AMD planning 45nm 12-Core 'Istanbul' Processor ?

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:17:48 -0700 (PDT), Robert Myers
wrote:

What could be more boring than the x86 domination we have now?
Without AMD, there would be no such monoculture.

Did you mean "without Intel"?

NNN

" writes:
What could be more boring than the x86 domination we have now?
Without AMD, there would be no such monoculture.

Did you mean "without Intel"?

I suppose if AMD hadn't been around, there would have been a greater
chance of Intel getting their butts whipped by some other architecture,
instead of by AMD.

Of course AMD _did_ come up with "x86-64", which is an improvement over
the x86 (obviously even Intel thinks so).

-Miles

--
80% of success is just showing up. --Woody Allen

Jan Panteltje wrote:

Wish them luck - without AMD the whole CPU world would be
boring and damn expensive.


Amdroid fantasy. The PC as a platform is pushed on the low end by
game boxes and on the high end by IBM and Sun.

What could be more boring than the x86 domination we have now?
Without AMD, there would be no such monoculture.

Competition.
Intel would still be with Pentium 2 if not for AMD

Or IA64, with Intel having a complete monopoly, and all that implies.

On Apr 28, 9:20 am, chrisv wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
Wish them luck - without AMD the whole CPU world would be
boring and damn expensive.

Amdroid fantasy. The PC as a platform is pushed on the low end by
game boxes and on the high end by IBM and Sun.

What could be more boring than the x86 domination we have now?
Without AMD, there would be no such monoculture.

Competition.
Intel would still be with Pentium 2 if not for AMD

Or IA64, with Intel having a complete monopoly, and all that implies.

Without AMD, one of threee things would have happened:

1. Intel would have had the resources to deliver a satisfactory
Itanium product and accompanying compiler on schedule.

2. Intel would have been forced into a partial retreat to x86, anyway.

3. Sparc or Power would be holding much larger market share under any
number of possible licensing and manufacturing arrangements.

I personally believe that what we've got is the worst of all possible
worlds: AMD on death's door, Microsoft holding on to its monopoly
catering to just one ISA, and, to all intents and purposes, zero
diversity in processor architecture.

Robert.

In article 148227ac-ece0-4a24-97be-
,
says...
On Apr 28, 9:20 am, chrisv wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
Wish them luck - without AMD the whole CPU world would be
boring and damn expensive.

Amdroid fantasy. The PC as a platform is pushed on the low end by
game boxes and on the high end by IBM and Sun.

What could be more boring than the x86 domination we have now?
Without AMD, there would be no such monoculture.

Competition.
Intel would still be with Pentium 2 if not for AMD

Or IA64, with Intel having a complete monopoly, and all that implies.

Without AMD, one of threee things would have happened:

1. Intel would have had the resources to deliver a satisfactory
Itanium product and accompanying compiler on schedule.

Oh, give me a break! They blew an infinite source of money down
that rat hole as it was.

2. Intel would have been forced into a partial retreat to x86, anyway.

How did you come up with that dream?

3. Sparc or Power would be holding much larger market share under any
number of possible licensing and manufacturing arrangements.

That one too?

I personally believe that what we've got is the worst of all possible
worlds: AMD on death's door, Microsoft holding on to its monopoly
catering to just one ISA, and, to all intents and purposes, zero
diversity in processor architecture.

Of course you do; anything but competition from AMD.

--
Keith

In article ,
says...
" writes:
What could be more boring than the x86 domination we have now?
Without AMD, there would be no such monoculture.

Did you mean "without Intel"?

I suppose if AMD hadn't been around, there would have been a greater
chance of Intel getting their butts whipped by some other architecture,
instead of by AMD.

What architecture? You grossly underestimate the x86 inertia.

Of course AMD _did_ come up with "x86-64", which is an improvement over
the x86 (obviously even Intel thinks so).

Intel did too, but had no interest in pushing it forward to product.

--
Keith

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:22:52 -0700 (PDT), Robert Myers
wrote:
snip/
Without AMD, one of threee things would have happened:

1. Intel would have had the resources to deliver a satisfactory
Itanium product and accompanying compiler on schedule.
Itanium was stillborn, even more so than Netbust. Its only purpose
was to move everyone and their mother-in-law away from x86 and in the
process thereof screw all other chipmakers (chiefly AMD, since others
were, and still are, almost non-entities). While AMD and some other
guys have a license to churn out x86 compatible product, no licenses
were ever planned for IA64. Thanks to AMD and their Opteron product
beating Itanic on performance for a mere fraction of the price, it
didn't happen.

2. Intel would have been forced into a partial retreat to x86, anyway.
It took AMD64 (later renamed x84-64 to make it more digestable to
Intel) to do so. In all Intel roadmaps, x86 was to be relegated to
the low end of the market and then obsoleted in a matter of a few
years, if not months.

3. Sparc or Power would be holding much larger market share under any
number of possible licensing and manufacturing arrangements.
Sparc is big iron stuff, it just doesn't scale down to desktop, let
alone laptop. And Power... It could not even hold on to Apple, the
only desktop/laptop maker ever using it. Ironically, it was dumped to
make way to Intel x86 product.

I personally believe that what we've got is the worst of all possible
worlds: AMD on death's door, Microsoft holding on to its monopoly
catering to just one ISA, and, to all intents and purposes, zero
diversity in processor architecture.
Some prefer divercity, others prefer standard. Looks like you are not
in the business of writing software, otherwise you'd know what a pain
in a$$ is cross-platform compatibility.

NNN

krw writes:
I suppose if AMD hadn't been around, there would have been a greater
chance of Intel getting their butts whipped by some other architecture,
instead of by AMD.

What architecture? You grossly underestimate the x86 inertia.

"greater chance"

Not necessarily a _good_ chance, but it's the only way I can make sense
of the grandparent poster's ranting...

-Miles

--
x
y
Z!

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:32:54 +0900, Miles Bader wrote:

Not necessarily a _good_ chance, but it's the only way I can make sense
of the grandparent poster's ranting...
Don't try to make sense of something containing none of it whatsoever.

NNN

In article , says...
krw writes:
I suppose if AMD hadn't been around, there would have been a greater
chance of Intel getting their butts whipped by some other architecture,
instead of by AMD.

What architecture? You grossly underestimate the x86 inertia.

"greater chance"

Not necessarily a _good_ chance, but it's the only way I can make sense
of the grandparent poster's ranting...

Ten times zero is what?

--
Keith