64bit processing..

conZ

Yea, that Itanium 2, thats for servers etc right?

I'm really on about Home PC CPU's.

The Operton is AMD's version innit? It's still pretty expensive, but will soon be the standard (about a year/year and a half i'd say).

Creamy Goodness

afaik if you use operton you gotta use 64bit O/S

jesus_thats_gre

ah think you should hold out till crimbo, 64 bit processor will be out around then, the graphics cards will fall in price, and youll have more time to suss out the best card

Has it been confirmed that the Opteron will actually improve the performance of all games, or will games have to be specifically developed for it? Or was the above recommendation just a guess?

I am guessing the Opteron will not offer any extra performance on current 32 bit software. And considering that most new games being released for the forseable will more than likely be 32 bit software, waiting for a 64 bit processor is pointless. The only performance increases will be reflected in improvements in bus, ram and processor speeds.

As for graphics cards, the 9800 pro or 5900 Ultra are both the pick of the crop. Purchasing either of these will do the job.

jesus_thats_gre

afaik if you use operton you gotta use 64bit O/S

The Opeteron will run both 32 bit and 64 bit software. So you can use either the 32 bit or 64 bit versions of Windows Xp for example. The 64 bit version will run better, but you will have a very limited choice of software to run on it.

Yea, that Itanium 2, thats for servers etc right?

It will only run 64 bit software. At the moment it is being used solely for high end stuff and in servers. Again, limited software for the likes of us.

Matt Simis

Christ, since there are so many weird and wrong ideas on 64bit CPUs floating around here perhaps a new thread is in order?

The Athlon64 (Opteron is "workstation" marketed varient) is out in Sept, before HL2 actually. It will be faster than current CPUs, not necessarily because its 64bit, but because its has many technical features above and beyond the P4s and Athlon XPs at the moment. 64bit is a free "by the way", dont get hung up on it or think you should avoid them "cos I dont need 64bit".

If you can wait, then it should be worth holding off a CPU upgrade till then.

Intel have not offically announced a competitor to the AMD64 (their 64bit product range) campaign. Intel Itanium has absolutely nothing to do with anything here.

Basically, the AMD64 CPUs will benefit from 64bit OS (like the unreleased WinXP Pro64) and 64Bit apps but the other processor benefits should make them very fast in 32bit as well.

In a related note, check out the TV Ad for Athlon64 here:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/AMDAthlon64movietrailer.wmv?redir=PR6401



Matt

jesus_thats_gre

Ok, did ya get all this from the AMD website by any chance?

Matt Simis

Originally posted by jesus_thats_gre
Ok, did ya get all this from the AMD website by any chance?

No... Im simply interested in technology and this is a bit big to "miss". Everyone knows its been coming and its been discussed around the web for the past year.

What are you implying anyway?



Matt

MrPinK

Originally posted by -ADREN-
Just a simple question really.. So when the 64 bit processors come out will production of on 32bit proccessors from AMD decrease alot and will the 64 bits just take over say as the p4 takes over the p3.. ye get me? Or will they continue just as strong in production with the 32bit etc and run them side by side on the market? Also is it best to wait for one?

AMD are likely to stop making 32bit processors forever by summer of next year. If the uptake on the Athlon 64's is good enough, they may even do so sooner. I've been waiting for mine for over a year.

Surely the true benefit of the Opteron will not be witnessed until the majority of sofware houses begin to develop 64 bit software. At that, would it not be better to stick with existing, cheaper 32 bit processors as they will offer the most bang for buck value?

As already stated by Matt, it's not just the fact that it's 64bit that will make it faster. It will run at higher clock speeds than the XP range. It uses HyperTranspot which will piss all over Intel's upcoming 1000Mhz FSB. There hasn't been any benchmarks released yet, but it's expected to be as fast as a 3.5Ghz P4

jesus_thats_gre

So the main benefits of switching to the Opteron at the moment is not for the fact that it is 64 bit, but mainly because of higher clock speeds and an improved architecture.

That was the point of my questions previously. So in essence, there is very little benefit of the Opteron over future P4 processors, specifically with relation to one being 64 bit and the other being 32 bit.

Don't mean to be persistent, but what is the point of AMD making a big deal about launching a 64 bit processor? Seems to be the last stand of a company who know Intel are offering a superior product.

MrPinK

First of all, the transition from 32bit to 64bit is not a maybe, it has to happen. Over the next couple of years you will see both 32bit and 64bit version of software. It's not a big effort to create a 32bit version of any software, you just compile it with a 64bit compiler. Why is AMD making a big deal about a 64bit processor? The 64bit version of Half Life 2 (Valve have confirmed there will be one) will most likely run faster than the 32bit version. So will UT2003-64, and all the other 64bit games that will follow. There aren't benchmarks out yet, but it's hoped that the Athlon 64 will out perform the P4 on 32bit applications as well. We'll find out next month.

I can't see how this is a last stand by AMD? The new Mac G5 is 64bit, the processor in a PS2 is 64bit, Intel are gonna have to move to 64bit eventually. But instead of Intel leading the way like it usually does, this time it'll following everyone else.

jesus_thats_gre

First of all, the transition from 32bit to 64bit is not a maybe, it has to happen.

Obviously there is a requirement that processor technologies advance to 64 bit. This is always going to happen, and am personally looking forward to the benefits they will bring.

I can't see how this is a last stand by AMD? The new Mac G5 is 64bit, the processor in a PS2 is 64bit, Intel are gonna have to move to 64bit eventually. But instead of Intel leading the way like it usually does, this time it'll following everyone else.

My point with relation to this is this. Are AMD launching a superior processor to the upcoming processors, or are they launching a 64 bit processor simply for marketing purposes. That is, is the whole 64 bit processor a gimik and is it really required by the mass market at this stage?

At first, the Athlon XP processors where offering comparable, even superior performance than Intel for considerably cheaper. Now the P4 processors are obviously superior and it is possibe that the up and coming 32 bit P4s will be able to match the Opteron on performace stakes, while also being priced similar. Where does this AMD and their 64 bit processor?

Scruff

Microsoft will be releasing WindowsXP 64 in the first half of next year so thats really when the the 64bit anthlons will really start to come into their own. Not only games but you'll see a whole range of software being ported to 64 bit, particularly database software which has happened already for the Opteron which is the server version of the chip.

The big problem is that AMD are releasing 3 different types of 64 bit Athlons that all have different pin counts and all require different motherboards: 754, 939 and 940. the 754 will only support single channel DDR.
I've been watching this whole area for a while and am myself still confused as to whats what and which to buy etc. To be honest, i'm probably just going to go ahead and upgrade to an xp 2500+ next month and sit tight for at least 8 months until the story comes clearer.

/edit
and to confuse things even more AMD to migrate Athlon XP to 754 pins

also
Pricing for Athlon 64 leaks

(split into a seperate athlon 64 tech thread?)

MrPinK

Originally posted by jesus_thats_gre
is the whole 64 bit processor a gimik and is it really required by the mass market at this stage?

Technology is never driven by what the mass market needs, but what a certain few want. Gamers are always pushing for faster and better hardware, and if the hardware is available, there will be software written to take advantage of it.

Originally posted by jesus_thats_gre
Now the P4 processors are obviously superior and it is possibe that the up and coming 32 bit P4s will be able to match the Opteron on performace stakes, while also being priced similar. Where does this AMD and their 64 bit processor?

The answer is right there. ppl will have the choice between a machine that can run 32bit applications very well (I'm not deny that the P4 is a great chip), or a machine that can run 32bit applications just as well and also run **** fast 64bit apps. For me it's an easy choice.

The benchmarks better not turn out to be crap after all the great things I've been saying about this chip

jesus_thats_gre

The benchmarks better not turn out to be crap after all the great things I've been saying about this chip

As you can imagine, I would be devastated if that happened.

The answer is right there. ppl will have the choice between a machine that can run 32bit applications very well (I'm not deny that the P4 is a great chip), or a machine that can run 32bit applications just as well and also run **** fast 64bit apps. For me it's an easy choice.

I certainly agree, if the software is there, I am all for it.

Does anyone feel they are releasing a 64 bit processer purely for the sake of being able to say they are releasing a 64 bit processor. That is sort of the point I am making, while also looking like an idiot

BKtje

Tbh Intel and AMD are always releasing better chips for 2 reasons
a) better performance
b) to have the crown for fastest chip and therefore increase market share and name recognition.

So yes im sure to some extent it is to be able to say it but its also for the performance increase.

jesus_thats_gre

So at the moment, there is very little benefit gained from the fact that it is a 64 bit processor. Any benefits to current software will solely be due to processor speeds and an improved bus architecture. Surely they would have been better waiting a while and actually release a solely 64 bit processor.

Scruff

well thats the track intel have taken so far, at least on the server level. the problem is that the intel 64bit chios can only do 32bit in an emulation mode and are terrible performance wise, worse that p4's (i think).

With the Athlon64 you will have improved 32bit speed due to the factours ye pointed out but you will also have native 64bit support. that means you can buy the Athlon64 to make you current games and apps even faster the same way you would buy a new athlonXP or p4 but when the new 64bit software comes on line you wont have to can your existing hardware to run it and you will also still have the top notch 32bit performance.
seems pretty smart to me.

Ye also got to remember that the XP line or chips are reaching their speed limit with the current design. So why not have a new design that increases performance AND has the ability to execute 64 bit code? => Athlon64

/edit
the main stumbling block to the whole thing that i mentined previously is 3 chips with different pin counts that need totally different motherboards.

BKtje

So at the moment, there is very little benefit gained from the fact that it is a 64 bit processor.

As has been said time and time again there is a performance increase from the fact that its a 64bit processor, they just lumped the new architecture (to increase clock speeds) in with the design for 64bit. Saves them money as well as is handier for us imo.

Any benefits to current software will solely be due to processor speeds and an improved bus architecture. Surely they would have been better waiting a while and actually release a solely 64 bit processor.

The industry doesnt work like that. First you have the hardware, then the software companies create the software for it. Just look at directx9. People had directx9 cards a while before directx9 apps were available. It doesn't make sense to create something that nothing can run.

jesus_thats_gre

The industry doesnt work like that. First you have the hardware, then the software companies create the software for it. Just look at directx9. People had directx9 cards a while before directx9 apps were available. It doesn't make sense to create something that nothing can run.

That is the case with dedicated gaming rigs, most die hard games fans will buy anything that offers the best of the best peformance wise, regardless of cost. Thats is blatantly obvious, and I am one of these people.

As has been said time and time again there is a performance increase from the fact that its a 64bit processor, they just lumped the new architecture (to increase clock speeds) in with the design for 64bit. Saves them money as well as is handier for us imo.

But there is no performance benefit from the fact that the processor is 64 bit yet. 32 bit applications will only perform better solely because of the increased clock speeds and bus speeds.

The benefits of the 64 bit feature will not be witnessed until software is released that will ustilise it. And two games, being HL2 and UT2004 is not really sufficient to justify the argument about moving to the Opteron.

Don't mean to dwell on the same point, but I feel its important that this is emphasised.


Also, what sort of costs are we talking about for the Opteron?

jesus_thats_gre

Just an important point, I think it is important that processors evolve and keep doing so. I just feel AMD should have gone the full hog. Surely Intel's solely 64 bit chip will run better than AMD's 32/64 bit chip when both of the eventually square off, obviously just in the arena of 64 bit applications though.

Scruff

you would thin so but if you look at this big article from Tomshardware you will see how the new architecture of the 32\64bit Opteron 1.8 ghz gives the 64bit Xeon 2.8ghz a run for its money

Conclusion: Linux Servers Smile, and Workstations Worry

In the extensive benchmark tests under Linux Enterprise Server 8 (32-bit as well as 64-bit), the AMD Opteron made a good impression. Especially in the server disciplines, the benchmarks (MySQL, Whetstone, ARC 2D, NPB, etc.) show quite clearly that the Dual Opteron puts the Dual Xeon in its place.

It looks a bit different in the workstation tests, where the Dual Xeon manages to overtake the Opteron team. However, these results are only included because the Dual Opteron will also be available as a workstation option. They give us an interesting picture of the performance of the Opterons compared to desktop CPUs like Athlon XP and Intel P4.

Opteron made a good start out of the blocks - even though AMD left it very late to get its systems into reviewers' hands. With a good showing in the 64-bit arena, albeit with limited benchmarks, AMD has come some way towards regaining the confidence of its supporters. Now, the company can hammer home the key selling point of this strategic move. Compatibility for existing x86 software is going to be the main mantra for AMD. This will save developers and companies money, especially in the business sector. Migrating to 64-bit can therefore take place gradually and only as required. Whether there is enough demand for migration is another matter entirely.

i know these are servers but there arent benchmarks for the AMD64 yet. It comes down to the whole arguement of architecture Vs clock speed and how to compare performance.

Matt Simis

Arghgh!

Intels [current] 64Bit chip will never "square off" against the AMD64 range. They are designed for completely different markets with completely different architectures behind them (and price structure).

If I was selling you a car and told you that this model can hover too, and thats a free extra... would you complain it cant fly?

Why quible over a benefical feature that costs you nothing?

Also, I think you forget not everyone in the business needs a faster CPU to play games. The overriding reason to go to 64Bit is to address much, much larger amounts of ram than currently possible. Databases and other memory hungry "real" uses of computers have been screaming for this, for years. This isnt something some AMD marketter decided to cram down the publics throats.

As already mentioned, the idea is not to respond with what the market wants now, thats already too late, companies must aim for the near term future. The fact is everyday passes is a day closer to the end of 32bit acceptance.

I suggest you checkout some of the more informative sites (Aces Hardware etc) on the benefits and reasoning behind 64bit cpus before deriding them as a "fad".


matt

PiE

Am I right in assuming that none of the 64bit generation CPU's will be compatible with current motherboards?

mr_angry

I don't know who it was suggested that the move to 64bit processing was being driven by gamers??? As Matt Simis pointed out, the only real advantage of 64bit processing over 32bit is that it can address exponentially more RAM. The only reason that a 64bit chip will out-perform a 32-bit chip is if it carries a higher clock speed. This is a completely different matter altogether, and is just an extension of the usual battle between Intel and AMD. Nothing confusing about it.

I think Jesus_Thats_Great might be doing a bit of AMD-bashing for the sake of it, but I am forced to agree that AMD do not currently possess a product that matches the P4. If things keep going the way they are, AMD will eventually be driven into the ground, but that's far from certain. Personally, I think the competition has been very healthy for the industry, and I hope it continues for a long time.

On a related note, I can't see Half-Life 2 (64) or Unreal 2003-64 being any better than the 32-bit versions UNLESS YOU POSSESS AN EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT OF RAM! The real way to enjoy the game more is to get yourself a Radeon 9900 (maybe after you win the Lotto).

Matt Simis

Originally posted by PiE
Am I right in assuming that none of the 64bit generation CPU's will be compatible with current motherboards?

Nope, but as previously noted the AMD64 motherboards feature vastly more advanced features than the current motherboards (Intel included), so thats really one of the main advantages.



Matt

jesus_thats_gre

Intels [current] 64Bit chip will never "square off" against the AMD64 range. They are designed for completely different markets with completely different architectures behind them (and price structure).

So Intel are never going to release a 64 bit processor aimed at the desktop market? I am guessing you didn't mean it that way, presume you are referring to the current Itanium processors and all.

I am also not disputing the benefits of AMD releasing the processor for high end use, obviously it is required. I do understand the benefits of this.

Weemcd orignally made the recommendation to wait for the Opteron and that is what started this debate. He obviously just recommended it for the sake of it, I presume if he had some sort of idea about what he was talking about, he would have posted a reply. The original post was about Half Life 2 and what Graphics Card to use.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=110646&perpage=20&pagenumber=2

astrofool

being able to use 64bit registers is another huge advantage. If the only advantage of 64bit was to be able to use more than 4gb of ram, then athlon 64 as a consumer product (i.e. not just the server/high end workstation world) would be a non starter.

If you remember back to when the 32 bit chips were released (386), the advantage was not that it was able to address more than 64mb of ram

Gerry

Originally posted by jesus_thats_gre
Ok, did ya get all this from the AMD website by any chance?

Barking up the wrong tree there mate, Matt Simis actually has a clue, which is refreshing given the state of this thread.

Gerry

If people could go and read up a bit on the features of the new chip, that would make for less ill-informed posts here. The opteron has more to it than just some tacked on 64bit registers. Its memory controller is on the chip itself. This means it doesn't have to go through the northbridge on the motherboard, which cuts latency an awful lot. Really is a killer feature.
At the start of development, amd had a 266mhz single channel controller, but because the chip has been so delayed, thats way out of date ( obviously ). Luckily, they had the sense to update it to a dual ddr400 controller.
After all the delays, and bitching and moaning and running amd into the ground, the opteron actually seems to be a really good chip. At 2ghz, its a match for intels best. If AMD can get good amounts of these chips produced, at > 1.8 ghz, and get the prices down, they will be taking back significant market share from intel. Intels p4 at 0.13 micron will go to perhaps 3.4ghz, and they are having major problems with heat on the new 0.09 micron prescott. AMD could catch intel on the hop.. but they will need to scale the opteron quickly. AMD's smp technology is already superior. The only problem is that the pricing for these chips is fairly sky high, taking away one of AMD's traditional advantages.

jesus_thats_gre

Barking up the wrong tree there mate, Matt Simis actually has a clue, which is refreshing given the state of this thread.

That was joke.

At 2ghz, its a match for intels best. If AMD can get good amounts of these chips produced, at > 1.8 ghz, and get the prices down, they will be taking back significant market share from intel. Intels p4 at 0.13 micron will go to perhaps 3.4ghz, and they are having major problems with heat on the new 0.09 micron prescott

When you put it that way, it certainly sounds better. Good enough for me.

Scruff

Originally posted by Gerry
If people could go and read up a bit on the features of the new chip, that would make for less ill-informed posts here. /B]

hurumph! ok so.

Xbit labs - A Glance at the Future: AMD Hammer Processors and x86-64 Technology

Xbit labs - AMD Athlon 64 Performance Preview