Interesting read: AMD 64 bit vs Intel 64 bit

Batch codes, RAM specs, BIOS settings, etc..
Post Reply
purrkur
Linux Guru
Posts: 687
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 5:57 pm
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Interesting read: AMD 64 bit vs Intel 64 bit

Post by purrkur »

Found this article pretty interesting!
2x533MHz@544MHz, 2.0V
640MB PC100 memory
Realtek RTL-8139 NIC
Maxtor 6Y080L0 80GB hdd
Debian Linux stable with 2.4.8 kernel
Derek
Site Admin
Posts: 2489
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 3:55 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Derek »

Thanks for the link purrkur.
-Derek
hyperspace
Board Admin
Posts: 1395
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 7:39 am
Location: Lincoln, NE USA
Contact:

Post by hyperspace »

Cool.

One thing though...

AMD and Intel are using 64-bit extensions. So correct me if I'm wrong but neither processor is true 64-bit hardware.
Quantum WormHole

Image
lost in hypertime...
purrkur
Linux Guru
Posts: 687
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 5:57 pm
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by purrkur »

hyperspace wrote:AMD and Intel are using 64-bit extensions. So correct me if I'm wrong but neither processor is true 64-bit hardware.
Sure it is true 64-bit hardware. AMD has extended the 32 bit ISA (Instruction Set Architecture) , just like Intel did in its time with the 386.

The only downside to this is that they bring with them the baggage that comes along with the 32-bit x86 ISA, but it is still 64 bit. The upside is that you can set up a 64-bit OS and then run 32 bit apps at native speed instead of doing emulation like Intel does when it runs 32-bit code on the Itanium (which is slow as hell). The AMD uses different modes called "legacy" for 32/16 bit operation and "long" mode for 64 bit operation. Under long mode your OS would need to be 64-bit but you would be able to run 32/16 bit code natively without any issues. This is the strong point of what AMD has done.

I am not sure how Intel implemented this functionality into their CPU but it seems as if their own implementation is a lot poorer. I have seen several tests where the AMD CPU will outgun Intel's top notch without much bother.
2x533MHz@544MHz, 2.0V
640MB PC100 memory
Realtek RTL-8139 NIC
Maxtor 6Y080L0 80GB hdd
Debian Linux stable with 2.4.8 kernel
hyperspace
Board Admin
Posts: 1395
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 7:39 am
Location: Lincoln, NE USA
Contact:

Post by hyperspace »

purrkur wrote:
hyperspace wrote:AMD and Intel are using 64-bit extensions. So correct me if I'm wrong but neither processor is true 64-bit hardware.
Sure it is true 64-bit hardware. AMD has extended the 32 bit ISA (Instruction Set Architecture) , just like Intel did in its time with the 386.
AMD and Intel have extended their existing hardware paradigm (yet, again :lol: ). They have not created new hardware for a true 64-bit world. IMO

To me, true 64-bit is 64-bit registries/paths/words/software, etc. From beginning to end. Everything needs to be re-designed for true 64-bits.

Only then, would I have a real reason to upgrade from my BP6 :smokin: ! (EW! 64-bit Multi-systems... !)
Quantum WormHole

Image
lost in hypertime...
phaedrus
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 11:27 pm
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Post by phaedrus »

hyperspace wrote:
purrkur wrote: Sure it is true 64-bit hardware. AMD has extended the 32 bit ISA (Instruction Set Architecture) , just like Intel did in its time with the 386.
AMD and Intel have extended their existing hardware paradigm (yet, again :lol: ). They have not created new hardware for a true 64-bit world. IMO
Of course they just extended it! That's what they should do. You still want the 32 bit instructions in there, as well as the 16 bit and 8 bit even. I haven't heard of a 64 bit design that doesn't do this. (If anyone knows of one, please tell me, but the ones I know for sure are Power, Alpha and x86 (I got to play on a 21164 system one time, that thing was cool). I would bet that UltraSPARC does this, as well as any other 64 bit architecture. For that matter, the 68k processors come in 16 and 32 bit designs, and the 32 bit designs include the 16 bit instructions as well as the 8 bit instructions from the 6800.

The only one that might not have had to run legacy software was the Alpha, and it still supported fully 32 bit systems (come on folks, Microsoft has been trying for the 64 bit WinNT for nearly 10 years now... There's a reason us Linux guys have been laughing at MS about XP-64--I'll believe it when I see it).
To me, true 64-bit is 64-bit registries/paths/words/software, etc. From beginning to end. Everything needs to be re-designed for true 64-bits.
But it is for all intents and purposes. Once the 64 bit registers and instructions are there, the processor is 64 bit. No point in getting rid of the smaller instructions. They've got the transistor count, and it gives a lot more flexibility to the compilers to pick the right operations (you can schlepp twice as many 32 bit integers as 64 bit integers in one pass on the memory bus, so if you don't need more than +/- 2 billion, and there's a boost, go for the 32 bit instruction, or rather, leave the compiler the option).
Only then, would I have a real reason to upgrade from my BP6 :smokin: ! (EW! 64-bit Multi-systems... !)
There's no way I'll upgrade from my BP6 with the current state of AMD and Intel's processors.

AMD's dual processor options are all overpriced Opterons (it really bugs me that they won't offer a dual proc enable workstation class processor at a workstation class price, instead of the overpriced, overhyped enterprise processor, blech. Never bought a Xeon, don't want an Opteron). Dual cores don't count (actually, I want duallied dual cores for a poor man's quad box, :woot:!!1!).

I also won't upgrade while Intel is sticking with the P4 as it's main desktop line. They need to get their act together on power consumption. In other words, I think they need to transistion over to the Pentium-M design and develop that into a full dual-core design (that's what I want duallied, jeah).

So, I was a hardcore Intel fan in the days of the Celeron1 and PII, and it's dropped off since. When AMD began cutting out dual processor features on it's low end, they started to get to me too. Apple packages all their machines with ATI cards, which as a Linux user, are worthless, for that matter, id only compiles their games for x86 Linux only (no more Q3 and no Doom3, no good).

Good thing I'm happy with my BP6. There's no obvious choice for a new system for me.

Jeff
"If it ain't broke, mod it till it is"
They said... and now my BP6 needs new processors... D'oh
Slackware Linux v10.1
Image
purrkur
Linux Guru
Posts: 687
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 5:57 pm
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by purrkur »

phaedrus wrote:I haven't heard of a 64 bit design that doesn't do this.

Sure. The Itanium is a pure 64 bit design without any legacy architecture holding it back. That is why they have to emulate 32 bit software if they want to run it. I also think that the Alphas you mentioned are 64 bit only. I got an Alpha 21064 CPU sitting on the table right in front of me :)

The Sparc processors became 64 bit when Sun delivered the "UltraSparc" architecture. Ultra1 boxes were the first delivered if I am not mistaken (got one of those sitting on the floor behind me :) ). Sun's 32 bit processors were great too. I have worked a lot with the Sparcstation 20 with dual 75 MHz Sparcs. Great boxes. 32 bit Solaris software can be run on the 64 bit CPU's without any emulation.
phaedrus wrote:The only one that might not have had to run legacy software was the Alpha, and it still supported fully 32 bit systems (come on folks, Microsoft has been trying for the 64 bit WinNT for nearly 10 years now... There's a reason us Linux guys have been laughing at MS about XP-64--I'll believe it when I see it).
Hehehe! Good one! It is so amazing to think that when AMD launched their 64 bit CPU, the only operating system that they could run in true 64 bit style was Linux. All the other commercial operating systems were dead in the water. Sun has, if I am not mistaken, a 64 bit version of Solaris out now for the AMD CPU's but MS is still up the creek without a paddle. The biggest irony here is that Microsoft is always saying that Open Source only copies and stifles innovation. But when it comes to push and shove, they are unable to provide the pace at which the open source movement moves.
phaedrus wrote:Once the 64 bit registers and instructions are there, the processor is 64 bit. No point in getting rid of the smaller instructions.
I agree with the above. The AMD is a true 64 bit processor. No doubt about it.
phaedrus wrote: There's no way I'll upgrade from my BP6 with the current state of AMD and Intel's processors.
Well, if you are willing to buy used and 32 bit then the AMD MP stuff is very good, fast and cheap.
phaedrus wrote:AMD's dual processor options are all overpriced Opterons
Yes, they are overpriced but they are also their top product but they are a cheaper than the crap XEON's from Intel. But I agree that buying a dual cpu system with those processors is out of my range. I assume that prices will drop once these systems become mainstream. Paying unfair money for the top-dog products has always been the thing with hardware makers.

I can only suspect that once dual core cpu's are out then we can kiss low end dual cpu systems goodbye.
phaedrus wrote:I also won't upgrade while Intel is sticking with the P4 as it's main desktop line. They need to get their act together on power consumption. In other words, I think they need to transistion over to the Pentium-M design and develop that into a full dual-core design (that's what I want duallied, jeah).
I just got myself a new notebook at work, an IBM T42 with a Pentium-M 1.8 GHz processor, 1 gig of RAM etc. I have done some tests on it and come to the conclusion that the ALU in the Dothan processors isn't all that great. Other than that, it is a fantastic notebook. The new Prescott P4's from Intel is the biggest piece of CPU shit found on the planet today. Totally worthless architecture. There was no gain whatsoever over its predecessor and on top of that the Prescott core has higher current consumption, higher heat dissipation and it doesn't ramp up speedwise at all. Intel said it would go beyond 4 GHz but after launching it they pulled out of that promise. All this in spite of the fact that the CPU is built on a 0.09 micron process instead of the 0.13 that the previous P4 had. I wouldn't buy that processor even if they gave me a 50% discount!
phaedrus wrote:Good thing I'm happy with my BP6. There's no obvious choice for a new system for me.
I got myself a 2 GHz Athlon system at home plus a range of other machines (including Sun hardware). My Athlon is my main system and truth be told, it is still fast enough for my needs, especially when considering that I got other machines to do work for me if I need to do anything specific. I doubt I will be buying a new system this year. What I will be looking for in the next computer I build is a dual core workstation CPU (Like the Athlon 64) that utilizes power saving functionality. I mean, I want to ramp the cpu down when it is not in use. That way I can save electricity and lower fan noise but still have a powerful computer when I really need it.
2x533MHz@544MHz, 2.0V
640MB PC100 memory
Realtek RTL-8139 NIC
Maxtor 6Y080L0 80GB hdd
Debian Linux stable with 2.4.8 kernel
purrkur
Linux Guru
Posts: 687
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 5:57 pm
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by purrkur »

A friend at work pointed me to this article at Anandtech that describes the AMD 64 bit architecture. I skimmed through it and it looks like a good read.
2x533MHz@544MHz, 2.0V
640MB PC100 memory
Realtek RTL-8139 NIC
Maxtor 6Y080L0 80GB hdd
Debian Linux stable with 2.4.8 kernel
Post Reply