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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Is Itanium the first 64-bit casualty?
Brett Davis wrote:
The big problem for both these firms is OutOfOrder design and getting all the details right, which took AMD a decade. Also the portfolio of patents needed to actually implement OoO for x86 in a competitive way. VIAs latest core is OoO. -- Mvh./Regards, Niels Jørgen Kruse, Vanløse, Denmark |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Is Itanium the first 64-bit casualty?
Brett Davis wrote:
In article , Yousuf Khan wrote: Brett Davis wrote: The only question I have about NVDA is who is going to buy the remains when the company craters in two years. Nvidia still has the cash to buy VIA many times over. VIA owns an x86 core that can be made to compete in more markets with some adequate R&D budget. Lots of people have the money to buy VIA, its just an engineering firm with 2,000 people. VIA is years and billions away from being a real threat to Intel, and Intel having learned its lesson from letting AMD live is not about to make that mistake twice. Intel is using Engineering (Atom and 45nm) and marketing/bribes/threats to VIAs supply chain shut VIA down. I do not see how VIA survives as an independent. The firm that buys VIA might just want the engineers, and would get a under the table bonus from Intel for shutting down x86 development. Otherwise Intel will just keep the pressure up with Atom, etc. VIA has an x86 license, which is something Nvidia doesn't have. I'm sure Nvidia could build their own x86 core if they wanted to, but they wouldn't be allowed to sell it. There is also the Renesas RX series CPUs which is already almost an exact copy down to including string opcodes. The opcode encoding is completely different, but that is just a detail. http://documentation.renesas.com/eng...b0435_rxsm.pdf Are you saying this processor is x86 compatible without them claiming to be x86 compatible? The big problem for both these firms is OutOfOrder design and getting all the details right, which took AMD a decade. Also the portfolio of patents needed to actually implement OoO for x86 in a competitive way. VIA now has the out-of-order execution, with its latest core. VIA Nano Processor - VIA Technologies, Inc. "The superscalar, speculative out-of-order 'Isaiah, architecture of the VIA Nano processor family supports a full 64-bit instruction set and provides for macro-fusion and micro-fusion functionality, and sophisticated branch prediction for greater processor efficiency and performance. " http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/processors/nano/ Yousuf Khan |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Is Itanium the first 64-bit casualty?
Brett Davis wrote:
I could argue that the recent run up in NVidea was Wall Street in a panic putting the screws on Intel to make a deal now, before the price goes "higher". When everyone knows the price is going down. Look at the top ten holders of NVidea, these big Wall Street firms cannot sell without collapsing the price, so they are pushing hard for someone to buy NVidea, or they will end up with big losses. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=NVDA There would be considerable anti-trust implications for Intel if they bought Nvidia. They already own the majority of the overall graphics market share, albeit with non-cutting-edge just basic graphics. If they bought Nvidia, they'd have control over the cutting-edge graphics too. Yousuf Khan |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Is Itanium the first 64-bit casualty?
In article , Yousuf Khan
wrote: Brett Davis wrote: In article , Yousuf Khan wrote: Brett Davis wrote: The only question I have about NVDA is who is going to buy the remains when the company craters in two years. Nvidia still has the cash to buy VIA many times over. VIA owns an x86 core that can be made to compete in more markets with some adequate R&D budget. Lots of people have the money to buy VIA, its just an engineering firm with 2,000 people. VIA is years and billions away from being a real threat to Intel, and Intel having learned its lesson from letting AMD live is not about to make that mistake twice. Intel is using Engineering (Atom and 45nm) and marketing/bribes/threats to VIAs supply chain shut VIA down. I do not see how VIA survives as an independent. The firm that buys VIA might just want the engineers, and would get a under the table bonus from Intel for shutting down x86 development. Otherwise Intel will just keep the pressure up with Atom, etc. VIA has an x86 license, which is something Nvidia doesn't have. I'm sure Nvidia could build their own x86 core if they wanted to, but they wouldn't be allowed to sell it. Just like with AMD, that license goes away on corporate change of control. NVidea would only get the design and the engineers, and would face lawsuits over the VIA chips. There is also the Renesas RX series CPUs which is already almost an exact copy down to including string opcodes. The opcode encoding is completely different, but that is just a detail. http://documentation.renesas.com/eng...b0435_rxsm.pdf Are you saying this processor is x86 compatible without them claiming to be x86 compatible? No, I am saying it is easy to change the decoder ROM to add x86 compatibility. I am assuming that some key Intel patents are soon to expire. Another reason for Intel to plant its stake in the low end market first with Atom. The big problem for both these firms is OutOfOrder design and getting all the details right, which took AMD a decade. Also the portfolio of patents needed to actually implement OoO for x86 in a competitive way. VIA now has the out-of-order execution, with its latest core. VIA Nano Processor - VIA Technologies, Inc. "The superscalar, speculative out-of-order 'Isaiah, architecture of the VIA Nano processor family supports a full 64-bit instruction set and provides for macro-fusion and micro-fusion functionality, and sophisticated branch prediction for greater processor efficiency and performance. " http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/processors/nano/ Yousuf Khan |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Is Itanium the first 64-bit casualty?
In article ,
(Brett Davis) wrote: wrote: No it isn't. It means that you can't break out of the embedded market into the high-volume desktop/laptop market, because you won't have Windows. When Intel first planned EM64T, they were going to have a different encoding to AMD64, so that 64-bit software would have to be built separately for Intel and AMD. Microsoft just said "no". The embedded market is the high volume market, not low end x86. Ah, I wasn't clear. I'm perfectly well aware that the embedded market has much higher volume, although at lower unit prices. What I failed to do clearly was distinguish the non-x86 part of the desktop/laptop market (which is very small) from the x86 part. Once the volumes are up and the bugs worked out, then you worry about changing to x86 encoding. Changing the instruction decoder ROM is easy, especially if you have planned for it. Now you have volume sales protected from Intels interference, flip a switch for x86 compatibility and start selling into the low end x86 market. If you can evade the patents, or they've expired. Otherwise you're definitely committing commercial suicide. It's a pretty risky business anyway; how many x86 challengers have failed to establish themselves so far? VIA acquired the remains of at least two engineering teams, and while they have a niche, they don't seem to be growing fast. John |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Is Itanium the first 64-bit casualty?
Brett Davis wrote:
In article , Yousuf Khan wrote: VIA has an x86 license, which is something Nvidia doesn't have. I'm sure Nvidia could build their own x86 core if they wanted to, but they wouldn't be allowed to sell it. Just like with AMD, that license goes away on corporate change of control. NVidea would only get the design and the engineers, and would face lawsuits over the VIA chips. Not necessarily. I've not heard that about VIA's x86 license. My understanding is that VIA is just a client licensee, and that as long as they simply keep paying the royalty fees, they can continue to use it no matter what their ownership status. On the other hand, the AMD x86 license is an actual cross-license where AMD gets to use certain Intel patents for free, and vice-versa, under certain circumstances. The circumstances for AMD are of course AMD's ownership status, and its internal manufacturing status. There is also the Renesas RX series CPUs which is already almost an exact copy down to including string opcodes. The opcode encoding is completely different, but that is just a detail. http://documentation.renesas.com/eng...b0435_rxsm.pdf Are you saying this processor is x86 compatible without them claiming to be x86 compatible? No, I am saying it is easy to change the decoder ROM to add x86 compatibility. I am assuming that some key Intel patents are soon to expire. Another reason for Intel to plant its stake in the low end market first with Atom. Transmeta went that way, and the results were none-too-good for performance. Yousuf Khan |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Is Itanium the first 64-bit casualty?
Brett Davis wrote:
The embedded market is the high volume market, not low end x86. Once the volumes are up and the bugs worked out, then you worry about changing to x86 encoding. Changing the instruction decoder ROM is easy, especially if you have planned for it. Now you have volume sales protected from Intels interference, flip a switch for x86 compatibility and start selling into the low end x86 market. Intel sees this coming, which is why Atom exists, to turn the low end x86 market into a profit wasteland. This magic x86 decoder ROM that you keep talking about, doesn't exist. The decoding is all done internally in the processor, and the opcodes are built-into the processor. Transmeta is the only one that ever tried fully reprogrammable opcodes, and it wasn't a great performer. Yousuf Khan |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Is Itanium the first 64-bit casualty?
On Jun 6, 9:56*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
There would be considerable anti-trust implications for Intel if they bought Nvidia. They already own the majority of the overall graphics market share, albeit with non-cutting-edge just basic graphics. If they bought Nvidia, they'd have control over the cutting-edge graphics too. So, the best anti-trust solution is an AMD/ATI monopoly. So far as the presumed death of Nvidia is concerned and the recent stock price runup, Tegra might figure into it all somewhe http://techvideoblog.com/computex/nv...bile-software/ http://www.arm.com/iqonline/news/partnernews/25208.html and over a hundred others from google news. Moving more and more action onto the GPU with a fairly wimpy CPU looks like a serious threat to x86 to me. The wimpy CPU can handle legacy software. Modern software will make maximum use of GPU-like processors. Even Microsoft will have to respond. Robert. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Is Itanium the first 64-bit casualty?
In article , Yousuf Khan
wrote: Brett Davis wrote: The embedded market is the high volume market, not low end x86. Once the volumes are up and the bugs worked out, then you worry about changing to x86 encoding. Changing the instruction decoder ROM is easy, especially if you have planned for it. Now you have volume sales protected from Intels interference, flip a switch for x86 compatibility and start selling into the low end x86 market. Intel sees this coming, which is why Atom exists, to turn the low end x86 market into a profit wasteland. This magic x86 decoder ROM that you keep talking about, doesn't exist. The decoding is all done internally in the processor, and the opcodes are built-into the processor. Transmeta is the only one that ever tried fully reprogrammable opcodes, and it wasn't a great performer. There is a tiny part of the CPU that maps a read opcode byte to the instruction used. The 6502 CPU for example has only 4,000 transistors for everything and implements a pretty complex opcode scheme. Changing an ADD so it maps to hex 5A instead of hex B6 is not that hard. Even after adding all the x86 garbage, its still just not a big deal. The hard parts are the millions of transistors that implement the OutOfOrder part of the CPU. And the patents you will run into. Brett |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is Itanium the first 64-bit casualty? | Yousuf Khan | General | 234 | August 24th 04 08:43 AM |
Is Itanium the first 64-bit casualty? | Yousuf Khan | Intel | 234 | August 24th 04 08:43 AM |
We NEED an Itanium 3! | John Savard | Intel | 15 | April 7th 04 01:15 PM |
Itanium experts- Building Itanium 1 systems from old parts | Matt Simis | Intel | 5 | December 20th 03 02:41 PM |
Itanium Experts - Building Itanium 1 systems (parts)? | Matt Simis | General | 1 | December 18th 03 07:02 PM |