ComputerBB

Microsoft predicts that by 2006, most computer users will have a 64-Bit machine. Considering that this is only one year after Intel will launch their 64-Bit extensions series and thress years after AMD launched theirs, AMD will lead the way with more experience. The effects of this experience are already being seen. A few examples are the following:
AMD Dual cores with Hyper Threadin by 2005
Intel Dual cores with Hyper Threading by 2006
AMD huge cache increase by 2005
Intel huge cache increase completed (complete failure as seen in the Opteron 848 vs Xeon MP 3.0GHz with 4MB Cache 3)

More here.

Microsoft dosent support AMD 100%

Read the article.

PCWORLD is AMD crazy!!!

Well that is because they know the truth.
Considering schools and other big organizations refer to PCWorld for computer advise, I would guess they are right that AMD conquers Intel and will continue throughout this 64-Bit age.

PS: Intel changed plans for dual cores to 2005 because they feared AMD would get too much attention for being releashed first (2005). Their original plans were for 2006.

when is intel suppose to release their 64? I had heard rumors that they will when they switch to this new naming scheme that they are going to work with. not sure when all that is suppose to happen though.

July

greg wrote:when is intel suppose to release their 64? I had heard rumors that they will when they switch to this new naming scheme that they are going to work with. not sure when all that is suppose to happen though.

Doesn't Intel already have a 64 bit chip out now?

Yes, but a very crappy one indeed

Actually, the chip present now, the Itanium , is actually a very powerful chip. It, however, is disfavored for a few reasons:
High Price ($1000-$6000)
Low 32-Bit Performance (Beaten by Opteron 244)
Low GHz (1.6GHz)
Low Cache 2 (256KB)
Low Cache 1 (32KB)
Low FSB (100MHz)
Bad RAM (PC1600)

However, it does have excellent 64-Bit ability, yet it has been beaten by the Opteron series in that too. If people think the cache will save it, they have no clue what they are talking about. The huge 6MB Cache 3 is only there to try to keep the pressure off of the low FSB (100MHz*2=200MHz).

However, Intel plans to make a couple changes to the Itanium chip by 2006:
32MB Cache 3
Quad Cores
>2.0GHz
Higher FSB (~800MHz)
Same Socket as Xeon (Like a Xeon Supercharged if that says much )

Of course AMD plans to crush Intel. By 2005 (maybe sooner ), AMD plans to have dual cores (same as Intel after they changed from late 2006 ).

By 2006, AMD plans to have quad cores which will be like this:
4*128KB Cache 1=512KB
4*1MB Cache 2=4MB
4*2MB Cache 3 (AMD Cache 3 arrives early 2005 along with Hyper Transport "Big GHz")=8MB
4*2.6GHz=10.4GHz

Of course this is without AMD increasing status per core. AMD might use a 2MB Cache 2 per core and have a final result of 8MB in order to compete against Intel if they really needed it .
And they could have a 4MB Cache 3 per core and have a final result of 16MB also.

But, of course, the 3.2GHz Hyper Transport bus along with the onboard memory controller should keep things pretty (as long as the RAM is fast enough).
I'm sure if Cache gets to be more expensive then the 102.4GB/S XDR RAM, AMD will go with the cheaper solution and would not even need Cache 1.

No, IBM was the first to 64 bit.. They have a 128 bit processor out.. Change you signature because it is completely wrong

Uh, why would IBM have a 128-Bit CPU?
No one needs over 2^64 Bytes (16 MegaTera Bytes) of RAM for now.
And that is the max for 64-Bit.
We won't need 128-Bit till 32 years (2036).
Also, IBM did invent the first 64-Bit CPU.
As for my sig, I think you might need glasses in order to read it correctly.
"first to 64-Bit extensions"
In other words, AMD64 was before IA32e.
64-Bit extensions is an advanced version of 64-Bit. It keeps the power of 32-Bit and just adds on the power of 64-Bit.

Aggressor Prime wrote:As for my sig, I think you might need glasses in order to read it correctly.

Why? It's all in 10 point font.

Neo-Tebow2000 thinks I stated that AMD was first to 64-Bit.
AMD was not. AMD, however, was first to 64-Bit extension technology which takes advantage of 64-Bit without affecting 32-Bit performance.

IBM processors did the same thing first.. Also, I believe apple did the same thing

IBM did not come up with 64-Bit extensions.
And if you want to talk about apple, remember:
Opteron Launch-May 2003
G5 Launch-August 2003

And besides, even if IBM did come up with 64-Bit extensions first (and they to my best knowledge and to AMD's best knowledge according to what I've seen), they are not a major company. AMD is the major company. Maybe Intel (considering how terrible they have performed against the K8s).

Ah...

I see said the blind man when he began to saw.

- Coach Robinson

greg wrote:when is intel suppose to release their 64? I had heard ors that they will when they switch to this new naming scheme that they are going to work with. not sure when all that is suppose to happen though.

Here is more info.