Intel true 64bit in sight?

[Rgen72]

I would like to know if anyone has any idea or received word on when Intel would be coming out with their version of a TRUE 64bit Processor?


Thanks in advance
-rg

[alterion]

Intel already have the only true 64 bit processor availible in the iterion 2 their em64t ones are just as 64 bit as the amd 64's and opterons

[Steve]

Yes, it's called Itanium, and isn't all that successful.

I presume you mean "TRUE" x86-64. They can either use AMD's technology to the full, or create their own extension to x86 and have Microsoft not support it.

So, right now, I can't see beyond the setup we have now - 64bit memory addressing based on x86-64 from AMD, but 64bit performance that isn't all that good compared to the guys that actually created it. To be fair I haven't followed Intel's use of 64bit on x86 for a while, so I don't know where their performance is at right now.

[Rgen72]

Yes, that's the news I've been hearing lately with regard to Itanium.


I have difficulty understanding why a company of that size and status isn't on the cutting edge of technology when it comes to processors. Intel should not have to depend on its competition's architectural processors to stay in the game. That's like going to Bin Laden and asking him if we can buy weapons from him so the United States can continue to fight the war against him. Go figure! I guess someone really dropped the ball over at Intel.

As far as AMD goes I think they are doing very well at the present time, but it would have been nice for AMD to directly support PCIe and DDR2 as well. I know AMD gets their PCIexpress supported by third party vendors -Nividia, but why go through that route when it can be supported by AMD directly. With the DDR2, I know there are some people out there that might not agree with DDR2 latency rate being higher than its predecessor -DDR, but the bugs are fixed in the DDR2-667 ram chip. I know its more costly, but at least have it available to the people that would like to use it.

-rg

[BUFF]

I know AMD gets their PCIexpress supported by third party vendors -Nividia, but why go through that route when it can be supported by AMD directly.

Not to mention VIA, ATi, SiS ...
& AMD don't want to be in the chipset business so if they don't have to they wont.


With the DDR2, I know there are some people out there that might not agree with DDR2 latency rate being higher than its predecessor -DDR, but the bugs are fixed in the DDR2-667 ram chip. I know its more costly, but at least have it available to the people that would like to use it.
It's slower on AMD64 than low latency DDR, it's more expensive & it will require another 60 or so pins on the cpu ...
It will come but only when AMD has to - who knows, they might jump straight to DDR3.

[Agent]

who knows, they might jump straight to DDR3.

This wouldnt supprise me one bit either.

[Swafe]

nor me....ddr2 is useless, sure its fast, but the cas times are silly, and for the price it just doesnt seem feasible

[JimmyBoy]

well, fast by mhz, but with ddr1's lower latencies it really does bentch better than any ddr2

[StormPC]

I don't know why anybody would say the A64 is not "true 64-bit" just because it runs 32 bit just as well. Anybody want to explain this? The idea that Intel's Itanium is true 64 bit because it can't execute 32 bit instructions without software is just plain ignorance.

As for Intel not being on the cutting edge goes, they prefer to cater to people who know next to nothing about computers through elaborate marketing rather than being a leader in technology because that's what makes money. Can't really argue with success. I think Intel has learned a lesson though and I expect them to come back when it comes to multi-core CPUs.

Intel definitely has CPUs that are compatible with the AMD64 (they call it EMT64) instructions but they do not perform as well as the A64 (on-die controller missing, etc...) and are nowhere near ready for primetime.

[nichomach]

Errr...sorry, but EM64T is alive and well, and already released on Xeons; I just set up a Poweredge 2850 that has Xeons supporting EM64T. It is not completely compatible with AMD's 64 bit technology, and Intel aren't releasing it on the desktop until later this year - until the 64-bit version of Windows XP is released, I'd guess they don't see much point. Intel have been fooling with this for a couple of years or so (initially, their version of X86-64 was codenamed "Yamhill" IIRC) but took the (in my view mistaken) view that concentration on a "pure" 64-bit CPU that would run 32-bit code via emulation (Itanium) was a better idea. In retrospect, Itanium's largely flopped (HP having dumped all their side of the R&D for it back onto Intel), so they've dusted off the work they'd already been doing. In practice, given that the support for EM64T has only recently been added into the beta for XP Pro 64-bit it's still too early to say exactly what the performance will be like.

[SilentDeath]

Soemone remind me what ddr3 is? whats the main difference compared to ddr1 and 2

[Rgen72]

I don't believe DDR3 is out yet. Maybe sometime in the very near future. But hey I could be wrong. Remember...technology moves on dime...lol.


As for the difference in DDR & DDR2....DDR SDRAM /184 pin/ (double data rate SDRAM) is synchronous dynamic RAM (SDRAM) that can theoretically improve memory clock speed to 400 MHz. It activates output on both the rising and falling edge of the system clock rather than on just the rising edge, potentially doubling output.

DDR2 /240 pin/ set clock sppeds of up to 675Mhz - 800Mhz. With regard to latency issues compared to DDR memory you will get better use of DDR2 with DDR2-667 and above.

Cons - exspensive

-rg

[Agent]

I don't believe DDR3 is out yet. Maybe sometime in the very near future. But hey I could be wrong. Remember technology moves on dime...lol.

-rg

Its already in use on Graphics cards (has been for a while infact).

[Rgen72]

Its already in use on Graphics cards (has been for a while infact).

I was referring to motherboards supporting DDR3 memory directly as oppose to depending on third party vendors

-rg

[Byatt]

Its already in use on Graphics cards (has been for a while infact).

That's G-DDR3 rather than DDR-3 though, isn't it, which is more just a marchitecture drawn up by ATi in order to get DDR-I memory to run at far higher frequencies, using the worthwhile bits of the G-DDR2 standard and DDR standards?

Could be very wrong here, though.

[SilentDeath]

I was refferingto DDr3 - or whatever is used on gfx cards. Also why can system ram not have a wider bus, 256bit like gfx cards do? I knwo the mem controler would need redesigning, butwouldnt it be worth it for performance?