Intel Developer Forum Spring 2004 - Day 1: Wider and Faster
by Derek Wilson on February 18, 2004 10:41 AM EST- Posted in
- Trade Shows
Final Words
We will have much deeper coverage of the PCI Express based solutions when we actually have hardware to play with, so, for now, the official product launches are the stories here.We are hoping to get sample hardware in for both DDR2 and 4 channel RDRAM (supported on P4 via a SIS chipset) as soon as possible so we can see how their performance stacks up against our old friend DDR. XDR DRAM is a little further down the road right now, and we don't really know where this insanely fast RAM will end up. We do know, however, that Sony and Toshiba have licensed XDR for undisclosed products ... I wonder what that could be ...
If AMD had simply decided to extend the range of addressable memory with their x86-64 extensions, this playing field would look entirely different. It would be easy for Intel to stand behind their mantra of "we will provide 64 bit support when it is needed" (a line we had been hearing for well over a year). Frankly, at this point, 64 bit support is not a necessity on the desktop.
But performance is the bottom line. By adding performance enhancing aspects to the architecture, AMD added another level to the issue. Intel can't simply say that 64 bit isn't needed (even if it isn't) because now the issue isn't do I need 64 bits as much as how many registers exist to which my compiler and I have direct access. Intel doesn't need to adopt 64 bits for the desktop; Intel needs to adopt the performance enhancements of x86-64. It just so happens that, in order to do so, 64 bits will come along with the package.
Intel knew it would have to launch x86-64 eventually. By building the functionality disabled into Prescott, they are saving a little face. Intel can launch Nocona and say prove to the world that they also have 64 bit x86 support, while at the same time supporting their position that 64 bits is not yet needed on the desktop.
It really does makes so much sense for Intel to go with x86-64 in its processors that we really aren't surprised by this development. The timing of the announcement did throw us off a little bit, but, in looking back on how the events unfolded, we understand why we are where we are.
Now all we have left to do is figure out exactly what's going on under the hood. As we learn more about the fuzzier parts of x86-64 (and anything else interesting for that matter), we will be brining you updates. Stay tuned for more IDF, including coverage of the Technology Showcase.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
17 Comments
View All Comments
Mrburns2007 - Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - link
XDR has 6.4 GB/s per chip not module.Ecmaster76 - Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - link
"ultra emulated x86 with 8-way-hyperthreading and a +5 Dynamic Compiler of Doom"Sweet! Where can I get one? Is it compatible with my DRAM skin armor?
Someones been playing too much Baldur's Gate, and not just me.
(Think of all the processors Intel could sell with marketing like that.)
DerekWilson - Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - link
Actually, PCI-X is completely differet from PCI Express ... PCI-X is a parallel architecture that's wider and faster than the 32bit 33mhz pci bus ... PCI Express is specification for a point to point serial bus protocol (and multiple serial data streams can be sent to the same periphreial, thus the x16 pci express graphics card).Any when I was talking about ATI's "next gen" chip I wasn't talking about their current PCI Express solution RV380. I was talking about some unspecified demo that I'm going to assume was R420 or R423... I just didn't want to mention a card since ATI wouldn't tell me which card it was that was powering the box.
I think I fixed all the typos, sorry bout that ... I've been working by jumping between hotspots and hand coding html rather than using the dreamweaver over broadband that I'm used to ;-)
Lonyo - Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - link
Intel was pretty much always going to use compatible 64bit extensions.They have to work with the OS, since MS is pretty much dictating that.
AMD set up the initial spec (I would assume), and Intel didn't have much choice but to follow.
ATi and nVidia have to stick to the PCI-Express spec to make their next gen graphics cards, and that was designed by Intel, it's just a similar thing.
AMD obviously did well to get there first though and set the standards.
Malladine - Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - link
KillaKilla's older brother: PC3200 Bandwidth is 3.2gb/s :)http://www.kingston.com/newtech/ddrbandwidth.asp
KillaKilla - Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - link
whoops forgot a few things, guess I "jumped the gun[post]"...1st, this isn't KillaKilla, hes my brother, I don't have my own nick yet, sorry...
What did you mean by "2x to 3x performance gains" for native PCI-X (pci express is PCIX, right? I've seen it as PCI-E, but that was from before?) Also, what are these "HD streams"(2nd to last paragraph, 2nd page) you talk about?
3rd page:
"The upcoming XDR chips were on display up at the RAMBUS both across from a demo of Toshiba chips running at very high speeds (the bandwidth of XDR is 6.4GB/s)." Isn't DC-DDR 3200/400's bandwidth 6.4GB/s?
4th page:
I'm not surprised that intel cross-licenced x86-64... it was only logical seeing MS-XP64. Kudos to AMD for making a better 64-bit solution(extension set).
-KillaKilla's older brother
KillaKilla - Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - link
Once again, first post.Anyway, there are a few typos.
the Borad in the title?
The open tags on 2nd page