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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Intel COO signals willingness to go with AMD64!!
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 02:04:13 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
wrote: http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040128/tech_intel_64bit_1.html Nothing new here except the words of an analyst: "Otellini's comments now suggest that Intel intends to release a desktop chip similar to and compatible with AMD's 64-bit offering, Brookwood said." Far as I can tell, Otellini said not a word about compatibility. Maybe, maybe not. Either the Reuters correspondent wrote a lousy article, putting the important words into the mouth of someone who doesn't count, it was edited badly, or Brookwood drew an unwarranted conclusion. RM |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Far as I can tell, Otellini said not a word about compatibility.
Maybe, maybe not. Either the Reuters correspondent wrote a lousy article, putting the important words into the mouth of someone who doesn't count, it was edited badly, or Brookwood drew an unwarranted conclusion. IMO, an Intel-branded 64-bit X86 (whether fully-campatible with AMD's 64-bit X86 or not) is more realistic than an average-joe desktop version of IA64. By the time of the 2008 presidential primaries (which is a long time in the tech world) IA64 will probably still be stuck in the high-end server/workstation segment. So much for Intel's grand vision for IA64 as an successor to X86 Intel just doesn't want to admit that they'd been beaten by AMD as far as general widespread acceptable of a 64-bit capable platform. And it would take a long time for Intel to catch up with then if they wish to go the IA64 route. So Intel cowers in muted secrecy on what 64-bit X86 support they may be working on. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:15:00 -0600, lyon_wonder
wrote: IMO, an Intel-branded 64-bit X86 (whether fully-campatible with AMD's 64-bit X86 or not) is more realistic than an average-joe desktop version of IA64. By the time of the 2008 presidential primaries (which is a long time in the tech world) IA64 will probably still be stuck in the high-end server/workstation segment. So much for Intel's grand vision for IA64 as an successor to X86 Intel just doesn't want to admit that they'd been beaten by AMD as far as general widespread acceptable of a 64-bit capable platform. And it would take a long time for Intel to catch up with then if they wish to go the IA64 route. So Intel cowers in muted secrecy on what 64-bit X86 support they may be working on. Intel said, when it rolled out the P4, that the technology would scale to 10GHz, so I don't think they had any near-term plans to abandon x86. By the time the P4 *does* reach 10GHz (if, indeed, it makes it), the world of computers is likely to have changed beyond recognition, and I don't think Intel ever had IA64 targeted at desktops. What used to be desktops will be divided into home/office appliances with low-power, low-heat, low-noise chips and workstations, where Xeon, AMD64, Opteron, and Itanium are going to be fighting over a modest-sized market. What has happened that _has_ taken Intel by surprise, is that AMD has successfully invaded a space for corporate servers it thought it owned. They had expected to have that space nailed down with Itanium and Xeon with performance out of reach for AMD. My own read is that IBM's willingness to put the best of its process technology at AMD's disposal tipped the balance of performance in a way that Intel never expected. Intel plainly feels a little pressured, but not so pressured that they have made anything but P4/Xeon easy to buy. Just try to buy an Itanium to put into your SuperMicro board or a Pentium-M to put into your ITX board. Somebody out there beside me must be really interested in what might be possible with Pentium-M if Intel didn't keep such a tight grip on it, and Intel is more eager to keep Itanium from being equated in any way with Opteron than it is to sell them. Just my read. RM |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message .rogers.com... http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040128/tech_intel_64bit_1.html Nothing in the article or elsewhere even remotely suggests that Intel will use AMD64 or anything that is similar to it in any way other than it will run 64-bit software (source code compatability in high-level languages). DS |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"David Schwartz" wrote in message
... "Yousuf Khan" wrote in message .rogers.com... http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040128/tech_intel_64bit_1.html Nothing in the article or elsewhere even remotely suggests that Intel will use AMD64 or anything that is similar to it in any way other than it will run 64-bit software (source code compatability in high-level languages). I think it's one of those reading of the political tea leaves sort of exercises. When Intel says that it's going to have processors ready to take advantage of 64-bit software when that software is ready, the only software that can be ready at that point is AMD64 software. Obviously, source code compatibility hasn't resulted in a lot of cross-platform applications coming out, for example between Itanium or Opteron. Nor between those two and any other 64-bit platform out there. The only sort of compatibility worth having is binary compatibility. Yousuf Khan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 01:09:52 -0500, Robert Myers
wrote: On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:15:00 -0600, lyon_wonder wrote: IMO, an Intel-branded 64-bit X86 (whether fully-campatible with AMD's 64-bit X86 or not) is more realistic than an average-joe desktop version of IA64. By the time of the 2008 presidential primaries (which is a long time in the tech world) IA64 will probably still be stuck in the high-end server/workstation segment. So much for Intel's grand vision for IA64 as an successor to X86 Intel just doesn't want to admit that they'd been beaten by AMD as far as general widespread acceptable of a 64-bit capable platform. And it would take a long time for Intel to catch up with then if they wish to go the IA64 route. So Intel cowers in muted secrecy on what 64-bit X86 support they may be working on. Intel said, when it rolled out the P4, that the technology would scale to 10GHz, so I don't think they had any near-term plans to abandon x86. By the time the P4 *does* reach 10GHz (if, indeed, it makes it), the world of computers is likely to have changed beyond recognition, and I don't think Intel ever had IA64 targeted at desktops. Long before P4 came to fruition, there were "road-maps" which showed x86 reduced to a near-zero role - only STBs IIRC - by 2005/2006. Those portrayals are no longer available of course so their provenance is therefore difficult to pin down now but they looked official enough to me and were published on reputable industry sites like E-Insite. It was certainly my interpretation at the time that IA64 was targeted to take over even the desktop market by then and that Intel was the one saying it. What used to be desktops will be divided into home/office appliances with low-power, low-heat, low-noise chips and workstations, where Xeon, AMD64, Opteron, and Itanium are going to be fighting over a modest-sized market. What has happened that _has_ taken Intel by surprise, is that AMD has successfully invaded a space for corporate servers it thought it owned. They had expected to have that space nailed down with Itanium and Xeon with performance out of reach for AMD. My own read is that IBM's willingness to put the best of its process technology at AMD's disposal tipped the balance of performance in a way that Intel never expected. Yes the AMD servers must be quite a shock to the people at Intel who thought that AMD would never get more than a nibble at the high ASP sector. Mind you I haven't seen any firm reports that corporations are biting on Opteron - AMD *could* do a better job on "visibility". As for IBM's "willingness" an initial (reported) payment of $46million in November '02 to fix Cu?/OI for the Opteron (but not for Barton) was surely a nice incentive.:-) Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me?? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:09:19 -0800, "David Schwartz"
wrote: "Yousuf Khan" wrote in message e.rogers.com... http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040128/tech_intel_64bit_1.html Nothing in the article or elsewhere even remotely suggests that Intel will use AMD64 or anything that is similar to it in any way other than it will run 64-bit software (source code compatability in high-level languages). The article most certainly does suggest that an analyst read things that way. Whether Otellini meant that is another matter - Itanium for the desktop does not "fit" either - an Iteleron??shrug Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me?? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message le.rogers.com... "David Schwartz" wrote in message ... "Yousuf Khan" wrote in message .rogers.com... http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040128/tech_intel_64bit_1.html Nothing in the article or elsewhere even remotely suggests that Intel will use AMD64 or anything that is similar to it in any way other than it will run 64-bit software (source code compatability in high-level languages). I think it's one of those reading of the political tea leaves sort of exercises. When Intel says that it's going to have processors ready to take advantage of 64-bit software when that software is ready, the only software that can be ready at that point is AMD64 software. Umm, no. He means 64-bit windows software. That is, software that can be made to run on a 64-bit windows platform of any kind. He doesn't say anything about binary compatibility and there's no reason to think that's important. Obviously, source code compatibility hasn't resulted in a lot of cross-platform applications coming out, for example between Itanium or Opteron. Nor between those two and any other 64-bit platform out there. The only sort of compatibility worth having is binary compatibility. That's because there's no 64-bit software market yet. That's Intel's whole point. DS |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"George Macdonald" wrote in message ... On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:09:19 -0800, "David Schwartz" wrote: "Yousuf Khan" wrote in message le.rogers.com... http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040128/tech_intel_64bit_1.html Nothing in the article or elsewhere even remotely suggests that Intel will use AMD64 or anything that is similar to it in any way other than it will run 64-bit software (source code compatability in high-level languages). The article most certainly does suggest that an analyst read things that way. Whether Otellini meant that is another matter - Itanium for the desktop does not "fit" either - an Iteleron??shrug There's no evidence that Intel feels that way. Everyone is free to speculate. DS |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Need New PC recommendations/info | Dan | Homebuilt PC's | 71 | January 22nd 05 10:53 PM |
Intel chipsets are the most stable? | rstlne | Overclocking AMD Processors | 105 | October 26th 04 02:53 AM |
P4EE will cost $1000 | Yousuf Khan | General | 60 | December 27th 03 02:19 PM |
IBM white paper on Opteron | Yousuf Khan | General | 115 | November 7th 03 03:04 AM |
Intel wants to slow down platform changes | Rob Stow | General | 6 | July 5th 03 11:13 AM |