AMD planning 45nm 12-Core 'Istanbul' Processor ?

Wes Newell wrote:

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:18:24 -0400, krw wrote:

says...

Of course AMD _did_ come up with "x86-64", which is an improvement over
the x86 (obviously even Intel thinks so).

Intel did too, but had no interest in pushing it forward to product.

Funny, that's not how I recall it. Intel dropped their x86-64 bit plans
after trying to push it onto Microsoft, and Microsoft telling them to
shove off. I think this link will get more to the truth.

That was later. Intel had explored 64-bit extensions to X86 years
earlier. (How could they not? CPU's are their business.)

krw wrote:

says...

I suppose if AMD hadn't been around, there would have been a greater
chance of Intel getting their butts whipped by some other architecture,
instead of by AMD.

What architecture? You grossly underestimate the x86 inertia.

Yeah, I recall how years ago some nutcases saying things like the
Pentium 3 (yes, the 3) was "already obsolete" upon release, because it
did not support IA64, which was set to blow X86 out of the market when
it was released.

Of course, more sensible minds thought "Huh? It'll be more expensive,
yet run all the software slower, since all the software is X86, so why
would I want it?"

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:45:45 -0500, chrisv wrote:

Wes Newell wrote:

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:18:24 -0400, krw wrote:

says...

Of course AMD _did_ come up with "x86-64", which is an improvement
over the x86 (obviously even Intel thinks so).

Intel did too, but had no interest in pushing it forward to product.

Funny, that's not how I recall it. Intel dropped their x86-64 bit plans
after trying to push it onto Microsoft, and Microsoft telling them to
shove off. I think this link will get more to the truth.

That was later. Intel had explored 64-bit extensions to X86 years
earlier. (How could they not? CPU's are their business.)

Of course they had. But they didn't want 64 bit to come out for x86 to
compete with Itanium. And by trying to protect it, they basically screwed
themselves. Only after AMD released theirs did they try to bring their x86
64 bit code out. MS had already done a version of windows for Itanium and
weren't going to play Intels games at their expense.

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
My Tivo Experience http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/tivo.htm
Tivo HD/S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm
AMD cpu help http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php

Wes Newell wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:45:45 -0500, chrisv wrote:

Wes Newell wrote:

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:18:24 -0400, krw wrote:

says...

Of course AMD _did_ come up with "x86-64", which is an improvement
over the x86 (obviously even Intel thinks so).

Intel did too, but had no interest in pushing it forward to product.

Funny, that's not how I recall it. Intel dropped their x86-64 bit plans
after trying to push it onto Microsoft, and Microsoft telling them to
shove off. I think this link will get more to the truth.

That was later. Intel had explored 64-bit extensions to X86 years
earlier. (How could they not? CPU's are their business.)

Of course they had. But they didn't want 64 bit to come out for x86 to
compete with Itanium. And by trying to protect it, they basically screwed
themselves. Only after AMD released theirs did they try to bring their x86
64 bit code out. MS had already done a version of windows for Itanium and
weren't going to play Intels games at their expense.

None of that disputes what Keith or I have claimed. I think we're all
on the same page, now.

Yeah, I recall how years ago some nutcases saying things like the
Pentium 3 (yes, the 3) was "already obsolete" upon release, because it
did not support IA64, which was set to blow X86 out of the market when
it was released.

PIII obsolete? Hmm...trivia of the day - what microarchitecture did Intel
base the core on? And what microarchitecture does the core have little if
anything to do with?

"Zootal" writes:
Yeah, I recall how years ago some nutcases saying things like the
Pentium 3 (yes, the 3) was "already obsolete" upon release, because it
did not support IA64, which was set to blow X86 out of the market when
it was released.

PIII obsolete? Hmm...trivia of the day - what microarchitecture did Intel
base the core on? And what microarchitecture does the core have little if
anything to do with?


Former: Netburst, IIRC.
Latter: Anything other than netburst?

scott

"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
...
"Zootal" writes:
Yeah, I recall how years ago some nutcases saying things like the
Pentium 3 (yes, the 3) was "already obsolete" upon release, because it
did not support IA64, which was set to blow X86 out of the market when
it was released.

PIII obsolete? Hmm...trivia of the day - what microarchitecture did Intel
base the core on? And what microarchitecture does the core have little if
anything to do with?


Former: Netburst, IIRC.
Latter: Anything other than netburst?

scott

Um...are you sure you don't want to reverse those answers? Or do you mean
former architecture=netburst, latter (core) = anything but?

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Zootal wrote in part:
Yeah, I recall how years ago some nutcases saying things like the
Pentium 3 (yes, the 3) was "already obsolete" upon release, because it
did not support IA64, which was set to blow X86 out of the market when
it was released.

PIII obsolete? Hmm...trivia of the day - what microarchitecture
did Intel base the core on? And what microarchitecture does the
core have little if anything to do with?


The Pentium III was little more than a Pentium II with the L2
cache chips integrated on-die and running faster. The P2 was
little more than a slot repackaging of the PentiumPro which was
a completely new effort for Intel having nothing in common with
the original Pentium and PentiumMMX.

In many ways the P4 has nothing in common with the P3 or core,
and looks much more like a dressed up, overclocked original Pentium.

-- Robert

The Pentium III was little more than a Pentium II with the L2
cache chips integrated on-die and running faster. The P2 was
little more than a slot repackaging of the PentiumPro which was
a completely new effort for Intel having nothing in common with
the original Pentium and PentiumMMX.

In many ways the P4 has nothing in common with the P3 or core,
and looks much more like a dressed up, overclocked original Pentium.

-- Robert


That is pretty much my understanding. The P4's netburst architecture was a
dead end road, and not even cranking up the clock to 3.8GHz gave the
performance people wanted. The core did not inherit from the P4, but was
based on PPro/II/III architecture.

On Apr 29, 10:27 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:
I have very little sympathy for the concerns of software developers.
We'd be much better off with longer software development cycles so we
had less bad software.

ROTFL!

You got things 180 degree reversed from the reality. The reality is that
making software development harder won't make better software product nor
will it influence software development cycles.

This is a relatively common misconception among those who're clueless about
sofware development that length of development cycles pre se has any
meaningful effect on final product quality.

You made an erroneous inference from what I wrote because you
seriously underestimated how little I think of software developers.
If software developers are *slowed down*, there will be less bad
software because there will be less software.

It didn't *have* to turn out this way, but it did, and *you* are part
of the problem because, apparently, you think you know how to write
good software using languages and tools currently in use.

I may be wrong. If you are writing in a language and using tools that
allow checking of your programs for formal correctness, and if you
actually use those tools, please accept my apologies. Otherwise, you
are just another member of the club of gunslingers that call
themselves software developers and talk big, probably because they've
spent too much time blowing people away in video games.

There is multitude of software
systemes where there are strong requirements of simultanous high quality
and short development cycles. And those requirements are met.

rotfflmao. The extra f is intentional, as I'm sure your humor is not.

Importance of
cycle time is conditional on actual development methodology employed.

Once again, if you are using tools and methods that practically no one
actually uses, please accept my apologies. If you are relying on your
own personal brilliance and rigor, or that of your colleagues, you are
deluding yourself.

Robert.