Intel chipsets are the most stable?

Frank wrote:



True, True, True. I am having a senior moment, but doesn't AMD
license the initial i386 technology from Intel anyway???????



Lots of cross-licensing going on. Think Intel licensed 3DNow from AMD
and they definitely licensed EMT64 from AMD. They will likely license
Hypertransport too and AMD will probably license Hyperthreading.

Ykalon wrote:

Frank wrote:



True, True, True. I am having a senior moment, but doesn't AMD
license the initial i386 technology from Intel anyway???????


Lots of cross-licensing going on. Think Intel licensed 3DNow from AMD
and they definitely licensed EMT64 from AMD. They will likely license
Hypertransport too and AMD will probably license Hyperthreading.

Off hand I don't know of any Intel processors with 3DNow in them so it
raises the question why would they have licensed it?

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:07:07 +0000, Frank wrote:


"Johannes H Andersen" wrote in message
...


Frank wrote:

"Ykalon" wrote in message
...
Tony Hill wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:49:47 GMT, Ykalon
wrote:

Dave C. wrote:


hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca
The A64 3200+ for 939 is still new, the price will drop soon
enough.

Most things relating to the AMD 64 will happen soon. I don't
give much thought to what may or may not happen soon.
I pay attention to what is happening now. (price/operating system/
whatever else.

Precisely. Intel will have this and that AMD beating chip out
soon...
and besides, my dad will beat your dad...

True, True, True. I am having a senior moment, but doesn't AMD
license the initial i386 technology from Intel anyway???????

Initial '386?? AMD licensed the 8086/8 *design* from Intel. Up until the
'486 it was a symbiotic relationship. ...then many law suits, and AMD got
to keep the '486. After that the designs have pretty much gone down their
own paths. AMD has really had the upper hand for three or four years,
while Intel has been playing around with Itanic.

--
Keith

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 21:12:53 +0000, Ykalon wrote:

Frank wrote:



True, True, True. I am having a senior moment, but doesn't AMD
license the initial i386 technology from Intel anyway???????



Lots of cross-licensing going on. Think Intel licensed 3DNow from AMD
and they definitely licensed EMT64 from AMD.

Sure, and AMD licensed MMX, SSE, and SSE2 (if not all its offspring).
....though Intel has never implemented 3DNOW.

They will likely license Hypertransport

....not much different than PCI. Hypertransport licensing is pretty much a
matter of paying dues to the SIG.

too and AMD will probably license Hyperthreading.

What license? I don't believe Intel even owns the relevent patents. A
friend has some of the key ones.

--
Keith

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:03:38 -0500, Ed wrote:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 21:12:53 GMT, Ykalon wrote:

Frank wrote:

True, True, True. I am having a senior moment, but doesn't AMD
license the initial i386 technology from Intel anyway???????

Lots of cross-licensing going on. Think Intel licensed 3DNow from AMD
and they definitely licensed EMT64 from AMD. They will likely license
Hypertransport too and AMD will probably license Hyperthreading.

OVER AT THE US trademark and patent office, there's a slightly elderly
patent successfully filed by AMD back in 1999 which indicates that the
firm could provide hyperthreading for its processors, if it should so
wish.
http://www.theinquirer.net/Default.aspx?article=6773

"Hyperthreading" is just Intel's name for simultaneous
multi-threading. While Intel may have some patents related to SMT,
on-chip multithreading is definitely not a uniquely Intel thing. If
nothing else, IBM's Power5 already implements multithreading (can't
remember for sure if it's SMT, CMT or some other form) and Sun is
implementing CMT in their upcoming Niagara processor.

All that being said, I'm not sure that AMD has much use for SMT at
this stage of the game. If you compare the design of the Athlon64 to
the P4, you'll notice that AMD's chip has a much shorter pipeline and
significantly less memory latency. These two factors really take away
from the potential performance benefits of SMT, and even on the P4
those benefits aren't exactly earth-shattering. In fact, as often as
not hyperthreading ends up making things a little slower.

AMD's plan (and Intel's plan now as well) for dual-core chips is MUCH
more interesting in my books.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 01:19:19 -0400, Tony Hill wrote:

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:03:38 -0500, Ed wrote:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 21:12:53 GMT, Ykalon wrote:

Frank wrote:

True, True, True. I am having a senior moment, but doesn't AMD
license the initial i386 technology from Intel anyway???????

Lots of cross-licensing going on. Think Intel licensed 3DNow from AMD
and they definitely licensed EMT64 from AMD. They will likely license
Hypertransport too and AMD will probably license Hyperthreading.

OVER AT THE US trademark and patent office, there's a slightly elderly
patent successfully filed by AMD back in 1999 which indicates that the
firm could provide hyperthreading for its processors, if it should so
wish.
http://www.theinquirer.net/Default.aspx?article=6773

"Hyperthreading" is just Intel's name for simultaneous
multi-threading. While Intel may have some patents related to SMT,
on-chip multithreading is definitely not a uniquely Intel thing. If
nothing else, IBM's Power5 already implements multithreading (can't
remember for sure if it's SMT, CMT or some other form) and Sun is
implementing CMT in their upcoming Niagara processor.

The IBM *star PowerPCs out of ROvhester (AS/400 lab) had *MT something
like eight years ago. Whether it be SMT or CMT or ?MT, who knows.
....even the folks over on c.a. can't decide on the definitions, so I'm not
going there. ;-)

All that being said, I'm not sure that AMD has much use for SMT at this
stage of the game. If you compare the design of the Athlon64 to the P4,
you'll notice that AMD's chip has a much shorter pipeline and
significantly less memory latency. These two factors really take away
from the potential performance benefits of SMT, and even on the P4 those
benefits aren't exactly earth-shattering. In fact, as often as not
hyperthreading ends up making things a little slower.

....and I'm not sure anyone's explained why that is. Perhaps Intel's
implementation sucks? ...overhead doesn't make it worthwhile? THis is an
interesting question that no one has addressed very well. It's great
marketeering though! ;-)

AMD's plan (and Intel's plan now as well) for dual-core chips is MUCH
more interesting in my books.

Ok. I don't see it as all that "interesting". Obvious, yes.
OTOH, AMD's integrated memory controller is *both*. ;-)

--
Keith