AMD's 64-bits better than Intel's 64-bits

JengoJengo Pasco, WA | USA
edited May 2004 in Science & Tech
Even Microsoft is saying it.
A WIDE-RANGING interview with Microsoft senior VP Bob Muglia has revealed that the software giant believes not only that there are differences between iAMD64 and Intel's EM64T but that the former is better than the latter.
Ouch.

Source: The Inquirer

Comments

  • RWBRWB Icrontian
    edited May 2004
    ;D

    That about sums it up for me.
  • BlackHawkBlackHawk Bible music connoisseur There's no place like 127.0.0.1 Icrontian
    edited May 2004
    I thought Intel used the same 64bit extension thingy as AMD.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited May 2004
    It's Intel. They're ridiculously deft at taking sound theory and failing in all matters of application.

    See: Hyperthreading.
    See: Extra cache.
    See: Clockspeeds.
    See: Hyperpiplining.
    See: Xeon.
    See: Itanium.
    See: RDRAM.
  • ShortyShorty Manchester, UK Icrontian
    edited May 2004
    Virtues of Evil wrote:
    I thought Intel used the same 64bit extension thingy as AMD.
    They have effectively reverse engineered AMD's 64bit extensions. There are some subtle differences but it's too early to say as Intel aren't letting much out of the bag on their x86...

    .. well apart from the "we realise that our '32bit is all you need'" speech last October.. was a damn dumb move ;D
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited May 2004
    I'm changing my user name to The Prophet.

    I predicted many months ago, when Dan was at the UK Gaming Expo, that they would switch to model numbers, lower the clockspeed, and that their 32 bit push would fail.
  • ShortyShorty Manchester, UK Icrontian
    edited May 2004
    Thrax wrote:
    I'm changing my user name to The Prophet.

    I predicted many months ago, when Dan was at the UK Gaming Expo, that they would switch to model numbers, lower the clockspeed, and that their 32 bit push would fail.
    yep ;) and will you look at that..
  • OverLoadOverLoad
    edited May 2004
    wow- thrax what else will happen? lol
  • EyesOnlyEyesOnly Sweden New
    edited May 2004
    One word. :Pwned:
  • GobblesGobbles Ventura California
    edited May 2004
    ahh.. comments based on a article put out by the inquirer... Im sure some of you actually read the article before posting.. If you did you would know that those quotes are kinda liberal. What the SOFTWARE GUY commenting on hardware says is that both companies will be/are offering solid solutions in the 64bit arena but AMD has been in longer so their product has the advantage and an edge on intel who will be releasing a decent product but as the new comer to the lower end 64bit arena (non itanic) they have some things to work out and will be investing in the technology.

    Lets flash back a few years to when AMD hopped in with its pentium clones... ewww. comes to mind.. now look at them..

    Just my .02

    Gobbles..
  • Straight_ManStraight_Man Geeky, in my own way Naples, FL Icrontian
    edited May 2004
    For pure 64-bit, Intel has to play catchup, period. AMD built both server and consumer base designs at once almost for 64 bit, Intel is going to push server solutions first, because the 64-bit software and O\Ss will already run on both for pure 64 bit and big research folks that buy large-sized clusters of 64 bit things write their own software.

    Rhetorical Question: How did open source have a 64 bit O\S running before Intel came out with chips openly and what compiler was basis for that inital O\S build???

    Intel's Dev mid-Beta compiler for Linux 64 bit, released free for testing to Linux and Open Source folks who asked for it, plus AMD engineers in Europe helped get THAT modded into an Open Source compiler that worked with 1 and 2 pipe Opterons-- by disabling the CPU checking and testing on CPU proof design runs. That built a *nix 64 bit O\S before Microsoft was ready to release, expect 64-bit stuff at server level from Microsoft first. They can't rewrite everything at once for 64-bit, expect server grade 64 bit first from them also as well as by Intel insofar as chips.

    Moore's Law and heat laws say we are hung at under 4 GHz true until a different structural architecture is in the chips. It is easier to go wider than faster with current architectures, hope is that slower and wider will be more productive than current narrower 32 bit. But, we need end user software for that, big time, for that to be really doable at consumer level.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited May 2004
    John_D wrote:
    expect 64-bit stuff at server level from Microsoft first.

    The first 64-bit OS for the 64 Bit AMD chips will be Windows XP for 64 Bit Extended. That's a consumer-level OS, so no, we're not expecting it at the server level first.
    John_D wrote:
    that worked with 1 and 2 pipe Opterons

    There's no such thing as a 1 pipe Opteron. All Opterons are 2 pipes or more to accomodate the massive HyperTransport system bus.
  • TexTex Dallas/Ft. Worth
    edited May 2004
    Thrax wrote:
    The first 64-bit OS for the 64 Bit AMD chips will be Windows XP for 64 Bit Extended. That's a consumer-level OS, so no, we're not expecting it at the server level first.

    On the contrary I believe they will release win2k3 simultaneouly or within days of each other. In fact win2k3 could come first because a server OS needs a much smaller set of drivers really. With XP you really need a fuller set of sound and video etc... drivers due to the target of the OS itself. At worst they will be withing a couple days of each other if XP launchs first.

    Tex
Sign In or Register to comment.