Linus on Intel's 64 bit Extensions 720
ceswiedler writes "KernelTrap is running a thread on the Linux-Kernel mailing list about Intel's new IA-32e 64-bit chip. Linus complains 'what I found so irritating is that _hours_ after the Intel announcement,
people were _still_ confused about whether the new intel chip was actually compatible with AMD's chips.' It is, of course, but you have to do a thorough comparison of Intel's reference manuals to discover that-- they don't mention the fact that their new chip is instruction-set compatible with AMD's x86-64 chip." See the previous story for background. So it looks like the reason Intel was vague about their announcement is that they didn't want the WORLD TO KNOW THAT THEY WERE COPYING AND FOLLOWING AMD rather than developing some new thing on their own. Slashdot is proud to help Intel in this quest; wouldn't want the public to know that INTEL WAS SIMPLY FOLLOWING IN AMD'S FOOTSTEPS. Hope this helps.
Here's my 64-bit opinion: (Score:4, Funny)
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like MICHAEL SIMS BLOWING A GASKET.
Re:Here's my 64-bit opinion: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Here's my 64-bit opinion: (Score:5, Funny)
<bink>ceswiedler <bink>writes <bink>"KernelTrap <bink>is <bink>running <bink>a <bink>thread <bink>on <bink>the <bink>Linux-Kernel <bink>mailing <bink>list <bink>about <bink>Intel's <bink>new <bink>IA-32e <bink>64-bit <bink>chip. <bink>Linus <bink>complains <bink>'what <bink>I <bink>found <bink>so <bink>irritating <bink>is <bink>that <bink>_hours_ <bink>after <bink>the <bink>Intel <bink>announcement, <bink>people <bink>were <bink>_still_ <bink>confused <bink>about <bink>whether <bink>the <bink>new <bink>intel <bink>chip <bink>was <bink>actually <bink>compatible <bink>with <bink>AMD's <bink>chips.' <bink>It <bink>is, <bink>of <bink>course, <bink>but <bink>you <bink>have <bink>to <bink>do <bink>a <bink>thorough <bink>comparison <bink>of <bink>Intel's <bink>reference <bink>manuals <bink>to <bink>discover <bink>that-- <bink>they <bink>don't <bink>mention <bink>the <bink>fact <bink>that <bink>their <bink>new <bink>chip <bink>is <bink>instruction-set <bink>compatible <bink>with <bink>AMD's <bink>x86-64 <bink>chip." <bink>See <bink>the <bink>previous <bink>story <bink>for <bink>background. <bink>So <bink>it <bink>looks <bink>like <bink>the <bink>reason <bink>Intel <bink>was <bink>vague <bink>about <bink>their <bink>announcement <bink>is <bink>that <bink>they <bink>didn't <bink>want <bink>the <bink>WORLD <bink>TO <bink>KNOW <bink>THAT <bink>THEY <bink>WERE <bink>COPYING <bink>AND <bink>FOLLOWING <bink>AMD <bink>rather <bink>than <bink>developing <bink>some <bink>new <bink>thing <bink>on <bink>their <bink>own. <bink>Slashdot <bink>is <bink>proud <bink>to <bink>help <bink>Intel <bink>in <bink>this <bink>quest; <bink>wouldn't <bink>want <bink>the <bink>public <bink>to <bink>know <bink>that <bink>INTEL <bink>WAS <bink>SIMPLY <bink>FOLLOWING <bink>IN A<bink>MD'S <bink>FOOTSTEPS. <bink>Hope <bink>this helps.<bi<bink>
How is that?
Re:Here's my 64-bit opinion: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Here's my 64-bit opinion: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Here's my 64-bit opinion: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Here's my 64-bit opinion: (Score:5, Funny)
Nah. On second thought, there was never any danger of that.
Re:Here's my 64-bit opinion: (Score:5, Funny)
``Hey, look at me! I cant spell seperate; its too hard. But that's OK---oh, crap in a hat! I just used two capitle letters in a roe! Seeing capiddle letters causes me phizicle pain! Oh the humanity! Woe is me! Armageddon is here: somebody just posted a slashdot article containing sequential capittel letters! Will the madness never stop? I must band together with other concerned posters (you know who your) and set the capital poster straight---wait, did I just spell capital correctly? I cant take it anymore. Its just to much for me! Goodby, cruel world!'' [Blam] DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD [Hand falls to keyboard, simultaneously holding down the Caps Lock and D keys.]
The proper way (Score:4, Informative)
HTML [w3.org] has provided authors with a means of deliniating emphasized content since version 2.0 [ietf.org] and this means has not been depricated since.
The following is taken from RFC 1866:
5.7.1.3. Emphasis: EM
The <EM> element indicates an emphasized phrase, typically
rendered as italics. For example:
A singular subject <em>always</em> takes a singular verb.
This is the best way for authors to indicate emphasized content because user agents may then style the content according to a stylesheet. For example, a user agent may perform a text transform to all capitals (which would achieve the effect he created), boldface the content, or raise the volume of the content (for an aural browser).
It should be noted that Slashdot is written in accordance with the HTML 3.2 Reccomendation from the W3. Comments, since they are displayed under this doctype, should follow spec.
thanks.. (Score:5, Funny)
Decaf!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Decaf!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Decaf!!! (Score:5, Funny)
I hope.. (Score:4, Funny)
After all.. (Score:4, Funny)
What do you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What do you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What do you expect? (Score:5, Informative)
These companies been `not reinventing the wheel` for quite a while not.
If there was any doubt... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:If there was any doubt... (Score:5, Funny)
Talk about walking a fine line. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Talk about walking a fine line. (Score:5, Interesting)
That may change if AMD can correctly market it! (Score:5, Insightful)
What you say is true now but AMD could do some real damage though by launching a series of commercials with some catch phrase (think "Intel inside") that plays up the fact that Intel chips are based on a standard developed by AMD. Something to effect of "Why pay more for a processor based on AMD's standard when you could be paying a lot less and using the real McCoy?"
Not exactly phrased that way, but you get the idea. It could be a real plus for AMD if they could find the right way to market it. Hence Intel doing the smart thing and trying to burry it for as long as they can.
Re:That may change if AMD can correctly market it! (Score:5, Insightful)
People have been saying this kind of shit for years now. Apple and AMD are only months away from overcoming Intel! All they need to do is !!
Intel didn't get where it is today by not being business and market savvy. The Intel Inside campaign is so brilliant because it's not just a catch phrase, it's whole emotional experience they're selling that basically tells people they can feel confident because their computer has Intel Inside. It's so powerful that people staring at two PC's, one expensive underpowered Intel machine, the other a bargain Athlon, will choose the Intel simply because it has the Intel Inside logo. Don't believe me? Go ask sales people at Best Buy or CompUSA
Re:That may change if AMD can correctly market it! (Score:5, Funny)
Why's it so bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would Intel be embarassed or whatever to "follow in AMD's footsteps"? I mean, sure Intel's bigger and badder than AMD, but can't you learn something from the little guy sometimes? Don't things like this happen all the time in the car industry with various technologies?
Re:Why's it so bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
You are right; auto companies regularly copy each others technologies, and the public is fully aware of it. But, that is not the case in the chip industry. Intel has always defined the technology, and AMD has always been the follower. Not so anymore. For Intel, this is very embarassing.
There are people out there that for whatever reason, will not buy AMD because of a perception (real or false) that AMD is a second rate follower company. This recent development possibly means the beginning of the end of this perception, and less money flowing into Intel's coffers.
Maybe 30 years from now, the chip industry will look more like the auto industry with Intel/AMD/Transmeta and whomever, and maybe then things like this won't be a shock. But it isn't like that today.
Re:Why's it so bad? (Score:4, Informative)
It's the second time. The x87 math co-prossor was developed by AMD and latter incorperated into Intel line of processors. the x87 is now better known as the FPU.
Microsoft played a strong role in x86-64 design (Score:5, Interesting)
It is fairly well-known to insiders that Dave Cutler, chief software architect for Windows NT at Microsoft, approached AMD with the concept of extending the x86 instruction set for 64-bit instructions and data.
The motivation for this move was probably complicated, but Intel's slow-motion malaise regarding its IA64 strategy was no help. Microsoft needed a 64-bit platform that would gain wide acceptance before it devoted a significant amount of resources to drive Windows support on the platform to consumer-level quality.
Some even make the further claim that Cutler may have actually designed the instruction set for AMD and handed it to them intact. In other words, he approached them and said, "If you build a chip that runs this instruction set, we can guarantee NT support for it, and backwards compatibility with x86-32 will come for free."
AMD even acknowledges Dave Cutler and has a page with his information [amd.com] on their web site. If you do a search for articles, you'll find supposedly leaked memos mentioning builds of NT running on the new chip before it was even announced publicly (and hence before SuSe knew about it either).
You be the judge.
Re:Why's it so bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why's it so bad? (Score:5, Informative)
ostiguy
Re:Why's it so bad? (Score:4, Informative)
My primary point was that Intel will be pushing Itanium for a good length of time still.
Re:Why's it so bad? (Score:4, Informative)
Each CPU having its own memory bus is great for a small number of CPUs. But as you add more CPUs, the complexity grows exponentially. Opteron systems are NUMA based, meaning RAM is local to a CPU. For one CPU to access another CPU's memory, it must request it from the other CPU. If you connect each CPU to every other CPU, the performance hit isn't too bad, but the complexity of the motherboard grows greatly. It very quickly becomes cost prohibitive. You can lower the number of connections needed by relaying the requests until they reach the correct processor, however, this results in extra latency. Building motherboards for more CPUs is a matter of balancing cost and performance. Very few people need more than 4 CPUs, and AMD seems rather content letting Intel sell Itaniums to those people.
Re:Why's it so bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would Intel be embarassed or whatever to "follow in AMD's footsteps"?
It's all about PR and marketing. Intel has invested billions of dollars and years of R&D into IA-64 (something that originated in HP's labs), and said that they're committed to IA-64. x86 is a dirty ISA, and with shrinking transistors and increasing hardware complexity, their rationale was that wire delays will become a major limiting factor in performance (not that I'm arguing against it). Itanium 1 comes out years late and performance is lackluster. The power consumption is quite high (and it's even an in-order core).
So then comes IDF, and they demo 64-bit x86, something that they've been denying that they've been working on. If Intel had confirmed the rumors that they were working on x86-64 (AMD64), I think they would have been worried about it cannabilizing their Itanium sales. Worse, they're adopting a technology developed by a company a fraction of their size with a fraction of the resources. It gives AMD much more credibility.
Re:Why's it so bad? (Score:5, Interesting)
How much credibility is AMD really lacking when buck for buck they've almost always been a better deal for the speed than Intel? How much are they really lacking when they beat Intel to the 1 GHz mark and for a long while thereafter had the fastest x86 desktop chip on the market? Or when they beat Intel to wide market penetration with 64 bit chips? Or when they beat Intel to 64-bit on the desktop? Or when benchmarks showed that the Athlon FX-51 beat both Intel's flagship and PPC chips?
If AMD doesn't have credibility now, this 'specification war' won't give it to them if you ask me.
Cheers
Re:Why's it so bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
How much credibility is AMD really lacking when buck for buck they've almost always been a better deal for the speed than Intel?
You're right... they're not lacking credibility with the great majority of the computer-competent. And this is/was not a slam on AMD by any means. But in the business and server space, it takes much longer to penetrate the market. When they had problems shipping the K6 in volume to meet customer demands, they had to rebuild their image, and fortunately, Athlon helped them achieve that. There's a twist on an old saying that goes something like, "no one got fired for buying Intel." Unfortunately, a lot of people still don't trust "the other company." And many people still feel that lower cost also means lower quality.
Re:Why's it so bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
One small symptom of many (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just one small symptom of many. Intel is having extremely serious management problems now. Intel hasn't been very humanistic in the past 15 years, and now the company is failing in many hidden and not-so-hidden ways.
Re:Why's it so bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, no, that's not quite right.
(See, up until now, it's always been Intel doing the new stuff first, then AMD playing catch up. For the first time, those roles have been reversed. That's pretty significant)
--AC
Intel to AMD: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Intel to AMD: (Score:5, Informative)
Funny yes, but seriously though... doesn't AMD have a cross licensing agreement with Intel, originally favouring AMD being able to use any x86 family instructions that Intel develop? (AFAIK from the original court case allowing AMD access).
Now the shoe is on the other foot since x86-64 (AMD) is becoming more established and Itanic was a complete break from existing x86 architecture, Intel didn't exactly have to ask AMD for a license.
AMD to Intel: (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe its just me... (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I'm glad, quite frankly. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Well, I'm glad, quite frankly. (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is more misleading, engineering chips with an impressive clock speed but a mediocre instruction-per-cycle ratio, or to engineer chips with an impressive instruction-per-cycle ratio and market them as comparable to the industry leader's equivalent processors?
I'm not crazy about AMD's processor ratings, but I understand the necessity. Joe Blow doesn't know squat about processors, all he knows is that higher clock numbers are (supposedly) better. At least AMD keeps their marketing department out of the engineering meetings.
I was gonna say it... (Score:4, Insightful)
i86 64 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:i86 64 (Score:5, Insightful)
Eventually, they'll have no choice. Bob Colwell, a former P4 architect, gave an interesting talk [stanford.edu] which basically said x86 is running out of steam due to, among other things, carrying compatibility baggage going all the way back to early DOS.
What a shock! (Score:4, Insightful)
it gets better (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, I'm a bit disgusted at Intel for not even _mentioning_ AMD in their documentation or their releases, so I'd almost be inclined to rename the thing as "AMD64" just to give credit where credit is due. However, it's just not worth the pain and confusion.
Any Intel people on this list: tell your managers to be f*cking ashamed of themselves. Just because Intel didn't care about their customers and has been playing with some other 64-bit architecture that nobody wanted to use is no excuse for not giving credit to AMD for what they did with x86-64.
(I'm really happy Intel finally got with the program, but it's pretty petty to not even mention AMD in the documentation and try to make it look like it was all their idea).
I don't think anyone is surprised by this -- Intel would be nuts to mention AMD in any press release about anything unless it's incredibly negative toward AMD (which this definitely is not), and even then it would be ill-advised from a amrketing perspective.
Re:it gets better (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? Intel could just come and take the high road, and claim that they are keeping their chips instruction-set compatible with AMD64 to "preserve the customers' investment" or some such marketing-speak. Good marketers never let the facts or the truth get in the way of a good spin.
Re:it gets better (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine the mess though, if they decided, "ok we're going to make our instruction set just a little differnt and then use our dominance in the market to win over AMD." It would mean more work for hardware designers (I know PCI bus should take care, but you still need to test), kernel developers, window's driver's writer's, distributors and you and me, because we'll have even a harder time shopping for hardware.
I'm pretty certain that MBAs have been considering the above option. This is a compromise and people have to learn live in a world that is not ideal and thus full of compromises.
Re:it gets better (Score:5, Insightful)
AMD could send out the press release:
AMD Develops Intel Instruction Set
Sunnyvale, CA -- February 24, 2004 --Intel Corperation announce last week it would be using an instruction set pioneered by long time rival AMD (NYSE:AMD) in it's new 64-bit processor....
Re:it gets better (Score:4, Funny)
Re:it gets better (Score:5, Insightful)
Ed's comments are -1 Flamebait.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Intel will never, ever, ever put anything out that their name isn't all over it.
Example: Firewire. An industry standard. Does Intel put it in their motherboard chipsets? I remember old Intel comments stating their 'commitment to IEEE-1394' but it was all a load of crap. The PII and PIII chipsets could (and should) have had it on board.
Here, finally, Intel has decided to take someone else's tech. But even now, they won't admit it's someone else's tech.
What a bunch of arrogance..
Full Linus Message (Score:5, Informative)
>
> What about naming? IA-64 is taken, AMD64 is too specific, Intel's
> "IA-32e" sounds too vague, and I find x86-64 / x86_64 difficult to type.
> "x64" perhaps?
x86-64 it is. Maybe you can remap one of your function keys to send the
sequence
This whole "ia32" crap has always been ridiculous - nobody has _ever_
called an x86 anything but x86, and Intel is just making it worse by
adding random illogical letters to the end.
In contrast, x86-64 tells you _exactly_ what it's all about, and is what
the kernel has always called the architecture anyway.
Linus
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
>
> hmm, so the current x86_64 will be changed to x86-64 or
> will there be x86_64 and x86-64?
No. The filesystem policy _tends_ to be that dashes and spaces are turned
into underscores when used as filenames. Don't ask me why (well, the space
part is obvious, since real spaces tend to be a pain to use on the command
line, but don't ask me why people tend to conver a dash to an underscore).
So the real name is (and has always been, as far as I can tell) x86-64.
Actually, I'm a bit disgusted at Intel for not even _mentioning_ AMD in
their documentation or their releases, so I'd almost be inclined to rename
the thing as "AMD64" just to give credit where credit is due. However,
it's just not worth the pain and confusion.
Any Intel people on this list: tell your managers to be f*cking ashamed of
themselves. Just because Intel didn't care about their customers and has
been playing with some other 64-bit architecture that nobody wanted to use
is no excuse for not giving credit to AMD for what they did with x86-64.
(I'm really happy Intel finally got with the program, but it's pretty
petty to not even mention AMD in the documentation and try to make it
look like it was all their idea).
Linus
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> In the long term, x86_64 creates more confusion:
> - SuSE says AMD64 [1]
> - RedHat says AMD64 [2]
> - Debian says AMD64 [3]
>
> Renaming might be some work today, but it might actually remove
> confusion in the future.
Well, the thing is, I _like_ a vendor-neutral name.
I think it's important to have multiple sources for a chip, and I think
one of the problems with IA-64 was that it was a locked-in chip with
patents and no serious competition internally (ignore the Intel mouthing
about "open").
The x86 is so great partly because there's been real competition. So I
think it's very important to x86-64 to have real competition to make sure
nobody gets too dishonest.
So AMD64 is a bad name, partly for the same reason IA32 is a horrible name
(and who have you ever heard use the IA32 name except for people who are
paid to do so by Intel?)
What I found so irritating is that _hours_ after the Intel announcement,
people were _still_ confused about whether the new intel chip was actually
compatible with AMD's chips. Why the f*ck not just come out and say so,
and talk about it? It took people actually reading the manuals (which
didn't mention it either) to convince some people on the architecture
newsgroups that yes, "ia32e" was really the same as "amd64" except in the
small details that have always set Intel and AMD apart.
So I don't really want to change the name. "x86-64" is a good name. I just
wish there was more honesty involved, and less friggin *POSTURING*.
Linus
Wouldn't be surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Being a trailblazer may get you bragging rights, but you risk fragmenting the industry and the market you feed. For the longest time in the 90's AMD and Cyrix went on a follow-quest, and breached the low-cost PC market. Not only did they enhance choice and lower prices, they kept the number of standards down to a minimum. Just imagine what would occur if AMD, in the 1990's, came up with something completely different, but can run exactly the same thing Intel chips can at the same price: the market gets fragmented, prices remain high and stagnant, and no one is the winner until one of the two gets clobbered, eliminating competition in the market and raising prices even further.
It's not characteristic for Intel to follow AMD, but IMO, it's the smart thing to do to be competitive.
Oh yes, just because they are following, doesn't mean they can't do it better. AMD did in the 90's and today.
Why such negative attitude towards Intel? (Score:5, Insightful)
And Intel doesn't really have to advertise the fact that it's AMD-compatible, it's not like AMD owns more than 80% of the market, and Intel is below 20% [itfacts.biz]. To hyperbolize, you don't expect Microsoft to announce the next version of Office to be compatible with Joe's Software Shop's software.
Re:Why such negative attitude towards Intel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why such negative attitude towards Intel? (Score:5, Informative)
They're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. They're doing it to stay alive.
To hyperbolize, you don't expect Microsoft to announce the next version of Office to be compatible with Joe's Software Shop's software.
You're right, that is a hyperbolic comparison. AMD64 is already outselling IA64 [theregister.co.uk] despite being much later on the market.
Re:Why such negative attitude towards Intel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why such negative attitude towards Intel? (Score:5, Informative)
Now I'm not some marketing guy, but I'm sure they could've put even more Intel-positive spin on this issue, rather than attempting to bury the truth in their manual, knowing that someone would see it and take offense for Intel not simply stating it by now. We should not encourage dishonesty where the public interest and common good are involved. i.e. collaboration for a common architecture can surely benefit the common good. No?
Re:Why such negative attitude towards Intel? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or am I confuddled here? Intel wouldn't have supported a common architecture were it not for Microsoft.
Re:Why such negative attitude towards Intel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead we got the NEW IA32E ARCHITECTURE (read: the one AMD has been selling for a year+) that WE DEVELOPED TO HELP CONSUMERS (read: "borrowed" from AMD because they are killing us). NOWHERE in everything Intel said or did mentioned that it was x86-64 or developed by AMD. You had to wade through the low level techincal documentation to find that out. They are basically taking all credit for what AMD has done so they don't look like they lost a battle (which they DID). If they had any honor, they would have done things MUCH differently.
That's why the Klingon Empire will no longer buy Intel chips for their ships computers.
AMD needs to point this out to the public. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yay! Intel C++ compiler for AMD64! (Score:4, Interesting)
There can be only one (Score:5, Interesting)
Intel had no choice but to use AMD's instructions if they wanted their chips to be Windows-compatible.
Re:There can be only one (Score:5, Insightful)
Wintel, anyone?
Personally (Score:4, Insightful)
Crappy journalism on Slashdot's part.
Re:Personally (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you ever heard a journalist say, "I just want to make a difference"? Who's difference?
Ironic twist of fate (Score:4, Funny)
AMD and Intel and Processor Functions (Score:4, Informative)
Licensing? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Licensing? (Score:5, Informative)
Because of the details of a lengthy 1995 legal settlement between Intel and AMD, Intel can in all probability create and sell chips that are completely compatible with AMD's Opteron and Athlon 64 chips, which can run both 32- and 64-bit software, according to the companies and legal experts. Intel won't even have to pay AMD royalties if it incorporates ideas from any AMD patents into its chips.
"My understanding, based on the licensing agreement, is that Intel has access to AMD's patents so patent protection should not be a problem," said Richard Belgard, a noted patent consultant.
Intel may have to rename some of the instructions, or commands, embedded in any chip that is similar to Opteron, but "the code can be 100 percent compatible," Belgard added.
For the full article:
Article at CNet [com.com]
Intel following AMD? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, it might have pissed Linus off that they weren't very forthcoming about it, but just think how ticked he'd be if they introduced something completely different and he had support two competing 64-bit architectures.
Maybe Intel is taking a lesson from IBM. Just because you are the big boy on the block doesn't mean you can make your own rules. Anyone remember Microchannel Architecture?
PR mishap (Score:5, Insightful)
AMD is an x86 processor. Something Intel invented. Becuase of the agreement between Intel and AMD over the use x86, Intel can use the new extensions without paying royalties.
A) The only people that might loose faith in Intel are some techies, most of who are already AMDFanBoys ( and girls ) anyways. The average consumer ain't going to care who created the 64 bit extensions.
B) AMD DID THE WORK. No need waste time designing the specs out.
C) MS has an OS ready to go out the door, no time waiting for you apps to be deployed.
D) AMD has spent a lot of time marketing the technology, all you have to say is we do it with more GHZ ( please don't let the GHZ thing spin off into another thread ).
E) You've got something to help ease the pain between your Xeon and Itanium lines.
This is a good thing for Intel. Sure you are copying AMD's instruction set, but lets face it, compared to the man hours needed to actually implement the instruction set in trannies, an instruction set is pretty simple. Intel saves money, says hey look we are not a monopoly anymore don't hate us, and has a good product.
Intel made a bad PR decision, they should just admit it and move on.
AMD is the one still following in Intels footsteps (Score:5, Interesting)
31--------------15-------7------0 Bits
|--------------eax--------------|
|------ax------|
|--ah---|--al---|
And now AMD's come up with the brillant idea of extending a register. The 64 bit accumlitive register is now RAX with it's low 32 bits being EAX and the low 16 are ax and so on.
The continuation of adding on register extensions is great for backwards compatiblity but it makes the instruction set a mess. Intel knows this but people don't seem to be will to give up compatibility or performace. The only way this is probably ever going to go away is if every one is forced to write a C compiler.
The sad thing is that a new cpu could have a compatibility layer that had a slight performance hit but with a lack of software supporting new 64 implementations people wouldn't buy it because the pretty little bar graphs that the sales drones produce.
Um, it's called x86, dude (Score:4, Insightful)
The continuation of adding on register extensions is great for backwards compatiblity but it makes the instruction set a mess.
But -- who cares? Modern CPU chips translate instructions into RISC-like micro-ops, and feed the micro-ops into multiple execution units. AMD chips can do a whole bunch of stuff in a single clock cycle, which is why they are much faster per clock cycle than an Intel chip. The pain of a wacky instruction set is isolated in the translation part of the chip, and doesn't significantly hold back the chip in other ways.
RISC fans predicted years ago that CISC would die, because RISC is so much better. But CISC chips contain RISC cores these days, and meanwhile architectures that were originally "RISC" have all kinds of special instructions for working with video data and such (doesn't seem so "reduced" to me). What really happened is that RISC and CISC kind of met in the middle.
And the old idea that RISC instructions would win because they are easier to decode didn't pan out. CISC instructions get decoded to RISC-like micro-ops, as I said, and it turns out not to be a huge deal. Meanwhile, those CISC instructions are denser than RISC instructions, so you fit more of them into your limited cache space, which helps speed.
In short, modern chips do all kinds of clever stuff, and the instruction set architecture is not really holding them back.
The sad thing is that a new cpu could have a compatibility layer that had a slight performance hit but with a lack of software supporting new 64 implementations people wouldn't buy it because the pretty little bar graphs that the sales drones produce.
If you want me to feel sad, you need to back this up with some facts. Show me why you feel the Athlon64 would be faster if it were not backward-compatible with x86.
As it is, the Athlon64 is already a sweet chip in 32-bit x86 mode (you know, "following in Intel's footsteps"). Then it gets better when you run 64-bit software (mainly due to the extra registers). Good in 32-bit, better in 64-bit... why am I supposed to be sad again?
steveha
They're both corporations! (Score:5, Insightful)
can x86-64 do big endian? (Score:5, Interesting)
PLEASE SAY YES!
Not just embarrassment, also Itanic. (Score:5, Interesting)
Whats the big deal? (Score:4, Insightful)
After all, its not either of them copying anything from each other, but just making their own product compatible with a certain set on instructions, while still using their very own under-the-hood implementation.
Cringely got it right... (Score:4, Interesting)
how the hell? (Score:4, Insightful)
God I love it. (Score:5, Funny)
Then $SUIT_IN_THE_EXTREME Carly decides after buying CornPACK and Tandem to say F*** all common sense... we have this next-gen PA-RISC design called MAKO and our current Superdomes that outperform Itanium 2 (but shhh don't publish those results)... lets throw it all out... HPPA, MIPS (Himalaya), Alpha, yes all the good processor technology we own... to be dependent on Intel who has no prior experience with 64 bits other than our partnership that makes crappy chips and bet the farm on Intel as being the bomb diggity of 64-bitness.
Now Intel realizes... WE GOOFED big time. WE HUFFED the SCO crack-pipe... lets make x86-64 (one big head smack for the obvious not occurring to them earlier, and another one for extending the life of x86 even farther). WHERE does this leave both Intel (with IBM and POWER4/5/6+ spanking their asses back to the stone age) and poor (NOT) HP who bet the farm on Itanic 2... ?
Oh this is too good.
I hope they both sink in the same boat.
and for AMD's sake I hope they add a fs*ckin thermistor to their procs so if the heat sink is loose they don't smoke themselves... (fsckin unacceptable).
Re:When you cant buy, copy! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, go troll somewhere else.
Re:So... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:All Caps (Score:5, Funny)
Even back in the Apple ][ days when you had no choice in the matter?
Re:All Caps (Score:5, Funny)
Re:All Caps (Score:5, Funny)
I saw it as: quiet/LOUD!
Re:All Caps (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Tom's Hardware - pro AMD? (Score:5, Informative)
Take another look. Every article will give a sentence or two to downplay an intel feature and several paragraphs reminding us why such-and-such AMD feature is better.
Maybe I'm thinking of ATI vs nVidia but I'm pretty damn sure it's both of them. TomHardware likes the underdog just like everyone else that's cool.
All your pentiums are not belong to us! We set us up AMDs.
Re:Tom's Hardware - pro AMD? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030210/index.
"It is pretty certain that hardly any x86 architecture processor has a longer history. The idea for the first Athlon core goes back to 1998, when Dirk Meyer of AMD impressed us all and, most importantly, gave a jaded Intel competition jitters.
It was a market revolution, and not long before the Athlon started its victory march, winning everyone's heart along the way. The essential ingredient was its very good price/ performance ratio.
From the very beginning, the focus was on the thrifty end user. Moreover, there was the option of overclocking, which helped countless freaks squeeze the same power as they could with much more expensive CPUs. In short: Athlon became a philosophy, a staple of conversation among sophisticated users, and, in part, the subject of heated debate, the likes of which sometimes degenerates into fanatacism." Wow! I think that makes look AMD look pretty good. Could just be though. Check it out.
Re:Tom's Hardware - pro AMD? (Score:5, Informative)
Here [tomshardware.com]:
"There is nothing finer than raising the hackles of delusional AMD lovers. However, today I do so with a heavy heart. This is no time to take aim at the pompous, self-righteous head-in-the-sand-ostriches of the alternative chip lifestyle. One must embrace them, hug them and wipe away their tears.
They are the freaks of low-cost computing, the poor, downtrodden users of products that never seem to be able to match PR numbers to actual performance, now almost beaten into marginality for all time. "
(Ridiculous remarks curteousy of Omid, General Manager, U.S. Operations for Tom's Hardware)
You need some serious psychological help if you're crazy enough to believe that they're actually pro-AMD. They're not just pro-Intel, they're pro-$ADVERTISER. Generally speaking, their articles are skewed towards a select few especially heavy advertisers. They'll even work with different driver revisions and bios settings to maximize the advantage for Intel et al. There was even an article in which Tom himself admitted that he sent the results 'back to the labs for more testing' after the AMD chips performed a bit too well for his tastes. He didn't say why he sent the results back, but when you look at the articles surrounding it and see 9 articles with a pro-Intel slant, 1 with benchmarks that seem favorable for AMD, and the 1 gets the results sent back for 'further testing', you get a good indication of what's happening. Tell me this: why is it that Tom's benchmarks tell such a different story from virtually every other hardware sites'? Is it some massive AMD conspiracy? Why is it that Ace's [aceshardware.com] says one thing, and Tom's says something totally different? (Ace's is a technical-minded person's hangout, as opposed to the consumer-oriented Tom's)
Wake up - Tom's is a propaganda machine serving up dumbed-down consumer grade articles with rigged benchmarks and non-sequitur conclusions.
It's a joke, and quite frankly, it's becoming pathetic.
Re:Tom's Hardware - pro AMD? (Score:4, Insightful)
I do credit Rambus with telling me to the minute the day the Internet bubble burst. As soon as I read that Intel had entered into a binding agreement with a punk like Rambus I knew the shit was already through the fan and beginning to paint the wall. So despite the fact that I hate them, I love them for saving me a LOT of bacon.
Either way Rambus wasn't better it was higher bandwidth higher latency. It might have been better for some application and worse for others. Either way the way they tried to strong arm everybody is what killed Rambus. No body likes a bully.
Re:you know what, NOBODY WILL CARE (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, in this case it was good. I'm sure if it weren't for the 800-lb gorilla Microsoft refusing to support more than one 64-bit X86 architecture, Intel would have annoyingly forked yet another extension incompatible with AMD's.
This would have significantly raised the costs of software packaging for everybody for years to come. In fact, the extra hassle would probably make for a significant decrease in the number of programs that even bothered to release 64-bit versions at all.
Because a lot of us have experience with Intel... (Score:4, Informative)
Remember when the 80286 came out? Remember the B-step '286, that Intel didn't want to admit had a bug in its flag storage until the B-steps were sold and the C-steps were coming out of the fabs? Imagine having your customers returning hardware for that -- how many trays of CPUs can you eat before you're Chapter-11? That's just one example.
There was an Intel seminar in SoCal where the Intel rep stood up there at the podium, pointing his pointer at the screen where the next transparency had just been put into the overhead projector and was being shown, and said, "Next, let's talk about Intel service"... and the whole hall full of engineers and programmers cracked up, it was that funny.
Lately, Intel has been doing TheRightThing[tm] more often, but not dependably. This is just another instance of where it's "funny so you don't waste your energy crying". With notable exceptions, Intel cares about Intel, full-stop.