Itanium's taken too long to develop, and when it arrived, it didn't deliver what was promised, especially not when stacked up against existing 64-bit chips like Sparc. It's looking like it's not going to be until Itanium 3 that Intel will be able to live up to it's 64-bit promises - promises it's been making for almost 10 years now!
 
Again Intel seems to have severely misjusdged the market, and AMD have got the jump on them...if, that is, that Opteron et al can deliver the goods!
 
Rgds
AndyF

u forgot to mention Apple..lol they just got their new processors @ 64-bit and 32-bit compatible as well.
 
they have just got their deal with IBM and have out 2ghz 64-bit CPU's - i was getting into an argument with a MAC freak - know MAC vs PC - is interesting - anyone have any good points to throw in - besides pirve /vs performance?

if u want to check out the thread, go nuts.
 
http://www.hulla.info/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13641&perpage=40&pagenumber=1
 
(it is a "rave" forum, most of my friends back home post on it - no, i am not a raver..lol)
 
the 2ghz apples are impressive,a nd they are now up 2 date on hardware - but again still lack SO much compared to a PC.
 
my main point is
 
price vs. performace vs. upgradability - PC"s are superior.
 
P.S - if u want a laugh:
 
http://200.12.238.21:6543/mac/

Well at least Opteron's are multi-processor(more than 2 processors). Also, the RISC based processors that Apple has been using has allways seem to lack in raw power. There more like a really weak SPARC or MIPS processor. I figure once the Athlon64 come out in numbers, the use of 64 bit software will increase rapidly.

AMD is taking a big risk, cause they have a lot to lose on this.
 
If they win they will have no competition from INtel for a while.
 
If they lose, they will go under.
 
 
IN 5 years I expect it to be IBM vs INTEL anyways.

I said that on the is forum over a year ago.
 
IBM has R&D like no other company, probably only next to the DOD.
 
With the new Apple chips, they are making gains.

Seems apple is copying AMD technolgy.....
 
http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1296
 

Quote:Jobs presented on the PowerPC G5 on this Monday the 23rd to an audience that Jobs couldn't disappoint no matter what he did or said. The 64 bit PowerPC 970 designed by IBM, but Apple would like to lead you to believe they spearheaded design. The PowerPC 970 shares many qualities of the Opteron, and you will be certain that no AMD CPU is ever mentioned during Job's presentation. The G5 system takes advantage of HyperTransport which of course is an AMD technology, but AMD was never thanked in Jobs speech. Al Gore, internet creator, was shamelessly trotted out by webcam however.
 
 
plenty more to read as well.
intersting read really
 
seems apple has copied ALOT of PC technology and yet MAC user seem to say the other way around - so right now with that article - all MAC has is it's FireWire which it made, and MAC O/S - to which i do not beleive Apple invented...
 
this is why i was so curious why there were no Opter or AMD chips used in the bench's only intels......

I think don't lack of a need for 64-bit is going to deter some people, especially when 64-bit hits the home users - there are always going to be those kind of people that want to have the latest, greatest, biggest, fastest whatever that's around, and that will happen with 64-bit too. Remember the home market has always been where AMD is strongest, the business market is still 99% Intel.
 
I think the only way AMD will make inroads into the business market is if they start producing their own chipsets - they're being killed by the buggy chipsets that VIA produces, unfortunately a lot of people assume this is AMD's fault not VIA's...
 
Remember, also, that Microsoft won't have an AMD 64-bit version of Windows out until the end of this year. Consumer 64-bit Windows probably won't appear until Longhorn. That's going to be a major barrier for 64-bit use, unless people decide to use Linux instead (which could be the final push that Linux needs to send it mainstream?)
 
As far as the killer app for 64-bit: well, on the business side, it's got to be databases - the massive amount of addressable memory means it will be possible to run databases in memory (I've seen Oracle run in memory on Sun, and boy was it fast 8) ). It also makes Windows more able to compete in the data warehousing/OLAP market.
 
Computationally as well, 64-bit could finally push Windows further into the high-end academic/research markets - the markets where players like Sun have had a very strong foothold.
 
As far as consumer use goes, 64-bit is good for anything computationally "expensive" - so video processing would gain, I would imagine. The main home use would have to be gaming though - exactly the area where AMD already has a strong presence - and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see AMD use that as part of their marketing campaign for the home 64-bit processors - kind of like they did when they dropped clock speeds from the processor names - sort of "we're the same as Intel, only better"!
 
Just my 2 cents
Rgds
AndyF

Just read this article from the front page.
 
It looks like, in 32-bit mode at least, that Opteron is as fast, if not faster, than a standard AMD 32-bit processor...
 
Rgds
AndyF

Quote:Seems apple is copying AMD technolgy.....

http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1296

Quote:
Jobs presented on the PowerPC G5 on this Monday the 23rd to an audience that Jobs couldn't disappoint no matter what he did or said. The 64 bit PowerPC 970 designed by IBM, but Apple would like to lead you to believe they spearheaded design. The PowerPC 970 shares many qualities of the Opteron, and you will be certain that no AMD CPU is ever mentioned during Job's presentation. The G5 system takes advantage of HyperTransport which of course is an AMD technology, but AMD was never thanked in Jobs speech. Al Gore, internet creator, was shamelessly trotted out by webcam however.


plenty more to read as well.
intersting read really

seems apple has copied ALOT of PC technology and yet MAC user seem to say the other way around - so right now with that article - all MAC has is it's FireWire which it made, and MAC O/S - to which i do not beleive Apple invented...

this is why i was so curious why there were no Opter or AMD chips used in the bench's only intels......

ok. you need a little apple history. first of all the powerpc g5 chip that you see today was part of a long roadmap that apple, motorola and ibm (the aim consortium) made in the early 1990s. yes, apple is a patent holder for the powerpc chip. where was amd in 1990? they were a small hardware vendor making graphics chips for apple! just look at the early powermacs. you will see amd logos at the custom chips that apple designed. so who is learning from who? shame on you for being an ignorant pc user. you will believe anything that you see because youre jealous of the powerpc g5.

apple can be credited for many new technologies. not just "firewire". they developed the active matrix display for laptops. they also designed the first trackball used on their powerbook line. apple also invented the trackpad that most laptops use now a days. dont forget quicktime which was used as the template for the mpeg4 standard. you probably have never heard of icc profiles that large companies like sony and epson support. its something that is used for color calibration on platforms that have systemwide color management which windows is not capable of.

It seems that in many cases, Apple comes up with something, but until the PC side gets ahold of it, it doesn't really take off. A great example is the iMac. You notice how fast beige went out of style after those hit?
 
For the 64-bit thing, I thought it extremely convienent for Apple to leave out the Opteron, and also claim they had the first 64-bit CPU (didn't Sun have a SPARC 64-bit chip?).
 
AMD is wise to have a chip that isn't soley 64-bit like the Itanic. Unlike the Pentium 16 to 32-bit issues, this looks to be much less of a hassle going to 64-bit. Intel did have a 32/64-bit chip, Yamhill, but seemed to have killed that project a while back, and I haven't heard if they've revived it yet.
 
In the past, Via has been a big problem for people, but they've actually got decent chipsets. The problem is people are still leary of them because of past chipsets and because they haven't jumped aboard the dual-channel memory bandwagon (yet).
 
I've been using an AMD chip in my main rig since 2000, and often with a Via chipset. I've not had problems, and that's often due to just being careful with the heatsink installation. You have to admit: user error is an issue. Granted, AMD has had some fairly delicate cores in the past, but I'm still using the older Athlon/Duron's and haven't killed one yet.
I do think that AMD is more of the value performance line, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Let's face it, the Celeron isn't much of a deal anymore. They're so crippled that your better off going with a slower P4 than going with a Celeron.
 
The Athlon and the Pentium 4 are completely different in design, which is why we are seing the faster P4's available.