PDA

View Full Version : AMD Rocks!



x1a4
June 6th, 2007, 11:57 PM
AMD WINS DUAL-CORE DUEL (http://www.amd.com/us-en/0,,3715_13368_13369,00.html?redir=CPSW51)


AMD vs. Intel: 64-bit Windows Dual-Core Shootout (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1860213,00.asp)
AMD processor outpaces the Intel CPU


CNET prizefight: The Winner is...

AMD (http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-9.html)
It wasn't even close.


ZDNet: AMD desktop chips edge ahead of Intel (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5322290.html)
AMD's top-end desktop processors are faster than Intel's


Duel of the Titans: Opteron vs. Xeon (http://www.tomshardware.com/2003/04/22/duel_of_the_titans/)
Opteron the Great

---
Free advertisement:
Multi-Core Processors for Servers and Workstations (http://multicore.amd.com/us-en/AMD-Multi-Core/Products/Multi-Core-S-WS.aspx)
---

k420
June 27th, 2007, 06:27 AM
uh yeah where have you been

a12ctic
June 27th, 2007, 07:00 AM
amd is being dominated in the 150$+ sector right now, pretty hard. I still love them though.

stmiller
June 27th, 2007, 07:06 AM
I'm all about AMD too (run a 3600 X2 box) but those articles are from 2004 comparing AMD chips to Pentium D.
;)

~LoKe
June 27th, 2007, 07:09 AM
Published on ZDNet News: August 24, 2004
I see no core 2 duo on these lists. Nice job.

maniacmusician
June 27th, 2007, 07:21 AM
Gotta love rabid fans.

H.E. Pennypacker
June 27th, 2007, 07:34 AM
That's quite embarassing...but I'd like to see comparisons to Intel's latest.

hardyn
June 27th, 2007, 07:42 AM
all those articles are from years ago... 2004?

i think that tables have turned circa 2007

a12ctic
June 27th, 2007, 07:42 AM
That's quite embarassing...but I'd like to see comparisons to Intel's latest.

To be fair, Gen for Gen amd is quite a bit ahead. AMDs last gen (the X2's) still fairs decently against the C2D's, regardless that they are a generation ahead.

~LoKe
June 27th, 2007, 07:59 AM
To be fair, Gen for Gen amd is quite a bit ahead. AMDs last gen (the X2's) still fairs decently against the C2D's, regardless that they are a generation ahead.

What have you been reading? The bottom-line core 2 duo decimates the X2. It's their own fault if they can't keep up with Intel. If hteir current product can't beat Intel's current product, then they've failed. Who cares if "they're just behind a generation". I can have my core 2 duo now, rather than wait a year for AMD's competition.

a12ctic
June 27th, 2007, 08:05 AM
What have you been reading? The bottom-line core 2 duo decimates the X2. It's their own fault if they can't keep up with Intel. If hteir current product can't beat Intel's current product, then they've failed. Who cares if "they're just behind a generation". I can have my core 2 duo now, rather than wait a year for AMD's competition.

Not really, price for price they are competitive.

~LoKe
June 27th, 2007, 08:10 AM
Not really, price for price they are competitive.

What does AMD have that compares, in terms of speed, to Intel's E6300? The X2 4600+? The E6300 easily beats the 4600, and so does the cheaper E4300.

koshatnik
June 27th, 2007, 09:07 AM
Does the original poster of this thread have shares in AMD or something? I can't think of any other reason why someone would be so enamoured with a tech company.

Scientists need to find the fanboi gene and shoot it.

laxmanb
June 27th, 2007, 10:56 AM
Core 2 is better than anything AMD offers right now... and I have a C2D laptop... so:

INTEL ROCKS!!!!!

PatrickMay16
June 27th, 2007, 12:38 PM
What have you been reading? The bottom-line core 2 duo decimates the X2. It's their own fault if they can't keep up with Intel. If hteir current product can't beat Intel's current product, then they've failed. Who cares if "they're just behind a generation". I can have my core 2 duo now, rather than wait a year for AMD's competition.

Remember, intel was failing to beat AMD for a long time too. The tone on your voice is a little dangerous... don't get too upset, it's just what brand of CPU you use. Use whatever does the best. I use AMD, but that's because my computer was built two years ago.

mips
June 27th, 2007, 01:10 PM
Gotta love rabid fans.

Maybe he lives under a rock or has been incarcerated for the last couple of years ?

forrestcupp
June 27th, 2007, 01:55 PM
Remember, intel was failing to beat AMD for a long time too. The tone on your voice is a little dangerous... don't get too upset, it's just what brand of CPU you use. Use whatever does the best. I use AMD, but that's because my computer was built two years ago.

That's true. Back then, it took a while for Intel to catch up. I'm sure sometime AMD will come out ahead again. It's a vicious cycle. But what are you gonna do? Spend a thousand or so bucks a year to always have the best?

Anyway, I think the OP is probably an Intel fanboy. Why else would you post something that is embarrassing to AMD like that? People notice when things like that are from 3 years ago, and 3 years is a loooong time in the processor industry.

diesel1
June 27th, 2007, 04:08 PM
Hi all,

I read in a mag(PCWorld, I think), that for or $ for $, the AMD X2 3800+ was the best processor still.

Diesel1.

joe.turion64x2
June 27th, 2007, 04:23 PM
Does the original poster of this thread have shares in AMD or something? I can't think of any other reason why someone would be so enamoured with a tech company.

Scientists need to find the fanboi gene and shoot it.
Do you know what loyalty is? I am a loyal AMD user, all my machines are AMD based as are all the ones I assemble for others. It is just that AMD has worked nice for me along many years, I may not have the latest and greatest in a given moment but I don't care, in a price basis I always get the best thing. Now I am waiting for the AMD Phenom processor.

wolfen69
June 27th, 2007, 06:28 PM
who cares if intel is "faster". is it really going to save you that much time? get a life people. i couldnt care less if intel saves me a nanosecond opening a file. my 4200 x2 does just fine.

~LoKe
June 27th, 2007, 06:50 PM
who cares if intel is "faster". is it really going to save you that much time? get a life people. i couldnt care less if intel saves me a nanosecond opening a file. my 4200 x2 does just fine.

For those of us who fold or crunch seti, yeah, the numbers are important. Let's not forget that every new generation of AMD processors practically take a new socket altogether, and you need to buy a new motherboard in order to upgrade. That's BS.

AlexC_
June 27th, 2007, 06:50 PM
People who need the extra speed, Wolfen69 - just because you don't need it doesn't mean that others don't.

I personally need it for faster render times when I'm rendering out some 3D scene. When I had my X2 3800 I noted down the times it took for this one scene to render, then when I got my Core 2 Duo E6600 my render times halfed! Such amazing chips the C2D's

Edit: Just so you know how important render times are; if I'm doing an animation of 100 frames on my old X2 3800:

100 x 5 = 500 mins = 8.3 hours

new C2D:
100 x 2.5 = 4.1 hours

~LoKe
June 27th, 2007, 06:57 PM
Remember, intel was failing to beat AMD for a long time too. The tone on your voice is a little dangerous... don't get too upset, it's just what brand of CPU you use. Use whatever does the best. I use AMD, but that's because my computer was built two years ago.

I would barely say that Intel was failing, for the simple reason that Intel didn't have any real competition when AMD started rolling out their processors. They definitely had the better tech for a point, because Intel needed a game plan and needed to get their butts in motion in order to keep up.

They've rolled out dozens of new processors, and what has AMD brought to the table, the 6000+? Inferior to most of Intel's line? AMD's quad-core opteron isn't even ready, and Intel is already dropping the price on theirs.

AMD went into major debt by buying ATi. It's possible they could have kept up if not for that. Why would I support a company that's probably going to die out unless they start making something other than cpu's/video cards?

I used to support AMD 'cause they're the underdog, but then I realized that they were the underdog for a reason. They just don't have what it takes to compete with Intel in the long run.

You may call me an Intel fanboy, but that's because Intel is simly the better processor maker.

Zero Prime
June 27th, 2007, 07:22 PM
For those of us who fold or crunch seti, yeah, the numbers are important. Let's not forget that every new generation of AMD processors practically take a new socket altogether, and you need to buy a new motherboard in order to upgrade. That's BS.

Sounds like the same thing Intel has been doing for years, yep, it is.

a12ctic
June 27th, 2007, 07:24 PM
Hi all,

I read in a mag(PCWorld, I think), that for or $ for $, the AMD X2 3800+ was the best processor still.

Diesel1.

Actuality most of their processors are, they're just cheap as dirt right now.The 3600+ is in its own league, how amd is selling a dual core processor for like 60$ is beyond me.

~LoKe
June 27th, 2007, 08:01 PM
Sounds like the same thing Intel has been doing for years, yep, it is.

Huh? Pentium 4, Pentium D, Celeron D, Core 2 Duo and Quad Core processors and Xeon's all use the LGA775 socket.

Whereas AMD has the deprecated 754 which they no longer build processors for, the 939 which is on its way out (used by the X2's, some Semprons and some Opterons) and the AM2 for...you got it, the Sempron, X2, FX and Opteron.

~LoKe
June 27th, 2007, 08:01 PM
Actuality most of their processors are, they're just cheap as dirt right now.The 3600+ is in its own league, how amd is selling a dual core processor for like 60$ is beyond me.

They're eating their loss for a decent market share. AMD is in serious debt right now.
Intel:
Revenue $35.7 billion USD (2006) [Up]
Operating income $5.7 billion USD (2006) [Up]
Net income $5 billion USD (2006) [Up]

AMD:
Revenue $7.471 billion USD (2006) [Up]
Net income $574 million USD (2006) [Down]

a12ctic
June 27th, 2007, 08:03 PM
They're eating their loss for a decent market share. AMD is in serious debt right now.

Wrong, theyre still probobly making a ~25-50% profit on every chip they sell, they were just milking the market beforehand for like 3 years when intel didnt have anything on them.

~LoKe
June 27th, 2007, 08:26 PM
Wrong, theyre still probobly making a ~25-50% profit on every chip they sell, they were just milking the market beforehand for like 3 years when intel didnt have anything on them.

It's funny you say that they're actually making money here. Obviously their investors and share-holders don't seem to agree. AMD shares are selling at $14.46 as opposed to the 24.xx seen at this time last year.

Intel is selling at $23.89, as opposed to the $18.71 seen last year. Once Intel rolled out the Core 2 line, profits went up, and kept going up.

mips
June 27th, 2007, 08:33 PM
Share price is not always related profit.

diskotek
June 27th, 2007, 09:10 PM
well i have both intel & amd... well i'm just looking for cheap price. i can never understand the small differences. but i should admit that AMD is cheaper here... i2'm planning to buy a new laptop: HP COMPAQ PRESARIO F505EA GF794EA NOTEBOOK (amd turion x2) for 1000 $...well i will make a search now for forums :)

~LoKe
June 27th, 2007, 09:11 PM
Intel:
Revenue $35.7 billion USD (2006) [Up]
Operating income $5.7 billion USD (2006) [Up]
Net income $5 billion USD (2006) [Up]

AMD:
Revenue $7.471 billion USD (2006) [Up]
Net income $574 million USD (2006) [Down]
But in this case it is.

starcraft.man
June 27th, 2007, 10:02 PM
Hehe, I knew I'd see an Intel VS. AMD thread one day in the cafe. I'm not a super connoisseur of chips, but I looked at the specs of the chipsets for AMD and Intel's before I bought my PC and in the end I settled on the E6600 by Intel. It was good speed for a decent price, and with my mobo I always have ability to go get a Quad core (or something better on the LGA 775) a year or two from now if I need more CPU or it just becomes really cheap and drop it in.

AMD from all I've seen has seriously lost ground, and I wasn't about to buy an inferior chip simply because it is cheaper... It seems to be because of several reasons, top up there IMO seems to be them buying ATI. Since that transaction they haven't seemed all together from what I've seen. I don't despise AMD though, in fact, I am happy their around. They provide the only real competition Intel will probably ever see. Without them having been around and pushed Intel to drop prices and improve technology, we wouldn't all be so well off with Intel chips.

That's all I got to say, so while I am sticking to my Intel chips now, I am equally rooting AMD on to get the next breakthrough so that Intel can try even harder. Ultimately, the competition brings out the best products for us the consumers.

Alpha_toxic
June 27th, 2007, 10:18 PM
It seems to be because of several reasons, top up there IMO seems to be them buying ATI.
No, AMD started to loose the battle earlier. The main reason is that they are desperately holding on to the same chip design and only increasing the clock speed. A few years ago Intell did the same thing with Pentium 4 (you all remember the constantly rising MHz, power consumption and heat of the series with almost no performance gain) and then AMD got the lead. Now the positions are reversed, of course no one can tell for how long...

starcraft.man
June 27th, 2007, 10:27 PM
No, AMD started to loose the battle earlier. The main reason is that they are desperately holding on to the same chip design and only increasing the clock speed. A few years ago Intell did the same thing with Pentium 4 (you all remember the constantly rising MHz, power consumption and heat of the series with almost no performance gain) and then AMD got the lead. Now the positions are reversed, of course no one can tell for how long...

LOL, yes, true enough. I remember now that they simply weren't going anywhere for a long while. I guess AMD needs to do something revolutionary, combining the CPU and GPU/card and making something that blows Intel away (sorry, I'm not super technical there). I assume that is why they bought ATI after all... to get at their graphics technology.

Anyway, best of luck to both of em. I gotta log off now, storm coming... and I can't have my brand new rig fried after I just bought it. Adios.

ice60
June 27th, 2007, 10:28 PM
i was listening to leo laporte the other day and he said something i think makes a lot of sense -
if AMD isn't able to keep up, intel won't have a reason to keep improving the way they have in the last year or so!

~LoKe
June 27th, 2007, 10:30 PM
i was listening to leo laporte the other day and he said something i think makes a lot of sense -
if AMD isn't able to keep up, intel won't have a reason to keep improving the way they have in the last year or so!

That's not exactly a shocking discovery. Competition drives Intel to create better products at lower prices, just like it does for everything/everyone else. AMD will hang in there, but they probably won't be seeing any of my money any time soon.

ice60
June 27th, 2007, 10:38 PM
That's not exactly a shocking discovery. Competition drives Intel to create better products at lower prices, just like it does for everything/everyone else. AMD will hang in there, but they probably won't be seeing any of my money any time soon.

i know it's obvious, but i thought there was a chance AMD might go out of business, or they had some big problems? i haven't read the thread very closely, but did that buy-out save AMD?

i'll go and read the thread and see if someone has already mentioned it :|

k99goran
June 27th, 2007, 10:54 PM
ZDNet: AMD desktop chips edge ahead of Intel (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5322290.html)
AMD's top-end desktop processors are faster than Intel's
A slightly more up to date comparison:
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/intel%20core%202%20extreme%20qx6800_040907100447/14392.png
source (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=2963&p=5)

hardyn
June 27th, 2007, 11:08 PM
AMD has been around since the 80s, i don't really see them going anywhere, just some regrouping is in order. the rumor that i heard, and possibly part of the ATI acquisition, was to start building CPUs like GPUs. Apparently the floating point efficiency of a GPU is amazing, thus use ATIs GPU architecture, instead of the x86 integer based design.

GPUs are so good at floating point math, "folding" has written a driver to perform the maths on the GPU, not the CPU on x1800+ ATI video products, because throughput is better. Its interesting anyway.

jdrodrig
June 27th, 2007, 11:24 PM
Different markets...

They way I see it, AMD has realized its advantage is on the server market, and have pushed for faster memory access (hypertransport I think it is called) and lower power consumption...but something tells me, there is no one in this thread that cares that much about performance per watt!

My opinion is that AMD's historic contribution will be to have accelerated the 64bit adoption...

joe.turion64x2
June 27th, 2007, 11:29 PM
For those of us who fold or crunch seti, yeah, the numbers are important. Let's not forget that every new generation of AMD processors practically take a new socket altogether, and you need to buy a new motherboard in order to upgrade. That's BS.
Let's not forget that almost every new Intel processor, although it uses the same socket requires a new chipset (new motherboard), are they still using the 775 package?

maniacmusician
June 27th, 2007, 11:59 PM
Bottom line: Sometimes AMD has the upper hand, sometimes Intel does. AMD had its glory run, and now Intel is back on top. Will AMD make a comeback? We'll have to wait and see.

AMD completely obliterated the Intel NetBurst processors in every way possible. Intel completely obliterated AMD with the Core 2 line of processors, in every way possible. Techincally speaking, AMD has a lot of catching up to do right now.

This thread is going to turn into another ridiculous flamewar. It should probably be closed...eventually

jrusso2
June 28th, 2007, 12:03 AM
I am not seeing any flames. Seems rather tame to me?

maniacmusician
June 28th, 2007, 12:18 AM
I am not seeing any flames. Seems rather tame to me?
it was on the way :) Call me a pessimist, but if people keep posting as ignorantly as they have been, there is no other alternative. I did speak a bit early though, my apologies.

jeffc313
June 28th, 2007, 12:36 AM
YO INTEL SUCZKSSDFJSKDLJF ANYONE WHO THIOSNKS OTHERESIWSE IS A MOROEON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111
</flamewar>

I agree, this thread should probably be closed before any serious fanboyism begins

~LoKe
June 28th, 2007, 12:49 AM
Let's not forget that almost every new Intel processor, although it uses the same socket requires a new chipset (new motherboard)

Says who?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130081
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813188017
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813121046
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131070

Those were all picked out at random.

x1a4
June 28th, 2007, 01:00 AM
Intel completely obliterated AMD with the Core 2 line of processors, in every way possible. Techincally speaking, AMD has a lot of catching up to do right now.

Check the links in the original post. AMD's dual-core processors blew Intel's out of the water. And with AMD's Phenom quad-core chips, it's Intel who has a lot of catching up to do.

maniacmusician
June 28th, 2007, 01:02 AM
Says who?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130081
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813188017
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813121046
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131070

Those were all picked out at random.
Intel is definitely better about backwards compatibility. The new boards do work with the older pentium processors, which is good...

maniacmusician
June 28th, 2007, 01:04 AM
Check the links in the original post. AMD's dual-core processors blew Intel's out of the water. And with AMD's Phenom quad-core chips, it's Intel who has a lot of catching up to do.
Have you been reading the thread? Your links are obsolete and useless.

The AMD dual cores are better than the Pentium D, NetBurst-based, dual cores, but uhh...those suck.

AMD's processors can't compare to the Core 2 Duos that intel has. Perhaps AMD will make a comeback with the next generation of processors, but for now, Intel has them outclassed in most ways.

~LoKe
June 28th, 2007, 01:06 AM
Check the links in the original post. AMD's dual-core processors blew Intel's out of the water. And with AMD's Phenom quad-core chips, it's Intel who has a lot of catching up to do.

Catching up to a processor that doesn't yet exist? That'll be tough.

maniacmusician
June 28th, 2007, 01:09 AM
Catching up to a processor that doesn't yet exist? That'll be tough.
:) Sarcastic coments aside, Intel's quad-cores are supposedly progressing nicely as well. They just haven't publicized them, since they basically have nothing to offer the average desktop user at the moment.

steveneddy
June 28th, 2007, 01:56 AM
After doing the research among all of the mobile processors available this year, I ended up purchasing a laptop with the Core 2 Duo. It runs great and runs cooler than the AMD machine a friend of mine bought around the same time.

Glad you like AMD so much.

BTW - thanks for the bean.

~LoKe
June 28th, 2007, 01:56 AM
:) Sarcastic coments aside, Intel's quad-cores are supposedly progressing nicely as well. They just haven't publicized them, since they basically have nothing to offer the average desktop user at the moment.

I think what's going on here is that Intel is constantly developing new lines of processors, but holding them back until AMD pulls out something that might threaten them. Most of these came out almost at the same time:

Core 2 Duo E6540
Core 2 Duo E6550
Core 2 Duo E6750
Core 2 Duo E6850
Core 2 Quad Q6600
Core 2 Quad Q6700
Core 2 Extreme QX6800
Core 2 Extreme QX6850
Core 2 Duo E4300
Core 2 Duo E4400
Core 2 Duo E4500

joe.turion64x2
June 28th, 2007, 02:26 AM
Originally Posted by ~LoKe View Post
For those of us who fold or crunch seti, yeah, the numbers are important. Let's not forget that every new generation of AMD processors practically take a new socket altogether, and you need to buy a new motherboard in order to upgrade. That's BS.

You were talking of upgrading in the first place.

Says who?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130081
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813188017
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813121046
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131070

Those were all picked out at random.
And the least they can do is preserve backward compatibility. Now pick a 775 motherboard sold in the P4 age and try to put a Core 2 Duo in it...the system won't even boot.

maniacmusician
June 28th, 2007, 02:36 AM
You were talking of upgrading in the first place.

And the least they can do is preserve backward compatibility. Now pick a 775 motherboard sold in the P4 age and try to put a Core 2 Duo in it...the system won't even boot.
that's natural though....of course newer technology won't work on old boards...but shouldn't older technology work on new boards? ~LoKe's point was that you can still use old pentium processors on newer boards.

Zero Prime
June 28th, 2007, 02:44 AM
Huh? Pentium 4, Pentium D, Celeron D, Core 2 Duo and Quad Core processors and Xeon's all use the LGA775 socket.

Whereas AMD has the deprecated 754 which they no longer build processors for, the 939 which is on its way out (used by the X2's, some Semprons and some Opterons) and the AM2 for...you got it, the Sempron, X2, FX and Opteron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_4
I count 4 different sockets. Wanna seeif there are more? And that's just for the P4. Both chip companies were bad at this practice for a while.

spockrock
June 28th, 2007, 02:45 AM
wow.......I was hoping for leaked barcelona benchmarks, of the cpus they are shipping in sept, but I guess 3 year old bench marks are good too.... :\

joe.turion64x2
June 28th, 2007, 02:52 AM
that's natural though....of course newer technology won't work on old boards...but shouldn't older technology work on new boards? ~LoKe's point was that you can still use old pentium processors on newer boards.
And provided you get a new 939 board the very first Athlon 64 939 would work with it, and in the case you want to upgrade (we were talking of upgrade in the first place) you will most likely make work the latest 939 processor AMD delivers, as opposed to fitting the latest Core 2 Duo to an older 775 board.

The point here is to adjust to the former specifications for the board, i.e. designing well the platform in the first place. (Not delivering 'patches', new chips thus new motherboards, for new processors, because the specification has to be expanded).

igknighted
June 28th, 2007, 06:19 AM
Intel is definitely better about backwards compatibility. The new boards do work with the older pentium processors, which is good...

AMD is doing the same with socket AM2, which thankfully I am running, so I'm not too concerned. For what its worth, I built my brother a new system (he paid for it... i can't afford this) system tonight... Core2Quad Q6600, nForce 680i mobo, nvidia 8600gt... its quite stunning really, I've got a pretty good AMD system, and this computer was way ahead of mine according the "windows experience" score... I'll try CS:S on it and report back, but I'm really impressed so far.

It was a lot more of a pain to build though. Attaching the CPU cooler for my AM2 chip was so easy, but the spring screws and back plate that the intel chip had was really awkward. Plus the Intel chip runs way hotter than my AMD does. But for the performance boost, its probably well worth it.

dptxp
June 28th, 2007, 07:02 AM
I am not aware who is leading now, but AMD started the 64 bit CPU and the 64 bit OS (especially Linux) could come out due to this.

Dual core CPU were developed keeping Microsoft in mind, one core to run the OS and programs and the other one to run anti-virus:).

~LoKe
June 28th, 2007, 07:44 AM
I am not aware who is leading now, but AMD started the 64 bit CPU and the 64 bit OS (especially Linux) could come out due to this.

Dual core CPU were developed keeping Microsoft in mind, one core to run the OS and programs and the other one to run anti-virus:).

Intel shipped the first 64bit processor to be used by a Linux machine. Plus, they released the instruction set.

mips
June 28th, 2007, 09:23 AM
Intel shipped the first 64bit processor to be used by a Linux machine. Plus, they released the instruction set.

Which one was that ? I was under the impression that the first 64bit cpu running linux was a non-x86 one.

diesel1
June 28th, 2007, 09:32 AM
Intel shipped the first 64bit processor to be used by a Linux machine.

What about the DEC Alpha64?

Diesel1.

mips
June 28th, 2007, 09:58 AM
What about the DEC Alpha64?

Diesel1.

I was thinking in the same lines. Or maybe even MIPS.

diesel1
June 28th, 2007, 10:05 AM
I was thinking in the same lines. Or maybe even MIPS.

In 'Just For Fun' by Linus Torvalds and David Diamond, Linus says Linux was fully ported to Alpha chips first, other cpus (68000) used bits of Linux cobbled together. I imagine the Alpha version was using 32 bit source, not fully 64 bit source(not sure).

The Alpha version of Linux used the same source as the IA32 version but the compilation was done through an abstraction layer that produced the Alpha binaries.

Diesel1.

a12ctic
June 28th, 2007, 01:11 PM
Intel shipped the first 64bit processor to be used by a Linux machine. Plus, they released the instruction set.

Intel was far behind AMD in releasing a 32bit compatible 64bit processor. AMD discovered the x86_64 instruction set entirely themselves and Intel copied it several months later. They did however release a 64bit processor, the itanium, but "true" 64bit processors that cannot run 32bit apps as well have been around for ever.

jdrodrig
June 28th, 2007, 03:19 PM
It is nice that the thread retook the role of AMD in the 64bit adoption (just when I thought nobody read my post some time ago..:=) ...

But let's reveal our sources (e.g. wikipedia link?), random claims about who was first or not in releasing backward compatible processors would not take us anyway..

mips
June 28th, 2007, 03:30 PM
But let's reveal our sources (e.g. wikipedia link?), random claims about who was first or not in releasing backward compatible processors would not take us anyway..

It was definately AMD when it came to 64bit. Intel actually took their 64bit instruction set.

I'm sure someone would come up with a believeable source.

a12ctic
June 28th, 2007, 03:39 PM
Heres an article on how Intel had to reverse engineer the a64 chips ;)

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1561875,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532

k99goran
June 28th, 2007, 03:41 PM
Check the links in the original post. AMD's dual-core processors blew Intel's out of the water. And with AMD's Phenom quad-core chips, it's Intel who has a lot of catching up to do.
If I am ever to travel back to the year 2004 and decide to buy a processor then the X2 will be at the top of my list. But right now, in the present... where we all live (including you), the X2 is not in the lead.

And about Phenom, we have yet to see any benchmarks of that processor.

dptxp
June 28th, 2007, 03:50 PM
This is a part of some 64 bit history.

Please read it till the end.


* 2000: IBM shipped its first 64-bit mainframe, the zSeries z900, and its new z/OS operating system culminating history's biggest 64-bit processor development investment and instantly wiping out 31-bit plug-compatible competitors Fujitsu/Amdahl and Hitachi. 64-bit Linux on zSeries followed almost immediately.

* 2001: Intel finally shipped its 64-bit processor line, now branded Itanium, targeting high-end servers. It fails to meet expectations due to the repeated delays getting IA-64 to market, and becomes a flop. Linux was the first operating system to run on the processor at its release.

* 2002: Intel introduced the Itanium 2 as a successor to the Itanium.

* 2003: AMD brought out its AMD64-architecture Opteron and Athlon 64 processor lines. Apple also shipped 64-bit "G5" PowerPC 970 CPUs courtesy of IBM, along with an update to its Mac OS X operating system, that added partial support for 64-bit mode. Several Linux distributions released with support for AMD64. Microsoft announced that it would create a version of its Windows operating system for these AMD chips. Intel maintained that its Itanium chips would remain its only 64-bit processors.

* 2004: Intel, reacting to the market success of AMD, admitted it had been developing a clone of the AMD64 extensions, which it calls IA-32e and later renames EM64T. Updated versions of its Xeon and Pentium 4 processor families supporting the new instructions were shipped. Freescale announces the 64-bit e700 core, successor to their PowerPC G4 series.

For full details you can see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit

jdrodrig
June 28th, 2007, 04:13 PM
Thanks, dptxp that should clear up a bit the discussion in this thread.

Off to work now, the forums will have to wait until tonight...

jgrabham
June 28th, 2007, 08:46 PM
My Athlon X2 3600, mobo, RAM, and HDD arived today! Although I cant use them untill tomorrow; its a B'day present.

mips
June 28th, 2007, 10:38 PM
Thanks, dptxp that should clear up a bit the discussion in this thread.

Off to work now, the forums will have to wait until tonight...

Itanium was/is not i386 compatible.

phrostbyte
June 28th, 2007, 10:39 PM
Yeah, I used to love AMD until I started using Linux. AMD's drivers SUCK. Yes, AMD. ATI is AMD now. It's been for awhile and they still made no effort to improve their Linux support. Intel's wifi and video hardware work like clockwork on Linux.

Really buying ATI hurt AMD's rep. AMD used to have a strong fan base but from what I seen it they pretty much lost it. Even when AMD's fan base was strongest people usually did AMD + Nvidia, not AMD + ATI. Regards.

phrostbyte
June 28th, 2007, 10:48 PM
Itanium was/is not i386 compatible.

We really need to get read of i386 eventually. It is a wasteful and redudant instruction set, poor default virtualization and emulation support, and it a b*tch to code for.

joe.turion64x2
June 28th, 2007, 11:03 PM
We really need to get read of i386 eventually. It is a wasteful and redudant instruction set, poor default virtualization and emulation support, and it a b*tch to code for.
And AMD provided users with an easy path to gradually leave the i386 architecture.