Intel Quietly Adopts AMD's x86-64 [/.]

RE*AC*TOR

From /.

The latest offerings in the Pentium 4 family now support AMD's x86-64 architecture, even though Intel is not willing to admit it very openly, by using cryptic names like EM64T and (gasp) IA-32e. (The naming issue was discussed on lkml, and the consensus there was to use 'x86-64,' even though sometimes AMD refers to it as 'AMD64'). Intel's FAQ admits their implementation is basically compatible with x86-64, except for the minor differences that have always set Athlons and P4s apart. It's about time Intel jumped on AMD's bandwagon, since its homegrown 64-bit architecture seems not to be doing very well."


Ironic isn't it. The hunter has become the hunted!

Scruff

is it not like what they did to the latest xeon processors where they only have limited 64bit functionality? basically they can just address 64bits of memory as opposed to 32. sure for isnt a xeon just a p4 with more cache, aka a p4 EE.

uum

Intel still has 82% market share of desktop processors. Amd are trying to be the new Intel but theyve been trying to be this for a long time now. Methinks they wont suceed. One generation ahead an all...

uum

Scruff wrote:

sure isnt a xeon just a p4 with more cache, aka a p4 EE.

:eek:

Khannie

Yeah, what the hell is the deal with the Xeons? I have a dual xeon machine in work, and from what I can tell, the L2 cache is the same size as the P4, but the chip costs 10x (ok...not that much....but you get the idea).

On the AMD64 front: Intel had pointed out a while ago, that under some settlement between themselves and AMD reached donkeys years ago, that AMD were allowed to use the x86 instruction set, but Intel got rights on any advancements that AMD made.....you can be as sure as "daddy or chips" that they were going to adopt AMD64....and very quietly too

About time TBH. IA64 was a nice attempt to correct the issues with the x86 architecture, but no dice....it's too ingrained now. AMD64 is the way forward.

Stark

uum wrote:

Intel still has 82% market share of desktop processors. Amd are trying to be the new Intel but theyve been trying to be this for a long time now. Methinks they wont suceed. One generation ahead an all...

Intel isn't one generation ahead of AMD. Back in the K6 days they were, but the Athlon changed all that. If anything Intel is one generation behind as they're just catching up to x86-64 now.

Scruff

i'd agree with starky.
good review of intels latest p4 that has the 64-bit instructions here:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_pentium_4_3.8ghz/

but as with AMD's 64 bit chips, no mainstream software really use them yet.

BloodBath

Intel isn't one generation ahead of AMD. Back in the K6 days they were, but the Athlon changed all that. If anything Intel is one generation behind as they're just catching up to x86-64 now.

It's an up and down battle, the original athlon xp's beat the early p4's but the latter p4's destroyed the later xp's. Now amd are back on top again as far as gaming is concerned anyway. The P4's are still better at encoding and multi-tasking though. AMD will never be able to compete with intel properly unless they can get more fabs and keep ahead of them for a couple of generations of chips. They may attract the likes of big companies like dell then which could push sales figures in their favour. I couldn't see that happening for at least a few years though.


BloodBath

MrPinK

I'm glad to see what a success the AMD64 has been for AMD, but this was probably the best chance we'll ever have to kill the god awful x86 architecture. Ah well.

SkepticOne

It looks like Intel are adopting the "embrace and extend" philosophy of Microsoft. By embracing AMD's x86-64, Intel can leverage their dominance in server class processors to take control of the x86-64 instruction set and making their own Intel specific proprietary enhancements. Once they have done this, AMD will be back in the position of playing catch-up.

Good in the short term as it will hasten the move to 64 bit computing but bad in the long term for consumers as it will mean a return to Intel dictating future developments at their own pace.

Azza

Dell are increasingly dropping hints that there going use AMD in the very near future stated that AMD are ahead in several areas and that came from the companys CO. Now this can be interrupted as about time Dell or Dell just pushing intel to bribe them off so they stay in Intels pocket or tell intel to hurry up and smart countering the AMD 64's. Of course AMD/Dell rumors have floated around before but I never seen the rumors been started by the brass at Dell.Rumors which significantly upped AMDs stock market value. However Dell like Bloodbath believed that AMD don't have the capacity to compete so only AMD's to be used in servers and gaming machines. However AMD will have new fabs online next year combined with the leasing of production of there chips to other firms. In about 6 months there production capability will significantly increased. Makes you wonder why Dell made the comment that if they used AMD in there desktops AMD would not be able to supply enough chips. A ridiculos statement on so many levels.

Thankfully AMD are catching ground slowly but surely taking 2-3% of the server market every quater for the last year. With 64bit on the way shortly the gap will widden slightly. I have seen benchmarks with show windows xp 64bit (with most to date drivers) marginally ahead in almost every benchmark. Although Gline posted saying he noticed little improvement in memory benchmarks. Meanwhile Intels EM64T benchmarked with as near as possible the same rig was well behined the 32bit counterparts. While feck all software is 64bit yet its no major worry after all feck all applicaptions use intels vaunted hyper threading. Any benchmarks still going intels favour in 32bit mode have been proven to been reversed under 64bit conditions in some distrabutions of linux. While that could be claimed as only a paper victory to AMD as most people use windows it does put a lie to the P4 stating its a better chip in any area. Now the winchesters have showed up AMD are at least on par on overclocking too.

Now intel is the bigger company but I can't see how its going get to even level pegging in 6 months time. I just don't see what it can do the counter in the short term and I'm thinking about there Petinum M as well. Thats not to say they won't get ahead again after that but I'm sure AMD has more in its pipeline too.

BloodBath

I really don't think amd could keep up with demand if Dell were to switch over to amd. Dell really does account for a huge amount of intels sales. How much capacity are these new fabs going to add? I seriously doubt it will be near the numbers required in such a short space of time.

At the end of the day most people do use windows only and most businesses will still go Intel. They are not going to care that a64's are better for gaming.


BloodBath

maxheadroom

BloodBath wrote:

How much capacity are these new faps going to add?

hehe - sorry, this made me laugh. You'll be needing the slydice special forum methinks

BloodBath

A typo, silly me :rolleyes:

BloodBath

jesus_thats_gre

This is old news tbh..

It also makes sense, why bother re-inventing the wheel?

jesus_thats_gre

AMD are making a big deal about nothing when it comes to their 64 bit extensions. Granted, their processor is technically superior and obviously provides better performance when gaming, but their early adoption/introduction of 64bit desktop processors have gained them no lead whatsoever. There is not even conclusive proof yet that the 64bit version of XP and eventually the games developed for this OS will provide major leaps in performance. Not only this, but the release of XP 64 bit seems to have been delayed to allow Intel to release a competing chip..

So when Intel actually get around to releasing a 64bit desktop processor to compete with the the Athlon64, they will be on a level playing field in that area. Intel have enough clout to ensure the mass adoption of technology when they release, AMD do not have the power to do so.. Hence what you are seeing..

jesus_thats_gre

Have read this since:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=204899

Khannie

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

Intel have enough clout to ensure the mass adoption of technology when they release, AMD do not have the power to do so.. Hence what you are seeing..

It's weird....I just got An A64 machine delivered to my desk in work this week. It's a swanky opteron box. It's a first in a number of ways:

1) It's an IBM box....every other machine here is Dell (or Sun)
2) It's AMD...every other machine here is Intel (or Sparc).

Sun / sparc machines are legacy tbh.

The industry I work in requires > 4 gigs of ram at the upper end and the concensus here (in work) is that the Athlon64 on Linux (and XP when it's available) will run away with the market. We had bought in 1 or 2 itanium machines, but they're no longer used (A64 has taken over).

Just an interesting switch to notice.

jesus_thats_gre

At the moment their is no doubt the AMD is taking some custom from Intel like in your situation but its still far from significant.. If it was, Intel wouldnt be pissing about so much..

Azza

I really don't think amd could keep up with demand if Dell were to switch over to amd. Dell really does account for a huge amount of intels sales. How much capacity are these new fabs going to add? I seriously doubt it will be near the numbers required in such a short space of time.

At the end of the day most people do use windows only and most businesses will still go Intel. They are not going to care that a64's are better for gaming.

Think logical about what you said it don't make sense. If Dell did use AMD they will not switch totally telling Intel to sod off thats just crazy. There taking about implementing it in gaming machine's like the XPS and Optrons for there servers. At that there is not suddenly going be a surge by Dell customers to buy AMD alone they will still primarily buy Intel but AMD's product awareness will recieve a boast and so will there sales.With licensing there chip manufacturing out to other large compaines and new fabs they would easily handle any load from Dell. They will not be going into desktops (although you could consider the XPS to be a desktop in a way)Also the AMD's are provening better chips for the average office applications (assuming there not encoding business) so the average company will care that the AMD chips are better the gaming thing is conincidental.

Yes the 64 bit thing may not be anything to get too excited about but its the way of the future for both Intel and AMD. Your probably right that both teams will be on a level playing field by the time 64bit gets into its stride but to discount 64bit future is a mistake. Are those Linux distrubtions Mandrake, Suse ,Fedora and possible Gentoo (not sure about performance between the 2 **** fast on 32bit anyway) lying when they say on average 15-20% performance increase and which where more or less verified by external reviewers. I have not seen any benchmarks that accurately predict a future that state 64bit hardware/software offers little performance gain and I doubt both Intel and AMD commited themsleves to a future that offered little performance gain.

Intels current plan for the future seems a little off too. An insignificant gain over time could become significant for AMD. I can see them at least breaking 20% of the market before Intel strikes back.