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 » Processors » Overclocking AMD Processors
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #22  
Old April 30th 08, 02:53 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,de.comp.hardware.cpu+mainboard.amd,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
chrisv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 580
Default AMD planning 45nm 12-Core 'Istanbul' Processor ?

krw wrote:

says...

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.


Yeah, I recall how years ago some nutcases saying things like the
Pentium 3 (yes, the 3) was "already obsolete" upon release, because it
did not support IA64, which was set to blow X86 out of the market when
it was released.

Of course, more sensible minds thought "Huh? It'll be more expensive,
yet run all the software slower, since all the software is X86, so why
would I want it?"

  #23  
Old April 30th 08, 06:22 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,de.comp.hardware.cpu+mainboard.amd,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Wes Newell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 687
Default AMD planning 45nm 12-Core 'Istanbul' Processor ?

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:45:45 -0500, chrisv wrote:

Wes Newell wrote:

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:18:24 -0400, krw wrote:

says...

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.


Funny, that's not how I recall it. Intel dropped their x86-64 bit plans
after trying to push it onto Microsoft, and Microsoft telling them to
shove off. I think this link will get more to the truth.


That was later. Intel had explored 64-bit extensions to X86 years
earlier. (How could they not? CPU's are their business.)


Of course they had. But they didn't want 64 bit to come out for x86 to
compete with Itanium. And by trying to protect it, they basically screwed
themselves. Only after AMD released theirs did they try to bring their x86
64 bit code out. MS had already done a version of windows for Itanium and
weren't going to play Intels games at their expense.

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder?
http://mythtv.org
My Tivo Experience http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/tivo.htm
Tivo HD/S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm
AMD cpu help http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
  #24  
Old April 30th 08, 06:41 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,de.comp.hardware.cpu+mainboard.amd,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
chrisv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 580
Default AMD planning 45nm 12-Core 'Istanbul' Processor ?

Wes Newell wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:45:45 -0500, chrisv wrote:

Wes Newell wrote:

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:18:24 -0400, krw wrote:

says...

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.

Funny, that's not how I recall it. Intel dropped their x86-64 bit plans
after trying to push it onto Microsoft, and Microsoft telling them to
shove off. I think this link will get more to the truth.


That was later. Intel had explored 64-bit extensions to X86 years
earlier. (How could they not? CPU's are their business.)


Of course they had. But they didn't want 64 bit to come out for x86 to
compete with Itanium. And by trying to protect it, they basically screwed
themselves. Only after AMD released theirs did they try to bring their x86
64 bit code out. MS had already done a version of windows for Itanium and
weren't going to play Intels games at their expense.


None of that disputes what Keith or I have claimed. I think we're all
on the same page, now.

  #25  
Old May 1st 08, 12:35 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,de.comp.hardware.cpu+mainboard.amd,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Zootal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 87
Default AMD planning 45nm 12-Core 'Istanbul' Processor ?

Yeah, I recall how years ago some nutcases saying things like the
Pentium 3 (yes, the 3) was "already obsolete" upon release, because it
did not support IA64, which was set to blow X86 out of the market when
it was released.

PIII obsolete? Hmm...trivia of the day - what microarchitecture did Intel
base the core on? And what microarchitecture does the core have little if
anything to do with?


  #26  
Old May 1st 08, 01:19 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,de.comp.hardware.cpu+mainboard.amd,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Scott Lurndal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default AMD planning 45nm 12-Core 'Istanbul' Processor ?

"Zootal" writes:
Yeah, I recall how years ago some nutcases saying things like the
Pentium 3 (yes, the 3) was "already obsolete" upon release, because it
did not support IA64, which was set to blow X86 out of the market when
it was released.

PIII obsolete? Hmm...trivia of the day - what microarchitecture did Intel
base the core on? And what microarchitecture does the core have little if
anything to do with?


Former: Netburst, IIRC.
Latter: Anything other than netburst?

scott
  #27  
Old May 1st 08, 01:24 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,de.comp.hardware.cpu+mainboard.amd,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Zootal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 87
Default AMD planning 45nm 12-Core 'Istanbul' Processor ?


"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
...
"Zootal" writes:
Yeah, I recall how years ago some nutcases saying things like the
Pentium 3 (yes, the 3) was "already obsolete" upon release, because it
did not support IA64, which was set to blow X86 out of the market when
it was released.

PIII obsolete? Hmm...trivia of the day - what microarchitecture did Intel
base the core on? And what microarchitecture does the core have little if
anything to do with?


Former: Netburst, IIRC.
Latter: Anything other than netburst?

scott


Um...are you sure you don't want to reverse those answers? Or do you mean
former architecture=netburst, latter (core) = anything but?


  #28  
Old May 1st 08, 04:37 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,de.comp.hardware.cpu+mainboard.amd,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Robert Redelmeier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 316
Default AMD planning 45nm 12-Core 'Istanbul' Processor ?

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Zootal wrote in part:
Yeah, I recall how years ago some nutcases saying things like the
Pentium 3 (yes, the 3) was "already obsolete" upon release, because it
did not support IA64, which was set to blow X86 out of the market when
it was released.

PIII obsolete? Hmm...trivia of the day - what microarchitecture
did Intel base the core on? And what microarchitecture does the
core have little if anything to do with?



The Pentium III was little more than a Pentium II with the L2
cache chips integrated on-die and running faster. The P2 was
little more than a slot repackaging of the PentiumPro which was
a completely new effort for Intel having nothing in common with
the original Pentium and PentiumMMX.

In many ways the P4 has nothing in common with the P3 or core,
and looks much more like a dressed up, overclocked original Pentium.

-- Robert




  #29  
Old May 1st 08, 06:14 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,de.comp.hardware.cpu+mainboard.amd,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Zootal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 87
Default AMD planning 45nm 12-Core 'Istanbul' Processor ?


The Pentium III was little more than a Pentium II with the L2
cache chips integrated on-die and running faster. The P2 was
little more than a slot repackaging of the PentiumPro which was
a completely new effort for Intel having nothing in common with
the original Pentium and PentiumMMX.

In many ways the P4 has nothing in common with the P3 or core,
and looks much more like a dressed up, overclocked original Pentium.

-- Robert


That is pretty much my understanding. The P4's netburst architecture was a
dead end road, and not even cranking up the clock to 3.8GHz gave the
performance people wanted. The core did not inherit from the P4, but was
based on PPro/II/III architecture.


 




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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AMD planning 45nm 12-Core 'Istanbul' Processor ? AirRaid General 115 June 13th 08 04:48 PM
AMD planning 45nm 12-Core 'Istanbul' Processor ? AirRaid Intel 43 May 12th 08 04:31 PM
AMD planning 45nm 12-Core 'Istanbul' Processor ? AirRaid AMD x86-64 Processors 28 May 1st 08 06:14 AM
Is RAM Dedicated by Core in Mutli-Core Processor Systems? JB General 3 August 12th 07 07:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.