't say anything about computer knowledge.
But anyway, I'm on the top track at the top school for the US. Also, I have a 4.0.
So don't go all bragging around me.

smileymattj · Post by **smileymattj** » November 20th, 2004, 3:23 am

hmmmmm. ive had a higher than a 4.0 since 9th grade, also my school has computer classes thats all i take.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 20th, 2004, 3:28 am

Where do you go, public or private?

smileymattj · Post by **smileymattj** » November 20th, 2004, 5:01 am

public anyway this is off topic pm me if you want to know more

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 20th, 2004, 5:31 am

Back to the topic:
Anandtech is a well-known review site and since they say an Athlon 64 3200 > a Pentium 4 3.46GHz EE in Doom 3, it is.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » November 20th, 2004, 5:55 am

And here to prove it, the graph AP keeps posting

Hrmm out 3.8 beats ur 3000+

Now tell me how a 2800+ is going to beat a 4.0

hrmm.. Wow dosen't it just suck that you got owned?

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 20th, 2004, 5:59 am

@2.39GHz with a 265MHz FSB.

OWNED!

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » November 20th, 2004, 6:00 am

okay we can oc our 3.8 too.. OWNED!@

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 20th, 2004, 6:02 am

To what?
3.6GHz of AMD64 power beats 6.0GHz of Intel power.
OWNED right back at you!

This is fun.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » November 20th, 2004, 6:10 am

It cannot beat 6.0 with hyperthreading.. That is complete BS.. I want 4 graphs from 4 DIFFERENT websites to prove that

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 20th, 2004, 6:11 am

HT hurts performance.
It cuts performance in half.
Benchmarks only use one thread unless if you have a special type of benchmark.

You don't need a website. Think of this. We both know those are the GHz.
3000 (1.8)>3.6
3000*2>3.6*2
3.6>7.2
Thus, 3.6GHz of AMD64 power > 6.0GHz of Intel power.

It is simple math.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » November 20th, 2004, 6:17 am

ofcouse I am supposed to believe you because you are the #1 processor genious in the world and know all of the equations because he made the processors.. umm NO!!!!!!!!

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 20th, 2004, 6:18 am

So you don't have an argument against that?
My math is correct, is it not?

And yes, I am a CPU genuis.
Who is the one standing with the "popular" brand?

Nolano · Post by **Nolano** » November 20th, 2004, 4:18 pm

umm... How did we just get owned, tebow? A 3200, a 200 cpu OWNING a 3.8, a 1000 cpu.... Someone just got owned, but it sure as hell wasnt us!

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » November 20th, 2004, 5:18 pm

I've got a question. When 64bit does finally roll around in software, will todays AMD 64 bit be able to handle the software, i mean its going to be at least a year possible two, before any real apps come out, and computers are doubling in performance every 18 months, so is it still worth buying a 64bit processor now, if there is a chance it will be to slow to handle real 64bit apps when they finally come out?

smileymattj · Post by **smileymattj** » November 20th, 2004, 6:27 pm

damn i cant see how you talk so much junk about intel and havent even used one HT will kill AMD, ok here a 3200+ with 512 memory, 128 graphics card, lagged, a 2.8 p4 (old one, not EE or prescott) with 512 memory and 64mb of onboard video didnt, i saw this first hand, and the was with HT off, and with HT on it does not down the performance it ups it, also Intel is working on an improved HT that doesnt memick 2 processors, it will acually be 2 separate processors in one.

64-bit apps wont be out for a while, so you can go buy a 64-bit processor, and have to upgrade when 64-bit apps come out if you want.

and you fuckers say AMD will beat a 4.0, what the hell do you think they are going to put a 100fsb on it or something, no intel is working their fsb just so they can have every spec greater than AMD, to prove hands down they are the best.

no go own your dog.

Nolano · Post by **Nolano** » November 20th, 2004, 9:07 pm

And, because I dont like intel, you assume I havent used one? I've been using Intel for over 10 years, buddy. I switched to AMD because P4's SUCK!!!

calypso06 · Post by **calypso06** » February 5th, 2005, 2:49 am

64 bit archetecture is no news to Intel. What the hell do you think HT is. Its basically 64 bit. Everyone go back to school

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » February 5th, 2005, 5:31 pm

Sorry, but you are confusing 64-bit with multi-cores. 64-bit is a type of instruction. Each line of code is 64-bit. This allows the computer to perform complex instructions easier (and faster). HT, hyper threading, is a faked dual cores. Faked because it just splits the single core into dual cores through software. For example: A Pentium 4 3.8GHz with HT on is the same thing as dual 1.9Ghz Xeons with 512MB of L2 Cache and 8KB of L1 cache along with a FSB of 400MHz. Dual channel PC2-3200 splits 400MHz per virtual core. Thus, your game gets 1.9GHz and your other application in Windows gets 1.9GHz. This is only good for multi-tasking. Multi-cores is multiple cores per die (piece of silicon). An example of this is AMD's Opteron x80. It has 2 Opteron x50 cores on one die. Thats 2.4GHz, 1MB of L2 cache, and 128KB of L1 cache per core. Since AMD has an onboard memory controller, there is no FSB. Dual channel PC-3200 splits 400MHz per core. That is the only problem with multi-cores. You have the same memory speed. This has the same purpose as hyper threading. Summary: 64-bit allows the CPU to solve complex problems easier (faster). Multi-cores/hyper threading allows the CPU to multi-task eaiser.

Nolano · Post by **Nolano** » February 6th, 2005, 11:23 pm

also Intel is working on an improved HT that doesnt memick 2 processors, it will acually be 2 separate processors in one.

Its called dual core. AMD is also working on that and quad core.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » February 7th, 2005, 1:29 am

Both AMD and Intel have committed to launching dual (K9/Smithfield), quad (K10/?), and 8-way (K11/?) multi-core CPUs. The only difference is that AMD will keep the entire CPU's power usage the same (89W) while Intel will increase it (115W Prescott "single core" to 130W Smithfield "dual-core"). Intel's increase of heat will most likely increase. Vantec might have to make a 120mm Tornado fan in order to cool those bad boys. It will be near to impossible for Intel to gain the market's trust if they keep on releasing "small nuclear power plants." I do believe that Intel will get rid of HT once their multi-core CPUs come out. This will be a good thing because HT really didn't have any purpose at all.

ComputerBB

Intel's new 64-bit chip

Intel's new 64-bit chip

GO to bed people