Who's Copying Who?

Google

Web Adequacy.org

This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.

Who's Copying Who?

Author:

Topic:

Posted:

Jan 26, 2002

Comments:

Intel is worried about AMD's upcoming Hammer processor and the x86-64 architecture, which it brings to the market. Due out by the end of 2002, the Hammer represents an alternative to Intel's IA-64 architecture, which has proven exceptionally difficult to migrate into datacenters and has yet to gain significant popularity. An anonymous engineer reported to The San Jose Mercury News that Intel is secretly working to develop 64-bit extensions to the upcoming Prescott Pentium 4 chip, codenamed Yamhill.

Public sources are obviously very quiet on this topic since a public announcement of this work represents a tacit admission that the Itanium's $1 billion architecture is on the verge of finding itself stuck in a tiny niche of the market.

More diaries by koochee girl

	Just wonderin'
	TOS a joke to behold
	XP: almost complete
	AMD and MS: Buudies?
	MS to share MORE code
	GPL goes to court
	GPL goes to court: Part 2

AMD CEO, Jerry Sanders recognizes the potential of a 32/64 bit hybrid chip and that it may cut into the same market that AMD's Hammer does. "My biggest fear is that Intel will come out with a 32-bit processor with 64-bit extensions because it is the right thing to do," he said. "The Itanium it turns out is a niche product...We are going to have a role in the industry because we better fulfill Microsoft's needs."

It is commonly believed that Intel engineers are working within the x86-64 architecture, defined by AMD, in order to build off the established AMD Hammer software infrastructure which will inevitably be developing during the year after Hammer is released but before the 64-bit Yamhill is available.

However, since x86-64 architecture was designed by AMD, Intel would be in the awkward position of needing a license from AMD in order to release an x86-64 compatible processor. AMD has already licensed x86-64 to Transmeta and it is expected to have significant support from other small chipmakers and software developers because if its capability of re-using older 32-bit x86 code.

With a late 2003 release date, time is already working against the development of a 64-bit extension to the Pentium 4, especially if Intel would like the ability to disable it in the event that Itanium demand picks up. It is unlikely that Intel can simply "drop in" the 64-bit extensions to the Pentium 4 architecture. In fact, the modification may require a re-working of the entire Pentium 4 pipeline.

Whether Intel uses this chip or not, it can be seen as a small victory for AMD. If Intel picks up on the x86-64 architecture, AMD is in the position of initially being the dominant player in the de-facto industry standard architecture, which is a position Intel has always occupied in the past. If Intel does not enter the x86-64 market, AMD has no competition in a market segment that has already gained significant support from developers and hardware manufacturers.

Intel declined to comment on unannounced products, but several inside sources confirmed the existence of Yamhill. Whether the chip will ever enter mass production is another question and will be dictated by demand for Itanium's successor McKinley and whether AMD's success in the Hammer market cuts significantly into Intel's server plans.

	Explain something for me (none / 0) (#1)
	by Robert Reginald Rodriguez on Sat Jan 26th, 2002 at 07:15:15 PM PST

	Why are you gks so fetishistic in your devotion to AMD? I've never understood the logic in considering this chip company so fundamentally superior to intel. There's no clear performance advantage in their chips. They don't do any more for gks as a group. Their chips have a reputation as the poor man's intel. They're just as morally repugnant in their trade practices as intel is. What have they done to attract this fervour? Is it all just tall-poppy syndrome? Is it the fact that gks naturally identify with the underdog, being themselves perennial underdogs? Or is it just that AMD is a more consummate manipulator of gk sympathies?

	come now (none / 0) (#2)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 26th, 2002 at 08:27:46 PM PST

	Why are you gks so fetishistic in your devotion to AMD? I've never understood the logic in considering this chip company so fundamentally superior to intel I don't think anyone has come out screaming "Intel sucks buy AMD" There's no clear performance advantage in their chips Depends on how you calculate that. In benchmark tests AMD processors usually do just as well and at some times better than Intel processors. It's the same argument about the Intel processor versus the PowerPC (PPC). In many instances the PPC outperforms the Intel and AMD processors in aspects such as multimedia. And just so no one goes off on a rant about Apple and the PPC being "Linux communist blah blah blah". IBM AND Motorola both manufacture the microprocessor. Not to mention that Clinton and Bush are Mac users (source apple.com) Their chips have a reputation as the poor man's intel. I have already gone into this but at one time niether Intel nor AMD had a big market lead. Intel has gotten where it is largely due to contracts with IBM and Microsoft. Besides if you were building a PC for say gaming you would likely go for the AMD processor as they are cheaper and support cheaper faster DDR RAM as well as SDRAM while Pentiums support SDRAM and the very expensive RDRAM. New chipests allow for the use of Intel porcessor/DDR RAM combinations. They're just as morally repugnant in their trade practices as intel is. It's nice to see that not everyone puts Intel up on the mountain and regard AMD as a 3rd world communist company operating out of Asian although they are headqurtered in the US. Most companies do have a lot of skeletons in there closet. Some more than others. Or is it just that AMD is a more consummate manipulator of gk sympathies? Do you lump gamers into this same category? AMD is the more popular among gamers. Especially those who build their own "rigs". I wouldn't say that AMD is the underdog anyway. There are other companies out there which make x86 processors for the PC. Matsushita (Panasonic in the US) is the largest most profitable company in Asia with a lot of revenue in the US. By your logic Sony would be the underdog. Is this true? So as far Intel and AMD niether is the underdog. You want an underdog? Take a look at the C3 form Via Technologies Inc.

	Ooh, listen to know-it-all (none / 0) (#4)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 26th, 2002 at 10:36:08 PM PST

	I though you said you were too intelligent for this site, NAWL. Move along. There you go. Scoot.

	huh? (none / 0) (#5)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 26th, 2002 at 11:27:51 PM PST

	I though you said you were too intelligent for this site, NAWL I've only been here once before. Who is this NAWL?

	Nice try. (none / 0) (#6)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 26th, 2002 at 11:56:53 PM PST

	Your hallmarks are all too obvious. Now move along.

	oh man (none / 0) (#7)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 27th, 2002 at 02:32:52 AM PST

	Can we try something a little more intelligent? I would seriously like to know what all this is about and what all this NAWL stuff is. Look at me I can use bold Then I can put something here in what's known as plain text. I've read posts by many readers/editors including Yoshi, osm, elenchos, koochee girl, and others. Does that make them NAWL (whatever that means)? You are an anonymous reader. He/she/it is an anonymous reader. You are better how? If you haven't got anything better to do, then piss off. Joseph Kilmwell MOUS, MCSE, MCP, MCSD

	Do you really think we're that stupid? (none / 0) (#8)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 27th, 2002 at 03:19:11 AM PST

	It goes far beyond the use of bold, NAWL. It's there in every argument you ignore. It's there in the assumption of absolute authority that you bring to every pedantic post. It's there in your obsession over minutia. It's apparent in your very sentence structure, though I suspect you're not sufficiently well-read to percieve such things. It's in your pet phrases, and more than anything else, it's in your condescending attitude, which is identifiable from distances greater than two kilometers. Go read about 10,000 pages of real literature (that's not science fiction, incidentally) , and come back when you can appreciate things like "narrative voice." In the meantime, take your "intelligence" elsewhere. Though you made yourself look tremendously stupid using a pseudonym, you're making yourself look even worse in your pathetic attempt to be "anonymous."

	oh I see (none / 0) (#9)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 27th, 2002 at 03:43:53 AM PST

	So now I'm this NAWL person? Oh that's rich Joseph Kilmwell MOUS, MCSE, MCP, MCSD

	Yes. (none / 0) (#10)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 27th, 2002 at 04:08:52 AM PST

	You, "Joseph Kilmewell," are NAWL. You find this "rich?" Lovely. I'm ever so glad to hear how you feel about it. Me, I find it "obvious." Carry on, NAWL. I'm sure you will never ever tire of saying exactly the same things, over and over again, regardless of whatever attribution your tedious ramblings might bear. You're a special person. Or script. Whatever. You are emminently identifiable, either way, and I'm quite sure that you're not about to develop the sort of cunning necessary to circumvent the sort of easy unmasking that you find yourself subject to at the moment. You're out of your league. Way, way out.

	FACIST! (none / 0) (#11)
	by koochee girl on Sun Jan 27th, 2002 at 05:52:32 AM PST

	You, "Joseph Kilmewell," are NAWL. Oh look, H-E-L-L-O Don't you have something better to do than rehash the same witch hunt over and over and over. So what if he's NAWL. Maybe he is maybe he isn't. Maybe you're NAWL. Yep, I think you're just trying to throw everyone else off. Admit it YOU ARE NAWL! Now go back to your normal routine of pretending to be a woman in the lesbian chat rooms. That's right. I know what you do after mommy goes to bed. Firewall Scoreboard

	cute (none / 0) (#12)
	by nathan on Sun Jan 27th, 2002 at 08:47:03 AM PST

	If this AR is who I think it is, then when mommy goes to bed, he's liable to tag along. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	There are a million NAWL's (none / 0) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 04:05:39 PM PST

	Unfortunatly, the 'net is awash with the fuckers. They useually congregate on places such as /. but have been known to leak out. Leave your witch hunt, if it is him then the joke's on him, if its not, well, dah... -- Nick Although I do have the nagging uncertainty that I'm the only person who reads/posts here other than the editors, who themselves each have 30-40 user accounts....

	Intel vs AMD (none / 0) (#3)
	by SpaceGhoti on Sat Jan 26th, 2002 at 10:21:36 PM PST

	I don't care who can claim the status of underdog. I avoid Intel products because of their scandal with serial number broadcasting. As they refuse to repent (they haven't removed it for the P4, only added a BIOS software patch), I refuse to buy. A troll's true colors.

	Intel/AMD performance (none / 0) (#13)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 27th, 2002 at 09:19:29 PM PST

	I think you'll find that on most general desktop applications, Athlon's are faster than P4's at the same clock rate. Course, that doesnt mean much as Intel sell's the P4's at a higher clock rate anyway, and there are certain operations where P4's seriously whoop the Athlon's arse. Encoding DivX's springs to mind, and i'm sure other app's will come along that use the P4's SSE2 instructions to the max. Second is the issue of price. If you take an Athlon and a P4, the Athlon being clocked lower than said P4 but performaning just as well as said P4 for most operations, including things like 3D games and other floating point intensive app's, which used to be Intel's main area of dominance, you'll find that said Athlon is useually quite a bit cheaper than the Intel chip. As its clocked lower it runs cooler too, which means in theory it should last longer but more importantly it reduces the amount of heat inside your box. This is always a good thing, about 6 months ago my GeForce DDR died on me (luckily still inside the warrenty period, so I got a free replacement), and I'm fairly certain it was heat that killed it. The damned thing got scalding hot after being turned on for just half an hour or so. I dont even overclock, although I did try it once for a couple of weeks and found out that although I could overclock my P2 400 to 450 and also my GeForce by about 10% and still have my system be "stable" (i.e. running for hours and hours on end without crashes), certain odd crashes (which were repeatable even when my system was cold, i.e. been turned off all night) would just dissapear when I clocked back down, so I figured it was pointless. I refuse to believe that the majority of people have success with overclocking, its just a vocal minority who manage to pull it off successfully, and hell, have you seen the price of the heatsinks that most overclocking sites recommend? Its better to spend the extra money on the faster CPU in the first place. But I digress, overclocking is another issue entirely. My main point is that AMD chips are generally cheaper, perform as well as Intel chips for most operations and only lack the SSE2 instructions that most app's dont make use of anyway (for the moment at least). As for gk's unswerving devotion to AMD, IIRC gk's used to have an unswerving devotion to Intel, deriding anyone who purchased a cheapo AMD chip, but then AMD got on par with Intel in terms of both stability and performance so now g**k's feign loyality to them. They're no better than the hordes of teeny boppers who consume whatever fetid pile of crap the record companies put out in the shape of boy bands. Their just bloody microprocessor companies if you ask me, I'll buy whatever's best in terms of price/performance/stability on the day.... -- Nick I do go on, dont I?

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.