Will dell ever jump onto the AMD bandwagon? - Page 3

64 bit mostly matters in things that either must run all the time regardless or are computationally intensive - in other words, servers, workstations, content creation. I would agree with Karl on this one, for gamers and consumers there isn't a really compelling reason to move.

Of course, neither Intel nor AMD is exactly demolishing the 64 bit world. Most 64 bit environments are running Sun or IBM gear (SPARCs and POWER 4). Both Itanium and Opteron are way behind in servers shipped compared to the market leaders. On Intel's side, for example, AFAIK they haven't shipped anything approaching as many Itaniums as they have Xeons.

What was AMD thinking? Differentiation. Intel was going to market with a choice - you could stick with 32 bit or ignore 32 bit and go to 64 bit (since the Itanium performs very poorly with 32 bit code). AMD figured they could go for a market of people who wanted to use 32 bit today, but have the ability to go to 64 bit if they had to.

Around Intel, there has been noise about a 32/64 bit chip (Yamhill) for a while. It hasn't been released, though, and may not be. You have to figure if Intel saw a compelling market for it they would release it.

I like the fact that AMD is not sitting back and playing bottom feeder - if you're going to be a player, BE A PLAYER. Never blame someone for making the attempt. Now, that doesn't mean the strategy is RIGHT, of course....

Floating Point Unit - used in decimal mathematics as opposed to integer.

U are Buffoon

1.I was referring to money. Smartass.
2.Where does u get your info? Man u most really not knows anything about business.
3.you should start to read more so u can get some info should I suggest www.tomshardware.com read all about Linux and that future. Man you seem like u never looked at Linux in your life.
4.According to you what should be the right price. LOL
5.It was a example LOL u are an buffoon, u should read more maybe u can understand
6.You don’t even know what u talking about I think u should read what I wrote again. No one said that NVIDIA isn’t making money. The thing is that it got kick out the VPU crown. Read and understand. Just like Intel NVIDIA is like Intel they have money too just like 3dfx was the crown back before VPU came to the market and got kick off the crown and bought by NVIDIA.
7.LOL may point is they had to make something so there processor can work right because it was compatible and like I said earlier Intel has the funds to do this.
8.u most really not know about AMD dude I would just suggest that u start to read reviews on things man this is all I do I can give you a lot of referents if u need any so u can talk with something backing you up. Anyway from ThuderBird to Barton there are a lot of cores in the middle. You for got a lot of core in-between that. And yes I most agree with you that PR **** wasn’t cool but u have to understand is a marketing strategy then again u wouldn’t know about that. But y make a processor that cost more when u can just teach people the MHZ don’t really matter. I have a Centrino and my Centrino can kick some ass I have a AMD 1600+ XP Palomino core Agugia, Which is a core that can overclocks to 1.8ghz on air cool which is where I have my desktop. The point here is y make a CPU that clock for clock when u have something that is better but runs slow. This is something that Mac been saying for years. This is y Intel is losing because a lot of people are starting to realize the MHZ is not everything. Lol so u think me with a 2.3 ghz u think You P4 at 2.5 if u may can win. Man think again I will leave u in the dust this is the Athlon XP kicking ass not even 64bit CPU http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2004...t_comanche.gif. As much as u hate it u have to know deep down in ur heart if you don’t want to admit it that AMD is better clock for clock.
9.and yes there is a lot of thing u don’t know u should read about computer it looks like u been pretty busy doing other thing before u talk u should refresh your mind with hardware reviews they are not that bad to read u know.
10.Well they still making money and AMD is the better always will be. You are just trying to prove a point that about it.
11.I live in NYC Brooklyn to be too c if u can locate maybe u can be smart to find where that is anyway I take the subway everyday to and from work. You are right about that don’t worry when I get the chance ill take a picture for you buddy. By the way I’m in the subway right now on the 7 train too bad there is not ads on this wagon I’m on. I think u don’t even know how to define the work marketing. People work with contract and is by seasons don’t worry about it now when Intel release there P4 for 64 bit u will see a lot of that around. Well u said u travel to NYC a lot, if this is true u should have seen the Centrino Advertisements they had with wagons full of them.
12.well they had stop doing that for a long time the reason y they went out of business was because NVIDIA got them with the VPU and 3dfx couldn’t come p with something to way to get back at them the GForce 256 was just too much for the voodoo 3 (damn I hated NVIDIA back then) other thing 3dfx only mad graphic cards.
13.You should read what I wrote again is an example. Read what I write again buddy if u needs some help let me know.
14.OO by the way I been using AMD from the k5 just thought I let u know I tried them all but the K6-III.My first Intel system was my first computer I go when I was about 12 which was a IBM Pentium 90 mhz and my Centrino. And that is the only P’s I even used. I would get an AMD laptop but I don’t like the battery life on them and they weight to much need something light weight. Is not the I don’t like Intel but I don’t like people trying to trick me. Something that Intel was doing with there mhz P4 that all they are good for. I don’t mind spending 2 sec more wait for my wav to MP3.
15.LOL u sound like a child. anyway Your Itanium is ONLY ONLY a 64bit. AMD is both 64bit as much as 32 bit and it supports X86 extensions like I told you before read this so u can feel more like a buffoo http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/ed...play/intel.html. maybe u can get some info there and educate your self. No for nothing you sound like a child. Little boy. o yah did I forget the mention that your Itanium doesn’t support the x86. U should read that article is very educational.
16.Is there something back with offering something the is cheap. How is the being a bad customer? LOL I’m sure if Intel as selling the P4 EE for $100 I’m sure you would be the first one to get one. You are pathetic Trust me if they was losing so much money they wouldn’t really be in business right now. And which is the big problem that AMD has. I think u should also look into marketing again. This don’t work like that man it takes a long time when company have shareholder to go out off business AMD doesn’t only make CPU’s they make flash memory and Race car computer u should stop by there website and read on them I’m sure u haven’t even done that for your beloved Intel u just go by what other people say. Get like 5 sources and then come at me with your info.
17.they can do the because AMD pave the way so they don’t have to go that far and just say look at AMD they do the same thing and they can still keep up with are P4 running at about twice as fast. LOL if u go to on the dell site and try to buy a dell with a Centrino in it they will show u a benchmark with a P4 and then Centrino winning. Intel had people so fooled including there investors and shareholders that they lost a lot of money with there Pentium M AKA Centrino. A lot of investors were a little confused about the Centrino and the mhz part they couldn’t understand how is it that a slow processor can go up ageists a sup post faster P4.
18.this one make me laugh
19.Maybe you should read does sites and other ones or as a matter of fact u should go to share markets site and read about thing there. Well I don’t think u would be able to understand them. And there are many truths in does site and other ones. It seems like u read them too. Because I never mentions some of does. Anyway where do u get your Fact/info from Intelbuffoons.com or do u go to there corps. office and ask them question and come back and post something here so u can proof me wrong. LOL

You are just someone that is trying to proof me wrong but the thing that you are not acknowledging is the AMD is here and is here to say buffoon.
I was writing this before I seen all this post. I would agree with all of you but what Karl is trying to do is proof that AMD is not going any where. I don’t hate Intel I will never put down $1000 for a CPU I would rather get something close to it and get a lot of ram and a fast Hard drive is just too much for a CPU. This can do on for years but I know I never going to change no ones mind and Im not trying to. Is just that he keeps on making.

Well, nootrak... when the personal insults fly, I bow out.

You're wrong on just about everything, which means you have no choice but to rely on insults. It's sad, really.

I have a tip for you, though. Before you try arguing facts with insults in the future, at least have a decent grasp of the english language.

Interesting theory... It's true that a lot of energy is wasted just making everything 0's and 1's

lets try to keep the name calling to a minimum i dont want to have to warn you x2

And now a break from the norm (or the not too distant future of computing):
Digital computers are the most prevalent type of computer in today's society.
The main defining characteristic of digital computers is that they process information
using discreet timing and signals. Discreet timing means that the computer works in
cycles. During the cycle, the computer is processing. The rate of the computers cycles determines
its processing speed. Discreet signals mean the bits of information that the computer is
manipulating is binary. Either there is a signal or there is not, represented at 1 and 0.
Digital signals are all or nothing; either the signal is on or it is off, with no middle ground.

On the other hand, analog circuitry operates on a system of continuous variables.
Data flows through the system not at binary 1s or 0s but rather in the form of
infinitely variable voltages ranging from lower to upper range of the system capacity
(How much "juice" is available). Instead of bits of information being either on or off,
analog circuitry is based on infinite degrees between on and off.

The theory is that digitization and quantizing of real world data will give way to machines which process data as it really exists. Analog computers preceded digital machines and will eventually return in some hybrid adapted form. The theory continues that true artificial intelligence will require analog computing to some degree.

Just some interesting tidbits of info.

News story:
"After investigating the instruction sets used by 64-bit chips from AMD and Intel, an industry analyst has concluded that Intel reverse-engineered the AMD64 instruction set to create its own 64-bit microprocessor architecture.

Tom Halfhill, an analyst at In-Stat/MDR in San Jose, said Monday that he had compared the instruction sets of AMD's 64-bit chips, called AMD64, with the 64-bit extensions to be used in the Intel Xeon processor and future desktop chips. The smoking gun, Halfhill said, was Intel's choice to mimic a decision AMD made in its early Opteron designs, and later reversed.

Speculation that Intel had reverse-engineered AMD's processor began circulating almost immediately after Intel announced its own 64-bit plans in February. AMD announced plans to develop its 64-bit Opteron processor, then code-named "Hammer", in Oct. 2001, and began shipping it in April 2003. Intel's "Nocona", the first chip to use its own 64-bit extensions, will launch this quarter with the Intel Extended Memory 64 Technology, or "Intel EM64T".

While exactly copying a processor's microarchitecture would be illegal, creating a compatible product through the use of an original "clean room" design is legally protected. According to Halfhill, Intel clearly reverse-engineered AMD's products, a tactic AMD and other X86 chip designers have used to quickly catch up to Intel's historical leadership in the design of new microprocessors."

In the end we all win!

64bit, needed or not here it comes.

yiks, flame war are nice but not when u start adding personal insult into the msg. I do agree Karl need to put something out of his to prove his point, but i don't follow the world news that closly and since he work at financial company, i'd rather trust his words to be truth. (or i just don't want to think everyone as liars lol)

A lot of information I got are from technical sites such as Anandtech, tomshardware, and AMDzones. But their point of view really doesn't relate to how business are structured nor how they functions for a particular company. I don't think anybody will disagree that AMD does have a great chip, and that is not what Karl is arguing. The message has been going on mainly because he comments on AMD's bad practice, that they should concentrate on cheap chips on lower market not trying to take a swing @ intel on the higher end; which is where I disagree upon. Both Kev and Karl are arguing @ front where i hadn't touched on, that's why i stopped saying anything to show my arrogance. Part of the fun in flame war is that you get to see a lot of neat facts, but when you start putting in personal insult it will turn ugly really really fast.

I will write some more on this subject later. Just want to put something down on this name calling stuff... and @ that time then u will see a lot of name calling. especial this one

Something about that story doesn't fly. If Intel already licensed the technology, why reverse engineer it?

interesting..

Interesting read so far

Well, ready or not here comes my BS.

First, to Karl's Scientific purpose. I cannot see how Intel have survived that front. Most research lab when needing to use computer for computing uses Unix workstation. The only real obvious advatage of Itanium is that instead of the usual Unix based system it will be using Win64. Lacking in processing power and expensive in price, the only advantage doesn't seem that much at all. As someone already stated, Itanium now are mostly used as database server. I am more sure that Intel just used Itanium more as a step stone to see where they need to improve upon, and "meeting the target" means that they already planned for the failure of their very first own 64bit CPU. Does that mean Itanium 2 will rock? I am shinning my glasses right now.

2) 64bit. Do we need it or not? Answer is yes. Now before you guys tell me that no houswife needs 64bit power and stuff, hear me out first. As most of u guys already know that CPU now are pretty much @ limit of what electronics can allow speed wise, being proven by the serious slowdown of speed war in the recent time. How then can you grind more preformance out of a nearly used up platform? Better chip design! Currently, There are 2 ways to make this happen.

a) Going RISC. By specifing what CPU should be doing, you can reduce the complexity of the CPU and greatly improve what it does, and does it a lot faster. Maybe not far into the future we will be seeing some sort of multi-processor solution similar of what they did w/ North/Southbridge by dedicating 1 processor to do certain things and another for other chores. After all, Pentium was orignially a 2-CPU CPU.

b) Increase basic CPU efficiency, this means pretty much improving on the
core design. A very basic fomular for CPU efficiency that is also basis for Intel's iCOMP is efficiency = bus speed * data passed onto PC per cycle. DDR was designed to overcom the fact that bus speed was not matching the CPU speed in term of development. By making CPU 64 bits, you can in theory process twice as much information per cycle. Now that would definently increase the design overhead of the chip, but AMD had proven that they can handle the task, adding to complexity while upping the perfomance bar. Giving us a chip that outpreform AthlonXP @ the 32 bit game. If that don't gear you to look forward to what it can do 64bit wise, I really donno what can.

There are a lot more reason to say why 64bit is necessory, just like 16->32 bit is inevitable. as it opens a new direction of chipset design for home users. Do we really need it? Computers are powerful enuf? well, 640k was more then plenty and 1MBHD was a dream come true @ one point. This is more of deciding to start now or start later matter.

[edit] no killer app for 64 bit yet? well.. if you don't have the platform yet how do you design a killer app for it? Think Karl, Think, and Think really really hard!

*Quick sidenote for gamers expecting to see good preformance in games by moving to 64bits.. well, hold your horses. I can guarantee you it will improve in memory managment wise, but if you plan to play ur game @ 64bit? most of u guys are old enuf to remeber the 16bit->32bit graphic transition, do i need to go into further details?
[edit] Beside, even if you run the game @ 64bit graphics, most monitor, CRT or LCD can only do roughly 24bit color. sho what do you want to use the other extra 40 bit for? Alpha channel? eum yeah sure...... it will help on ray tracing, but doing ray-tracing @ 64bit in real time?.. we can't even do 16bit ray tracing in real time yet. I will gladly play the game in 32bit glory, thank you very much.

3) are we still discussing if AMD should design their own chipset? As most of giys point out to Karl already that AMD doesn't have the resource have to spend to design their own chip. Granted, it is much a better idea to design your own chip to take advantage the CPU. Here's something to say though, AMD has never really concentrate on making motherboard chipset like Intel was doing all the way back to 80286 date. To ask AMD to divert more resource to design new chipset, something AMD isn't familiar w/ at this point while other chipmaker are already making good enough chipset that allows AMD to show how it kick Intel's butt, to take Karl's word, "i think it's a good business move". After all, there's a good o'l saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

part 2 more of my exciting BS

Analog Computer? sounds interesting? but is it applicable? Digital computer are fast because they don't need to worry about error correction as much since there are 2 possible information that needs to be read and justified. as you start going up in number of possible mistake increase exponentially. You will need a much better equipment just on making sure data transfer is correct, and the added complexity doesn't help much w/ speed.

Of course, everything is possible, but if it is possilbe, i am pretty sure you will see this being applied to internet already as the line is already built and all that is required is to change out the equipment to enable the feature which literally linearly increase the size of information being sent w/ number of states. Maybe i will be pleasently suprised. if it does though, everything i learned in EE will get throw out of window in no time

I am more willing to bet the future of computer in quantum physics, which i read somewhere had already been used to encrypt messages and computer design is already in progress.

Now finally, my promissed name calling part:

Actually, the first OS available for Itanium wasn't Win64. And, it isn't even widely used at that. Most Itanium servers run the HP/UX flavor of unix.

[quote]2) 64bit. Do we need it or not? Answer is yes. Now before you guys tell me that no houswife needs 64bit power and stuff, hear me out first. As most of u guys already know that CPU now are pretty much @ limit of what electronics can allow speed wise, being proven by the serious slowdown of speed war in the recent time. How then can you grind more preformance out of a nearly used up platform? Better chip design! Currently, There are 2 ways to make this happen.[quote]

Doubling the path to 64 bits does NOT mean more speed. You could make an 8 bit processor run at 3ghz. It won't be able to access much memory, but it would be fast as hell!

But going RISC means serious drawbacks for developers. EVERYTHING has to be timed "just right" on a RISC system in order for it to be efficient. There's little margin for error if you want an app to be "efficient". If you need an example of just how difficult that can be with "everyday" apps, look no further than the PowerPC.

Bottom line: It's been done before, and the shortcomings far outweigh the benefits, at least for home computing. CISC has always won out because new (and better) iterations of a particular cpu can retain its compatibility because the underlying instruction set is already there. I don't think RISC is a long term option at all.

Like anything else, iComp certainly doesn't tell the whole story. And no, 64 bit means you can PROCESS twice the information per clock cycle, not necessarily do twice as much work per clock cycle. I suppose on a basic level, you're right. You could, in THEORY do 2x as much work per cycle, but in practice, it simply doesn't happen Not yet.

Again, not until there's a "killer app" designed to do so.

I totally agree with you here.

A lot of people take what Billy Boy Gates said about "640k being enough for anybody". He didn't say it would be the case 10 years from then. He also said it at a time where home computers had 64k at best

Like I said, I agree 64 bit is important. But no one has been developing towards that goal, which means we have a boatload of early adopters that simply won't see the benefit of 64 bit computing and are simply overpaying for the privilege now.

When 64 bit hits the big time, the Itaniums and Opterons available today are going to be nearly worthless. I don't fault AMD or Intel. I fault software developers for not being hungry enough and being complacent with technology available today.

This is a lot different than 15 years ago. They certainly were hungry enough when they knew how much better Desqview, Windows 3.0 and OS/2 would run on a 32 bit versus 16 bit environment. Software was just WAITING for the hardware to become available. Today, it's the opposite. There's hardware available, but no software available. And that's why I feel 64 bit is a WASTE right now. Without software, the hardware is useless. And adding patches to games that marginally improve the performance is NOT the solution to making a case for 64 bit.

How did Quarterdeck develop Desqview for a 32 bit environment when all that was available was 16 bit?

How did Microsoft do it with Windows 1.0 or 2.0? Microsoft pitched to intel "Boy, it sure would be nice if we had a 32 bit cpu that would do X", and wouldn't you know it, a year later, out came "Windows 386".

How did IBM do it with the first releases of OS/2?

Making companies like Dell go to multiple manufacturers for an architecture solution only limits their options. Sure, nforce is a good chipset (but anything from VIA is only good for me to poop on). But that adds a layer of complexity to any architectural design. That's one of the reasons it's kept out of the mass market. It adds complexity and *uncertainty* to any engineering design. Nforce might be the killer chipset today. But what happens if VIA makes an even better one next year? More work for Dell to do to secure product. It adds a layer of complexity that most integrators simply don't want or need. It adds cost to their product to have to deal with multiple vendors.

Look at your phone bill. I use Verizon for my local, long distance and cellular phone service. I get one bill, I have one relationship to worry about, and I don't have to deal with the hassle of differing due dates, differing rates, differing places to mail payment, etc etc etc. That's a simple representation of what a business has to go through. When you're talking about 16 models of PC's across 2 different vendors, thats a *SIGNIFICANT* amount of work!

Intel makes the motherboards, CPU's and chipsets for Dell. One stop shopping, for one price. To shop around costs money, and it would literally cost more for Dell to offer AMD - and that cost would simply be passed on to consumers.

I am actually working in a lab designing a next generation computer. Of course, our approach is unique and probably will not be the *next* generation. Rather it will be much further down the line. Despite my field, I did not hear of an advent of the analog computer, which is why I found that interesting. If anyone wish to continue this discussion about the distant future of computing I would surely like to discuss what we are working on and what I believe is going to be the immediate future of molecular computing.

Yah let hear what u ahve to say. i would like to know.

Well, as matters would appear now, nano-technology would soon become the dominant force in computing, if not in other manufacturing positions too. Currently there are several molecular approaches to computing. Two of the rather conventional ones are molecular electronic devices and carbon nanotubes. I have not studied the latter in great detail, but I know of a few things. Carbon nanotubes can be used as many things from conducting wires to transistors and diodes. Basically it will replace traditional transistors. I am not sure whether it would be applied to a substrate or in a solution. But using it will be very similar to conventional computers: it will rely on synchronous, boolean logic. Molecular electronic devices vary. But the basic component of it is a molecule that have two or more states, or isomers. Ideally this molecule would change from one state to the other upon the application of a voltage difference. This I believe would be the first generation of nano-computers. Several labs are working on this. Dr Tour of Rice University is working on one approach. Some labs in U of Rochester have developed some unique molecular devices that could function as transistors, diodes, even logic gates. But the most prevalent one, certainly the one holding the most number of patents, is Dr. Stanley Williams of HP Palo Alto and Dr. James Heath of UCLA. Heath's website: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~heathgrp/ and Stanley's group's site: http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/qsr/. Their approach is somewhat near application. They rely on a molecule called the [2]rotaxane, a molecule with two isomers that can freely change from one to the other, and controlled by electricity. They have also developped nano-wires to connect these molecules into a lattice (grid). They have successfully programmed a 8x8 grid to perform as a logic gate or a non-volatile memory cell. It works just as it sounds: 8x8 nanowires are laid on a substrate, perpendicular to each other, thus forming 64 addressable sites. At each cross-section there would be several rotaxane molecules. When two crossing wires are addressed their corresponding rotaxane molecules would change state, thus forming the proverbial 1 and 0 of boolean logic.

Here are some papers by Heath and Stanley:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~heathgrp...-Heath0503.pdf
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~thl/papers/Heath.Switch.pdf
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~heathgrp...es/2002/yi.pdf

Of course the work at our lab is completely different. If anyone is interested I could explain it in my next post.

(PS. not all labs require powerful computers beyound that of an average desktop. I could confidently claim that 95% of all computers at New York Medical College and Columbia University Medical Center are Dells)

Ahem Columbia actually has quite a few Macs I should know

Which campus are you talking about? I haven't been to some of the others, I can only speak for the Medical Center adjacent to Presbyterian hospital.

http://news.com.com/2008-1006_3-5186...?tag=nefd.lede
Front page story today: AMD's 64-bit bet pays off

"The company, traditionally thought of as the underdog in the server chip business, has so far inked deals with IBM, Hewlett-Packard and Sun Microsystems, which have all adopted the Opteron chip for their product lines."

"We are very happy with where we are positioned right now. I think you are right that essentially, Intel is currently positioned at the low end of the servers, the proprietary stuff is at the highest end, and there's us in the middle. But of course, we come from a heritage in which we can certainly cover--both from price points and history--the low end as well. We have got a beautiful story for taking the x86 processor architecture as far as it can go over time into all the aspects of the enterprise"

Well we all know how VERY slow financial institutions are at adopting new technology so I can understand such a limited perspective. I am sure Intel will step up and deliver something in this segment soon, but for now AMD made a good business decision and its paying off.

Anyone remember the Transmeta CPU? Was supposed to be the second coming of the mobile world
I'll stick to Banias & Dothan...