Intel CTO: Desktop Isn't Ready for 64 Bits

gtghmgtghm New
edited September 2003 in Science & Tech
SAN JOSE, Calif.—Sixty-four bit computing won't be needed on desktop PCs for several more years, according to Pat Gelsinger, chief technology officer at Intel Corp.


More here

====================================

Well, whether he's right or wrong, 64bit computing is here and if Intel wants to stay on top they'll have to make the jump.

I agree with him on a philisophical plane but reality is that the market is going to make the move and people will want it...

If you're an AMD fan you hope that its pompusness like that that brings them down... If you're an Intel fan you're hopeing that Yamhill is for real...

"g"

Comments

  • qparadoxqparadox Vancouver, BC
    edited September 2003
    What he seems to forget is that businesses like to use computers for more than one year. If presented with the choice between equally performing equally priced desktop systems, which are they gonna pick? The one that everyone tells them is going to be out of date, or the one that is prepared for the future. Given that purchasers don't always think logically its a hard call. Intel does have a point, but if developers do start releasing a significant amount of X86-64 software Intel might be in for some trouble.
  • kanezfankanezfan sunny south florida Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    No one will ever need more than 640kb of RAM - Bill Gates
  • a2jfreaka2jfreak Houston, TX Member
    edited September 2003
    Intel said the average person doesn't need 64-bit computing because we don't need to address that much RAM. Well, I can say that right now my system doesn't need 4GB to do what I want it to do and it definitely doesn't need more than 4GB. So, the addressable memory argument holds some water at the present time, but addressable memory isn't the only benefit to 64-bit computing. Now, since Intel doesn't offer 64-bit computing for the desktop, of course they're only going to talk about what we don't need (greater than 4GB addressable memory), but that also means they're not going to talk about what we do need: enhanced (read: more accurate and faster) mathematical calculations. Generate a 512-bit number using an p4 running @ 3.2GHz. Then generate a 512-bit number using an Opteron running @ 2GHz. I'm pretty sure the Opteron will put some serious hurt all over that p4. So, who really cares if we need more than 4GB of memory? The ability to have more is just icing on the cake at this point. In 3 or 4 years (possibly even sooner for some people) the 4GB barrier will need to be lifted, but AMD has already taken care of that.
  • kanezfankanezfan sunny south florida Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    it's just FUD. Intel is scared. If we listened to people like that, we'd still be using our trusty 286s to run windows 1.0. it's called progress Intel, either go with it or get out of the way. Same goes for the RIAA, except we really don't you around, so do go away.
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    Intel CTO: Desktop Isn't Ready for 64 Bits

    rather

    Intel CTO Isn't Ready for 64 Bits

    NS
Sign In or Register to comment.