A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

AMD/Linux vs Intel/Microsoft



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 8th 04, 05:13 AM
E
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default AMD/Linux vs Intel/Microsoft

Hello

You can't help to notice the significant change in hardware and software at
the moment. A somewhat interesting scenerio is playing out.

AMD has its x86-64 architecture, which can run 32-bit applications rather
well, and promises to be able to run 64 bit applications, when they come
out, even better. They have forced Intel to play there hand, and now Intel
must follow AMD's lead.

Although Intel currently has there own IA-64 architecture, this is aimed at
the server market, and from what I have read, if Intel wants to go 64 bit,
Microsoft wants Intel to get a license to implement AMD x86-64
architecture. But Intel also has Hyperthreading in there Xeon and Pentium 4
lines, and will have a more improved version in the Prescott
core, which may help in multitasking. But like AMD's 64 bit solution, don't
individual applications need to be written and compiled with the new
optimizations in mind, in order to gain any benefit?

This is where it gets interesting. Why doesn't Microsoft have an x86-64
version ready of Windows XP? Will Linux companies pick up the slack, and
ban together with AMD to take some of the Windows and Intel market share?
There are already 64-bit Linux distributions ready. Will open source
applications be optimized for AMD x86-64? Will proprietary vendors of
multimedia and photo editing software, optimize there applications for AMD
x86-64 and port them to Linux? We can only hope.

E


  #2  
Old January 8th 04, 06:31 AM
E
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alucard wrote:


Here is the MS/XP64bit site
http://www.microsoft.com/WindowsXP/64bit/default.asp
Its been available for almost a year to OEMs,via MSDN and usenet warez.


Thanks for the link, but isn't that the version of Windows XP written and
compiled for the Itanium. This shows that Microsoft has a 64 bit workstation
solution, but the workstation must have an Intel Itanium. This will not
install on x86-64.

Competition is good for all. It is good to see AMD pushing Intel harder
but
it is unlikely that any open source companies will ally with AMD. Why
limit their markets?


I agree the competition is good.

The way I worded my question may have seemed
to imply that I was asking if there would be an official alliance between
AMD and open source. I had in mind a de facto alliance, however temporary,
for both AMD and open source companies to market there products while Intel
and Microsoft got around to addressing x86-64. I read Intel may have an
x86-64 architecture CPU out in 2005, so any work done by open source
for x86-64 will not go to waste.


Adobe already tried a Solaris port of PhotoShop and it did not sell.at
all. Unlikely there will be a Linux build especially since PhotoShop runs
well under Wine.


Thats a shame. Maybe Adobe will give it another shot if they see Linux or
FreeBSD on AMD gaining momentum.

E



  #3  
Old January 8th 04, 06:40 AM
E
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

E wrote:

(snip)

Although Intel currently has there own IA-64 architecture, this is aimed
at the server market, and from what I have read, if Intel wants to go 64
bit, Microsoft wants Intel to get a license to implement AMD x86-64
architecture. But Intel also has Hyperthreading in there Xeon and Pentium
4 lines, and will have a more improved version in the Prescott
core, which may help in multitasking. But like AMD's 64 bit solution,
don't individual applications need to be written and compiled with the
new optimizations in mind, in order to gain any benefit?


There is a discussion in one of these newsgroups on the need for
64 bit at all. While I do know a few applications for them, they
are relatively rare.


Multimedia and games. If they are compiled for x86-64 and ported to Linux,
then we might have something. I don't think there is anything wrong with
running proprietary closed source applications on Linux or BSD.


Remember, though, when the 386 and 486 first came out, and they were
mostly used to run 16 bit DOS applications. Usually they were faster,
which was for some enough reason to buy one. Will x86-64 be enough
faster to buy it for 32 bit code?

Hyperthreading, like multiple processors, should benefit normal programs
when more than one are running at once, or when an OS program needs
to run. That is assuming that the OS supports it.


Yes, and I was wondering if individual applications like games and video
editing could some how benefit from a dual processor system or a
Hyperthreading CPU, if written and compiled to use Hypertreading.


  #4  
Old January 8th 04, 07:01 AM
E
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bar B Q wrote:

E wrote:

This is where it gets interesting. Why doesn't Microsoft have an x86-64
version ready of Windows XP? Will Linux companies pick up the slack, and
ban together with AMD to take some of the Windows and Intel market share?


why doesn't Intel and AMD adopt Linux and produce their own distros
optimized to their chips?

why do they have to deal with m$oft at all ?

why not certify Linux chips with optimized kernels?



I didn't really mean that open source companies would literally band
together with AMD, maybe just a temporary de facto alliance.

But I like your ideas better. Even with Intel, since Intel has there own
compiler, that is as far as I know, free to use with Linux for
non-commercial use. And who would know how to create a compiler for an
Intel chip better than Intel? Although I also read that it still has some
problems with Linux kernal compiles, it seems to be getting better.
Application compiled with the Intel compiler benchmark a bit higher in a
lot of areas according to what I have read. So far I guess this is just
for regular 32 bit x86.

AMD has teamed up with Portland and STMicroelectronics to create a compiler
for x86-64 and Linux...

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors
DevelopWithAMD/0,,30_2252_2272_7640,00.html

And there is this from a privately held company called Pathscale
http://www.pathscale.com/




  #5  
Old January 8th 04, 11:54 AM
Kevin Lawton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

E wrote:
| Alucard wrote:
snip
|| Adobe already tried a Solaris port of PhotoShop and it did not
|| sell.at all. Unlikely there will be a Linux build especially since
|| PhotoShop runs well under Wine.
|
| Thats a shame. Maybe Adobe will give it another shot if they see
| Linux or FreeBSD on AMD gaining momentum.

The problem might be that most users of open source Op Systems, like Linux
and FreeBSD, are used to getting their application software under a similar
arrangement. There might not be much money to be made from commercial
applications competing head-on with open-source equivalents like The Gimp.
Would Microsoft ever do a Linux version of office to face Sun's Star Office
? Probably not !
API bridges, like WINE, enable you to run well written Windoze
applications under Linux so there's even less incentive.
Drivers and utility programs are a different matter, though. Quite a
number of hardware namufacturers are drivers for Linux, BeOS and FreeBSD as
well as different versions of Windoze. If they didn't, they'd run the risk
of losing out on a growing market share.
I don't think there is much profit made out of drivers, though.
Kevin.



  #6  
Old January 8th 04, 02:02 PM
Tim Shoppa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

E wrote in message ...
This is where it gets interesting. Why doesn't Microsoft have an x86-64
version ready of Windows XP?


Set your wayback machine to the early-mid-90's and remember that Microsoft
sold Windows NT for a 64-bit platform (Alpha) before. Rumors have it that
other RISC platforms were targets back then too. Clearly they have (or
had) some internal experience with multiple target platforms, even though
it's not nearly as extensive as the Linux experience.

Back then the big gotcha was binary-only driver distributions that weren't
cross-compatible. Microsoft invested a lot of time and money into some
mitigation schemes, some of which were clever or stupid depending who you
ask (virtualized 386 on an Alpha handling driver stuff!) but all that
may have to be re-done... AGAIN. Linux doesn't suffer nearly so much
from this stupidity (but it does, to some extent, as many manufacturers
distribute binary-only drivers for Linux. That's not the fault of Linux,
although many regard binary-only drivers as pure evil.)

Tim.
  #8  
Old January 8th 04, 02:40 PM
chrisv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 06:02:14 -0800, Tim Shoppa wrote:

Linux doesn't suffer nearly so much
from this stupidity (but it does, to some extent, as many manufacturers
distribute binary-only drivers for Linux. That's not the fault of
Linux, although many regard binary-only drivers as pure evil.)


I'll take them. Either that, or have REALLY good, simple, step-by-step,
never-fail instructions. Since that's usually too difficult for them to
get right, hell, just compile me the binaries.

You can't tell me it would take all THAT much manpower for a company
like ATI to compile their drivers for the half-dozen or so leading Linux
distributions. If they want their cards to be purchased by Linux users,
they should be doing it.

  #9  
Old January 8th 04, 04:05 PM
Bernd Paysan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

chrisv wrote:
You can't tell me it would take all THAT much manpower for a company
like ATI to compile their drivers for the half-dozen or so leading Linux
distributions. If they want their cards to be purchased by Linux users,
they should be doing it.


I don't know what problems you'll have with ATI cards and Linux (up to now,
I've mainly use nVidia cards, and a Matrox card), but if you go to http:/
www.ati.com/support/faq/linux.html, you'll see that ATI does support Linux,
and does provide proprietary binary drivers on http://mirror.ati.com
support/driver.html. ATI also does provide informations to the Linux
developer community (the DRI project), at least up to the Radeon 9200 (not
the high-end ones - there, only the binary drivers are available). The
binary drivers support only the i386 architecture, i.e. those people who
want a real high-end graphic workstation with an Athlon 64 (or two
Opterons) will not be able to make use of a high-end ATI card. nVidia on
the other hand does support AMD64. Since Radeon 9x00 excel at DirectX 9
benchmarks, while GeForce 5x00 is better at OpenGL benchmarks, it's
probably better for a Linux user to use nVidia cards, anyway.

--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.