64-bit desktop computing unnecessary, says Intel CTO

Dom

AMD and Apple are touting 64-bit computing on the desktop far too quickly, Intel CTO Pat Gelsinger said today.

Moving beyond 32-bit addressing is "really not needed for several more years", he told reporters attending the Intel Developer Forum in San Jose.

AMD, of course, isn't going to wait that long. Next week, the company will unveil its long-awaited 64-bit desktop processor, the Athlon 64. And, just a few weeks ago, Apple began shipping its Power Mac G5 desktop based on the 64-bit IBM PowerPC 970 processor.

But if Gelsinger's comments are anything to go by, Intel believes its rivals are coming to market too early.

"How many [users] have seen the crippling 4GB limit on their desktop PCs?" he asked. Today, he claimed, there aren't apps that need more than the 4GB offered by virtual memory schemes, let alone however much physical memory is available.

So when will 64-bit computing on the desktop become a necessity? "As a rule of thumb, address space [requirements] consume a bit every two years," he said. "We're at 1GB now and starting to see 2GB. So we're probably about three of four years away from really needing that 4GB on general desktops. That puts you out in the 2006/07 timeframe."

That's not to say Intel won't come to market with a desktop 64-bit processing sooner than that, either through licensed AMD64 technology or a variant of its own. But if it does, it clearly won't because the market needs that level of addressing.

Intel has long been rumoured to be working on an alternative to AMD64, codenamed 'Yamhill'. If Intel ever releases a processor based on Yamhill technology, it's unlikely to arrive before 2005, at least one analyst has claimed. Some observers have speculated that the next generation of Pentium processor, 'Prescott', already incorporates Yamhill, but has it physically turned off. If that's the case, it will almost certainly be in future Xeons too, ready to be switched on if Apple or AMD begin eating too far into Intel's market share.

________________________
Source: TheRegister

nForcer

I'm reminded of a quote from a favorite movie of mine, Jurassic Park "Your scientists were so preoccupied with wheather or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should". I agree 64-bit Technology isn't needed at this point in time, and its current rate of development is starting to scare me. Intel has been working on 64-bit technology for quite some time. AMD, from all facts and figures, hasn't reached half the same development time, yet they are driving forward like a train without control. Not saying its a bad thing, but the tunnel vision and its use in developing enchanced computer technology is just as bad as re-creating dinosaurs. Do we need it or them? and if so, then why?

Vampyromaniac

I'm not real interested in the 64-bit capabilities of the Athlon64 . . . but I am interested in the extra speed in 32-bit from the new architecture

__________________

ToshiroOC

Intel sees the future in hyperthreading. AMD sees the future in 64 bit processing. The market will decide who is right.

__________________
[img][/img]
[color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color]
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Dom

64bit is the logical way to go.

ToshiroOC

Is it? Why not hyperthreading until we hit the 4gb limit w/ 32 bit addressing?

__________________
[img][/img]
[color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color]
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Dom

Because; I said so.

BWX

LOL, LOL

You know how many times I heard my Dad say that when Iwas growing up?

__________________

Dom

Well... I am older than Tosh.

WaltC

Intel is so funny in this matter.... The smartest thing would be for them to say nothing. But as they are talking about it, AMD must really be rattling their cage right now...

What Intel is trying to discourage, of course, is people buying the upcoming A64's and currently shipping Opterons (People are buying Opterons at a rate which is bothering Intel as the Opteron is eating into the market where Intel lives--the x86 server market.) That's what this is all about.

This is really funny--Intel will be glad to sell you a 64-bit Itanic--love to sell you on 64-bit computing with their 64-bit chips. There's just one little problem, though--and that's the fact that Intel wants you to pay 5x-10x what AMD wants you to pay for the privilege, and all for a 64-bit chip for which there exists hardly any software. Oh, yes--Itanic has an x86 emulator built in so that you could use its very expensive 64-bit computing to run 32-bit x86 software--the only problem with it is that it is slower running 32-bit software than a relatively slow P4 or AthlonXP.

Enter Opteron/A64 (Opteron is AMD's server chip--the A64, launching on the 23 of this month, is AMD's desktop line, just like Intel's Xeon and P4 lines are organized.) What Intel doesn't want anyone to know is that A64 will be quite a bit faster running 32-bit x86 software than currently shipping P4's and AXP's. Quite a bit faster in many things. That's because the Opty/A64 doesn't emulate 32-bits--it is both a 32-bit AND a 64-bit cpu--natively. A64 will sell like hotcakes based only on its native 32-bit capability--and 64-bit x86 capability is only icing on the cake that will make it run even faster.

This has nothing to do with HYPErthreading, btw. HT is only something Intel implemented for it's P4 architecture to run it faster per clock under limited conditions--running multithreaded software. The A64 has a much higher Instruction Per Clock processing capability than the P4 with HT enabled--and the A64 runs its IPC rate constantly--in both single-threaded and multi-threaded applications, makes no difference, you *always* see the benefit from the A64's IPC (same is true for the AXP--at the same MHz clock rate, even with HT enabled, P4 can't keep up.) A64 just broadens the lead substantially.

If you take a look at the recent A64 preview done over at Anand's for 3D gaming, a 2GHz A64 runs single-threaded 3D games up to 40%-50% faster than a 3GHz P4! And this is with pre-shipping A64 motherboard hardware, to boot.

Intel will find that it will have no better luck nay-saying A64 than it did in 1999 when it thought it could talk people out of the original Athlon, too.

Logla

I am definatley looking towards one of these CPUs to replace my P4 come upgrade time. Sure I don't need the extra power but its always nice to know its there. Its always nice to be able to say to friends and coleagues "look what I've got" and then start an argument about what is best and what is better.

I'm really looking forward to these chips hitting the stores and getting to play with one to see what they can do.

DriveEuro

I think 64 is fine..... I mean, they are currently running it on 32bit windows at it runs like a charm... So what's wrong with it? It overclocks well and in less than a year we'll see a 64bit version of windows (yes i know there is already one) better optimized..... I see nothing wrong with 64bit... If anything I can see people jumping on it cuz it'll be so much better in a coming year.

__________________
[color=orange]ASUS P4P800 Deluxe [color=black]-[/color] 2.4C --> 3300mhz [color=black]-[/color] Mushkin PC3200 at 220 5-2-2-2 (cpu limited) [color=black]-[/color] BBAti 9800Pro at 430/375 [/color]
[color=black]3[/color][color=gray]D[/color]M[color=black]a[/color][color=gray]r[/color]k[color=yellow]01[/color] [color=black]3[/color][color=gray]D[/color]M[color=black]a[/color][color=gray]r[/color]k[color=yellow]03[/color] 1600*1200 1280*1024

tenndevil

AMD moves to the next level intel gets caught with their shorts down, and the answer is the world isn't ready the 64 is a waste, and why is this simply because "intel sez so", what other reason do we need? Kinda like the ATI NVIDIA situation, now it may be time for intel to play catch-up for once.

DriveEuro

Hehehe, i like the way you put that.

__________________
[color=orange]ASUS P4P800 Deluxe [color=black]-[/color] 2.4C --> 3300mhz [color=black]-[/color] Mushkin PC3200 at 220 5-2-2-2 (cpu limited) [color=black]-[/color] BBAti 9800Pro at 430/375 [/color]
[color=black]3[/color][color=gray]D[/color]M[color=black]a[/color][color=gray]r[/color]k[color=yellow]01[/color] [color=black]3[/color][color=gray]D[/color]M[color=black]a[/color][color=gray]r[/color]k[color=yellow]03[/color] 1600*1200 1280*1024

Iridium

__________________

The_Neon_Cowboy

This is typical INTEL behavior... saying 64 bit is nothing and not needed when they release a 32/64 bit cpu they will be 64 bit is everything.... they do 180's all the time... their pr people are pathological liars anything to make their products sell better NOT fact. They did just the reverse with duel CPU’s saying duel is everything... Amd releases duel Intel goes back to one CPU the Intel states single CPU computing is everything duels are worthless...

I'd rather buy a VIA cpu than any Intel cpu.... i'm AMD all the way...

__________________

dipstick

Intel is feeling the heat for sure. I personally think HT is useless as even apps that take advantage of it show minimal gains. On the other hand we have seen what the A64 does to 3dmark 2001 and I want it!

krazy1

NICE!! Very well put!!!

__________________

Logla

Really looking forward to Intel's advertising campaign for their 64bit chip when its eventually out (not).

We will no doubt be drowned in stupid and annoying pauses in adverts - with horrible theme music - for pc's everytime they mention the word Intel.

I absolutly hate ads for PCs at the best of times and then you get the ones for PCWorld where they try to trick the consumers into buying with phrases such as "It has the latest in computing technology with the powerfull 3 Gigahertz Intel Pentium 4 processer with HT Technology" Cue annoying theme music.
How many people out there would then think that HT technology is now a must have and will happily pay another 50 to 100 quid above what they really need.

I hate marketing and I hate, abhorrently the methods in which Intel use to plug their products.
If AMD want to pump out the next generation of CPUs, they are not "coming into the market too early", they are simply doing what most businesses do - beat the competition. And whats wrong with that? If people didn't do that, we would still be stuck in the early industrial age, burning coal to keep us warm.

Jeff

Hyperthreading vs. 64bit????

NAH!!!

we just need a hyperthreaded athlon 64.

__________________

ToshiroOC

I asked the CEO of Intel at a recent technology convention why they weren't pursing 64 bit technology for the consumer market, and the response I got was that HT was the future of consumer computing, not 64 bits, especially since we hadn't hit the 4gb barrier yet. So, I do think that this has something to do with Hyperthreading

__________________
[img][/img]
[color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color]
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

@/2ct!<

I think the original part that says the market will tell is the key element, we can see what happens. Neither AMD nor Intel are naive, just think one is better for the consumer"hrumph" er profits, id say its cheaper to make HT than 64 and the gain 64 would take away from intel would be made up for in lower costs.

__________________

WaltC

Lots of people need more than 4gbs--but not of course according to Intel--because they don't have a desktop x86 64-bit chip to sell you. You'd be surprised at the number of people who need more than 4gbs of ram. So, what he told you was pure marketing crapola...

Aside from that, 64-bits is also about performance, adding 15%-30% additional performance in many cases. He obviously didn't tell you that, did he?...

HYPErthreading has nothing whatsoever to do with 64-bit computing. It's not a substitute, nor is it similar. Again, he's hitting you with marketing talk--not technical talk. Aside from that, if you knew what HT was, you'd never, ever make the mistake of confusing it with x86-64. The A64 is already much faster per clock in both single-threaded and multithreaded applications than is a P4, with HT enabled, is. HT has been implemented in the P4 architecture to allow the P4 to do more work per clock when it's enabled than it can do when HT is turned off. The catch is, it only works running multithreaded applications--has no effect in single-threaded applications. You can judge the truth of this by the fact that when you turn on HT your P4 doesn't increase its MHz speed by a single MHz--but it runs multithreaded applications a bit faster than at the same MHz speed when HT is turned off--ie, it's doing more work per clock running multithreaded applications than it can do when running them with HT turned off.

Here's a suggestion: ask the CEO of AMD why they are doing x86-64 and why they have no interest in HYPErthreading. You will get a much different answer. Surely you know not to ask the CEO of Intel why he isn't recommending AMD chips, right?... I'm amazed that you thought you might get a straight answer....

The_Neon_Cowboy

The funny thing is when Intel wakes up we will see Intel releasing a 64/32 bit cpu…
And one again the will go ageist what they have said time and time before

__________________

WaltC

Yes, it wouldn't surprise me to hear that Prescott has the circuitry, and that Intel just hasn't "turned it on" in the chip when it first appears. If A64 does as well as it appears it will do, I agree it is likely that Intel will have a major change of tune.

What some people don't understand is that Intel wants to reserve "64-bits" for the very high, most-expensive end of its market--Itanic--so that people will think 64-bits is something they need to be paying huge premiums to get. A64 from AMD on the desktop at P4/AXP prices is really going to undercut them in that regard as it removes a lot of the marketability from the "64-bit" mantra for Itanic. So, naturally, Intel wants it believed that "64-bits" is something people don't "need." Right. I'm glad AMD has a different point of view. I'm sure that had AMD not hit with K7 in 1999 it would have been much longer before Intel would have decided people "needed" 1GHz cpus, let alone P4s. I've often speculated on how long Intel would have continued to milk P3 if not for the K7 competition from AMD. This doesn't even count what they'd have charged us for the privilege, either...

iguanas

why intel fanboys and pr only point 4gb limit of memory as the only benefit of 64bit computing???
now AMD has 64 bit registries in the processor itself (or the double 32bit ones if you like (or 4times a dword ones ))
so to do 4294967296 (or 100000000000000000000000000000000 in binarie, a 33bit number) + 4294967296 it would only use 2 registrys in one only pass, cause the number itself fit in a 64bit registry.
and for sure at least in this operation, a 64bit processor, just doubles the speed of a 32bit one...
i dont want to amd to BASH intel... but neither i want intel ALONE in the market (do you remember the days of 1000+u$ processors??)

I WANT AN ATHLON FX51!!!! (but with a p4 3200 with 2mb l2 cache im done)

ToshiroOC

A few things here: 64 bits adds zero performance In a 32 bit application, 64 bit capabilities will do nothing, and in a 64 bit application, 64 bit capabilities will let you run it... but it will add no performance, because what is there to add to?

Second, I haven't met the CEO of AMD And, I didn't ask Intel guy why he wasn't recommending AMD chips, I asked him why Intel wasn't pursuing 64 bits in the consumer market in the next generation of computer chips, a significant difference. And what do you mean by a "straight" answer? There is no such thing. I expected him to give me the corporate spiel about how 64 bits wasn't important... and then I wanted to see why it was thought to be so, according to Intel, and also what they thought took precedence over 64 bits.

Also... the average consumer does not need more than 4gb of ram. Period. People with workstations and servers, yes, but those are intended to be serviced by the Itanic line, which are 64 bit and have the additional ram that that encompasses. Please give me the name of one consumer application that would require more than 4gb of ram... of today I would be most interested, as I cannot think of a single consumer application that needs 4gb of ram. I suppose you're going to buy more than 4gb of ram to go with your AthlonFX, if/when you get one? I know that I'm going to be getting either a Prescott or an AthlonFX, and I'm leaning towards the latter, but I know I'm not going to be getting more than 4gb of ram - 1gb or .5gb is much much more likely.

I never intended to point Hyperthreading out as a substitute What I was trying to say was that Intel's approach to the next generation of consumer chips is Hyperthreading (which, despite what you appear to think, I do not confuse with x86-64 ), while AMD's approach is through x86-64 and Hypertransport.

They are somewhat similar in that they increase the breadth of the amount of data processable... to a minor extent. 64 bits, obviously, allows for double the amount of data to be processed, while HT would allow two threads of data to be processed, though not as efficiently since the threads are still sharing the same core. However, the arguement you used against HT seems to be dual-sided. So what if it only helps single-threaded applications? x86-64 will only help 64 bit applications! Fortunately, fallacious arguements like this are irrelevant in good discussion. AthlonFX has a better IPC and has the potential for wider data blocks, while Pentium4 has a higher frequency and the potential for more threads of instructions. It's all a matter of what you believe to be more important for performance, and what applications you are focusing on, that decides which chip and which approach is best.

I don't see Yamhill in the Prescotts being enabled. It would undermine Intel's drive for HT. Tejas, however, is a different story, and we'll have to see when we get there.[size=1px].[/size]

__________________
[img][/img]
[color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color]
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

ToshiroOC

I just noticed this post, meaning my senility far surpasses yours and thus my credibility far surpasses yours too!

Age is but a number, forgetfulness is... oshi

__________________
[img][/img]
[color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color]
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Vampyromaniac

heh when you think of it AMD doesn't even need to be hyperthreaded, it's already doing a whole lot more work cycle-for-cycle than P4, now it just needs more . . . uh, cycles ^^

__________________

WaltC

I was talking about the difference in performance between 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the same software. Tim Sweeny, of Epic games, for instance, is doing a 64-bit version of Unreal Tournament '03/04--he's very excited about the 15%-30% performance difference using the *extra cpu registers* in its 64-bit mode will provide (as he's said many times in the last few months.) That's the performance difference Intel doesn't want people to know about. Sweeny says they have written to Intel several times about their 64-bit version of the game engine in the hopes that Intel, too, will decide to get onboard the x86 64-bit bandwagon. UT is but one example. Practically any software like this will see a performance benefit between the 32-bit and 64-bit versions.

You might as well have asked him [Intel CEO] why he wasn't recommending an A64/Opteron, when you asked him a question like that--because Intel has no desktop 64-bit chip for the x86 desktop. What he told you is the same thing Intel marketers have been saying for months... I've already explained that Intel wants to reserve "64-bits" for its Itanium brand right now, as a marketing tool--IMO, that's chiefly why you won't immediately see an x86-64 Intel cpu. The rest of it is just marketing gibberish for "Don't buy AMD, buy Intel"....

That's funny...I have read countless posts by people who are in the video-editing and desktop publishing businesses, among others, who say they are very much in need of ram in excess of 4GBs, and have no intention or desire whatsoever of paying premium prices for Itanium and then having to run their existing software base slower than they already do. People who run web servers, for instance, are yet another group. Itanium is not the only 64-bit answer--and of course this is what Intel objects to.

But it isn't only ram useage, of course. In many things a 2Ghz A64 will be *much* faster under a 32-bit OS running 32-bit software than is an equivalently clocked AXP right now. Check out Anandtechs' A64 preview:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1856&p=1

Here are a couple of quotes:

"Gaming is one area where our tests show Opteron at 2.0GHZ an amazing performer. When you find game benchmarks 10% to 20% higher, you are genuinely impressed. However, in some of the very latest DX9 benchmarks, Athlon64/Opteron was 40% to 50% faster. This will get the attention of the gaming community, which seems to have a genuine affection for anything AMD already. It is the kind of trend-setting performance that Athlon64 needed to get the attention of an influential market segment."

40-50% faster than a 3Ghz P4 running on an 800MHz fsb. Yep, that's a 2GHz A64. That's the kind of immediate advantage A64 purchasers will see--long before they are running 64-bit software. Here's another quote:


"One particularly noteworthy area was the performance of the A64 level Opteron compared to an 875 Dual Xeon 3.06 system. We really expected the Xeon dually to trounce our single Opteron, but instead, found a virtual dead-heat. Multiple Opteron systems have been setting records in many areas, and we are certainly looking forward to looking at multiple 200 series Opterons after seeing what our single 144 can do."

IE, it takes two Xeon 3GHz cpus to keep pace with a single 2GHz Opteron in some cases. This is also accomplished without the the need for 64-bits.

Bottom line is that 64-bit capability is icing on the cake, will provide a performance boost contrasted to the same applications running on 32-bits, and allows the system to address more ram, but it's the A64's powerful 32-bit performance that is so compelling at present. Heh... Which is also something Intel would rather people not dwell on too much. When people buy an A64 they aren't just buying a 64-bit cpu, they are also buying the fastest 32-bit cpu available. All told, A64 will be the best deal going, bar none.




Uh....any P4 with HT turned off can process two threads at the same time--any Athlon can, too. The process is called multitasking, btw, and it's been with us a long, long time. The only thing turning HT on in a P4 does is make the process more efficient per clock for the P4, and things sometimes speed up a little when running multithreaded applications. (It's been demonstrated that with HT in current Xeons, sometimes turning HT on can *reduce* performance in multithreaded applications--which tells us that what Intel's doing is not without it's own overhead which in some cases can exceed its benefit.)

I did not say that HT helped single-threaded performance--I said the opposite. It only helps multithreaded performance--hyperthreading doesn't do anything for single-threaded performance. Contrast that with A64 (and the AXP), which *natively* does a lot more work per clock regardless of whether the application is single-threaded or multithreaded than a P4, and you can understand why AMD calls HYPErthreading an absolute gimmick. That's plain enough, isn't it? What I'm trying to communicate here is that HT is a marketing phrase--not a technical one.

As far as x86 goes....who was it do you think who came up with "x86-32" when all PC's were x86-16--back when everything was 16-bits? Gaw-lee...it was Intel! *chuckle* The only thing AMD has done is extend x86-32 to x86-64, just like Intel extended x86-16 to x86-32 years ago.... Really, we have to move past the point of thinking that everything legitimate that happens has to be "approved" by Intel...*chuckle* Too bad, but AMD beat 'em to the punch--again.

Intel isn't "against" 64-bits at all--it only opposes AMD's vision of 64-bits because it wants to sell the Itanic's version of 64-bits, instead. But AMD's being so much more practical and less expensive, means it will easily trump Itanic 64 in practicality.

I don't see x86-64 being enabled in Prescott, either--immediately, that is. But when the A64 is selling like hotcakes and Itanic isn't, I can definitely see its being enabled later on. BTW, you said above that you understood that HT and 64-bits weren't the same thing--so how is it you figure that supporting x86-64 in Prescott would mean it couldn't turn on HYPErthreading at the same time? *chuckle* Just food for thought.