I predict a massive AMD64 effect in 2007
I installed both 32 bit Windows XP and Windows XP x64 on my AMD64 PCes, Windows x64 can run 32 bit applications without any problem. But I often have to work on the 32 bit OS because there are 64 bit drivers missing for some devices.
From my experience, Windows XP runs much much faster in 64 bit mode. This is because Athlon 64 is a native 64 bit chip that can process data in 64 bit chunks and have twice the number of registers in 64 bit mode. Microsoft's tests show AMD64 CPUs run 10-40% faster in 64 bit mode.
Intel's EM64T Pentium 4 CPUs runs 10-20% slower in 64 bit mode, and Intel's Centrino (Core Solo, Core Duo, Pentium M) is 32 bit only.
In 2007, when Windows Vista gets popular, those who bought AMD64 notebooks and desktops will be delightfully surprised: with the dormant 64 bit potential unlocked, their Athlon 64 and Turion 64 can run Windows Vista x64 at up to 40% faster speeds.
Those who bought INTEL will find their PCes having next to zero residual value: can't run 64 bit games, can't run Vista, only old 32 bit stuff.
The effect?
Guess what those Intel buyers will do with their next PC purchase.
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 3/17/2006 11:22:00 AM
12 Comments:
You gotta give it to Microsfot, they ain't compromising a bit for 32bit. Well, maybe a little bit for the third world country. Microsoft screwed Intel over.
Microsoft gave Intel 3 years to catch up since AMD launched 64 bit chips in 2003. In the mean time, Linux servers are pretty much switched to 64 bit. Bill Gates can't wait any more.
This 64 bits rally is a direct consequence of the cooperative AMD vision of an "Ecosystem" where everyone wins:
They funded Suse64 bits, and the market saw that it was good. Then, Microsoft couldn't allow the 64-bit Linux servers uprising without a fight, it had to get on board, made x64 reluctantly and dragging its feet, and saw that it was good, so, it twisted the arm of Intel to clone it. Then, when the public compared EMT64 and AMD64, the public knew AMD64 and also saw that it was good.
Basically, AMD64 is so good, elegant and sensible, that it made 32 bits x86 obsolete.
By the way, Sharikou, I don't know if you know it, but AMD64 has an important advantage over other 64 bit architectures: The encoding is relatively compact. I think that an average of 4 bytes per instruction is achievable, whereas in other 64 bit architectures, with the inmmediates, the average is way over 8 bytes.
That means that, for instance, the L1 cache for code is as good as a L1 code cache in another 64 bit architecture of twice the size.
Yes. I know, AMD64 binaries are only a few percent larger than x86 binaries because of the compact encoding. In RISC designs you have a code bloat situation, that why they need huge caches (look at Power5)
I think Intel thought that every body will magically dump there 32bit PC/Laptops and start buying their Itanium Laptops.
So much for this greedy thinking !! (lol)
Any web site have 64-bit benchmark tests for AMD64 and Intel Pentium 4 ?
Look for 64 bit benches
Guys, a correction: Vista for desktop (The one to be released in 2006) will be released in 32 AND 64 bits versions (I do not know if in the same box). Therefore, the 32 bits users are not as screwed as you think. The Microsoft OS which COULD be 64 bit only is Vista server (due in '07 or '08).
Yes. It's like a King Kong released for both DVD player owners and VHS tape player owners. The tape guys get less for the same money.
The 64bit Vista folks can run 64bit and 32 bit apps. The 32 bit folks are stuck with the slower 32 bit apps--they are like second class citizens or 3rd world people, before they buy/download a program, they must first check if it's 32bit, or they will be wasting their time trying the 64 bit ones.
Would AMD's new generation of processors target Vista 64bit instructions only and use silicon only for 64bit operands etc
dropping any 32 bit as legacy?
AMD has good preformance in 32 and 64bit mode, so why change that? It is unwise to forget about 32bit preformance untill windows vista is out.
If i recall correctly the 64bit core is not that much bigger than the 32 was, so 64 bit only silicon won't save much space.
"You gotta give it to Microsfot, they ain't compromising a bit for 32bit. Well, maybe a little bit for the third world country. Microsoft screwed Intel over."
I live in a third world country and guess what, we're not behind in terms of PC technology. AMD is already gaining a great percentage of the market. The Athlon64 sells like pancakes.
Post a Comment
<< Home