Interesting read about upcoming K9 processors
 

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20040726PR202.html

This interview with Tyan president Symon Chang provided the following
quotes:

"Around 2006, when the market moves to AMD's next generation of chips, you
will be able to go over 8-way. What I mean is that with eight sockets, and
dual cores, you then have sixteen processors, but with K9, you'll see it go
over that. I think we'll see a significant increase in the amount of
crossbar switches in the CPU. I'm not up on all the minute details, but you'
ll be able to go over 60 processors without adding any external crossbar
chips. We can do all that within the structure that is being currently
created. The crossbar bar chip is the standard in the mainframe business
whether it is for the Xeon, Opteron or other processors. There are a couple
of versions of the crossbar chip today, but I don't think that anyone is
currently using them for anything in the generic market; these solutions are
really only for the mainframe market. Today's mainframe market with
computers from IBM or Sparc will be using up to and over 128 processors,
with chips such as IBM's 390 microprocessor. These machines are starting
around US$1 million."

That's right over 60 processors without any kind of a special chipset
support!!!

Also he had some opinions about Windows XP64:

"Q: Do you think Microsoft's 64-bit OS will come out on time?

Chang: I hope so. There are delays, but I believe it will. Interestingly
enough, a couple of significant things have happened this year; for example,
Intel's Xeon processor with 64-bit extensions is a reaction to the
unexpected popularity of AMD's Opteron, which put Intel under pressure to
provide a similar solution for the OEM market. If Intel had not reacted, it
would have lost out. Their response was to come out with a 64-bit CPU that
is not optimal, but at least they have it, and I would compare that with
what Microsoft is doing now in the realm of the 64-bit operating system."

Doesn't sound like Chang believes that Microsoft is trying all that hard to
build a 64-bit OS. It's getting something out to show that it isn't behind
the times.

Yousuf Khan

--
Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-)

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...

"Q: Do you think Microsoft's 64-bit OS will come out on time?


Are we still supposed to be excited about a 64-bit desktop OS from MS after
all these years? I heard once it was going to be a slam dunk. Guess
not... :-)

Regards,
Dean

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 04:19:18 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" wrote:

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20040726PR202.html

This interview with Tyan president Symon Chang provided the following
quotes:

"Around 2006, when the market moves to AMD's next generation of chips, you
will be able to go over 8-way. What I mean is that with eight sockets, and
dual cores, you then have sixteen processors, but with K9, you'll see it go
over that. I think we'll see a significant increase in the amount of
crossbar switches in the CPU. I'm not up on all the minute details, but you'
ll be able to go over 60 processors without adding any external crossbar
chips. We can do all that within the structure that is being currently
created. The crossbar bar chip is the standard in the mainframe business
whether it is for the Xeon, Opteron or other processors. There are a couple
of versions of the crossbar chip today, but I don't think that anyone is
currently using them for anything in the generic market; these solutions are
really only for the mainframe market. Today's mainframe market with
computers from IBM or Sparc will be using up to and over 128 processors,
with chips such as IBM's 390 microprocessor. These machines are starting
around US$1 million."

That's right over 60 processors without any kind of a special chipset
support!!!

Also he had some opinions about Windows XP64:

"Q: Do you think Microsoft's 64-bit OS will come out on time?

Chang: I hope so. There are delays, but I believe it will. Interestingly
enough, a couple of significant things have happened this year; for example,
Intel's Xeon processor with 64-bit extensions is a reaction to the
unexpected popularity of AMD's Opteron, which put Intel under pressure to
provide a similar solution for the OEM market. If Intel had not reacted, it
would have lost out. Their response was to come out with a 64-bit CPU that
is not optimal, but at least they have it, and I would compare that with
what Microsoft is doing now in the realm of the 64-bit operating system."

Hmmm, "not optimal"?? How much can we read into that on top of the
deafening EM64T silence on WWW? As for "unexpected popularity of AMD's
Opteron"... must be a riddle... too difficult for me.:-)

Doesn't sound like Chang believes that Microsoft is trying all that hard to
build a 64-bit OS. It's getting something out to show that it isn't behind
the times.

.... or that we'll get it when Intel is good and ready for us to have it.:-(

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

Yousuf Khan wrote:

Doesn't sound like Chang believes that Microsoft is trying all that hard to
build a 64-bit OS. It's getting something out to show that it isn't behind
the times.


Going to 64 bits will be trivial compared to going to 64 way for Microsoft.

Joe Seigh

George Macdonald wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 04:19:18 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" wrote:

[SNIP]

Doesn't sound like Chang believes that Microsoft is trying all that hard to
build a 64-bit OS. It's getting something out to show that it isn't behind
the times.


... or that we'll get it when Intel is good and ready for us to have it.:-(

That just means MS loses market & mindshare to other more capable
operating systems.

It also weakens their "Enterprise Class" claims. 64bit Windows has
very few production machine hours compared to Linux (for example).

64 bit Windows is hardly what I would call "Enterprise Ready", but
there are plenty of alternatives that are.

Cheers,
Rupert

In comp.arch Joe Seigh wrote:


Yousuf Khan wrote:

Doesn't sound like Chang believes that Microsoft is trying all that hard to
build a 64-bit OS. It's getting something out to show that it isn't behind
the times.


Going to 64 bits will be trivial compared to going to 64 way for Microsoft.

Joe Seigh

why do you say that? Maybe there will be particular issues for
applications to make use of all those CPUs but I don't see why it would
be such a big deal for the OS kernel scheduler.

IMHO, 64-bits is much harder considering the Win32 API.

In article ,
Pleasant Thrip writes:
|
| why do you say that? Maybe there will be particular issues for
| applications to make use of all those CPUs but I don't see why it would
| be such a big deal for the OS kernel scheduler.

Hmm. Do you manage any large CPU-count SMP systems?

| IMHO, 64-bits is much harder considering the Win32 API.

No, Joe Seigh is right.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Pleasant Thrip wrote:

In comp.arch Joe Seigh wrote:

Yousuf Khan wrote:

Doesn't sound like Chang believes that Microsoft is trying all that hard to
build a 64-bit OS. It's getting something out to show that it isn't behind
the times.


Going to 64 bits will be trivial compared to going to 64 way for Microsoft.

Joe Seigh

why do you say that? Maybe there will be particular issues for
applications to make use of all those CPUs but I don't see why it would
be such a big deal for the OS kernel scheduler.

IMHO, 64-bits is much harder considering the Win32 API.

Scalability primarily judging from the experience of the other OS vendors.

Joe Seigh

As always, AMD is good and Intel is bad. Same old spiel. YAWN!


"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20040726PR202.html

This interview with Tyan president Symon Chang provided the following
quotes:

"Around 2006, when the market moves to AMD's next generation of chips, you
will be able to go over 8-way. What I mean is that with eight sockets, and
dual cores, you then have sixteen processors, but with K9, you'll see it
go
over that. I think we'll see a significant increase in the amount of
crossbar switches in the CPU. I'm not up on all the minute details, but
you'
ll be able to go over 60 processors without adding any external crossbar
chips. We can do all that within the structure that is being currently
created. The crossbar bar chip is the standard in the mainframe business
whether it is for the Xeon, Opteron or other processors. There are a
couple
of versions of the crossbar chip today, but I don't think that anyone is
currently using them for anything in the generic market; these solutions
are
really only for the mainframe market. Today's mainframe market with
computers from IBM or Sparc will be using up to and over 128 processors,
with chips such as IBM's 390 microprocessor. These machines are starting
around US$1 million."

That's right over 60 processors without any kind of a special chipset
support!!!

Also he had some opinions about Windows XP64:

"Q: Do you think Microsoft's 64-bit OS will come out on time?

Chang: I hope so. There are delays, but I believe it will. Interestingly
enough, a couple of significant things have happened this year; for
example,
Intel's Xeon processor with 64-bit extensions is a reaction to the
unexpected popularity of AMD's Opteron, which put Intel under pressure to
provide a similar solution for the OEM market. If Intel had not reacted,
it
would have lost out. Their response was to come out with a 64-bit CPU that
is not optimal, but at least they have it, and I would compare that with
what Microsoft is doing now in the realm of the 64-bit operating system."

Doesn't sound like Chang believes that Microsoft is trying all that hard
to
build a 64-bit OS. It's getting something out to show that it isn't behind
the times.

Yousuf Khan

--
Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-)

Rupert Pigott wrote:
That just means MS loses market & mindshare to other more capable
operating systems.

It also weakens their "Enterprise Class" claims. 64bit Windows has
very few production machine hours compared to Linux (for example).

64 bit Windows is hardly what I would call "Enterprise Ready", but
there are plenty of alternatives that are.

Microsoft should have just released Windows 64, despite not having enough
optimized drivers for it. There's nothing like a shipping product to drive
driver development.

Yousuf Khan