PDA

View Full Version : Intel at 65-nm in 2005?


MacRumors
Nov 24, 2003, 07:03 PM
eeTimes (http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/OEG20031124S0075) and ZDNet (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5111327.html) are reporting on Intel's push into the 65-nm chip design space.

Intel announced that they are targeting 65-nm chips in 2005 with SRAM samples at this time. ZDNet (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5111327.html) provides a good overview of the advantages and challenges in reducing chip size. In short, a smaller chip "improves performance, reduces costs and can potentially cut energy consumption."

Current chips, including the PowerPC 970, have been produced at 130-nm, but both Intel and IBM are ramping up 90-nm chip production at this time. 90nm PowerPC (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031119182013.shtml) chip technology will be presented in February 2004 by IBM and will presumably make their way into future Macintoshes.

As previously reported (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031121150200.shtml) IBM also plans on introducing 65-nm chips in 2005 using their SSOI (Strained Silicon on Insulator) technology.

Roller
Nov 24, 2003, 07:08 PM
This basically means is that there'll be no time for resting on laurels in the ongoing chip war. The challenge for Apple and IBM will be to develop low-power chips to compete in the laptop space.

dracoleb
Nov 24, 2003, 07:09 PM
Well now, we don't hear about Moto doing anything like this. Intel really doesn't have anything until they go 64bit, and no, the itanium don't count

edit: dang, though I was going to have first post

dho
Nov 24, 2003, 07:15 PM
Lets hope IBM can beat them there

good news i supose :)

gwuMACaddict
Nov 24, 2003, 07:16 PM
sounds good to me... i'd like a little healthy competition... will only help apple if they get better chips to work with.

:D :D

SiliconAddict
Nov 24, 2003, 07:26 PM
Where's AMD in all of this?!?! :confused:

Masao[RY]
Nov 24, 2003, 07:32 PM
Lets hope IBM can beat Intel there. :-)

ITR 81
Nov 24, 2003, 07:34 PM
I'm guessing IBM will be beating everyone with their quick form factor changes.

MoparShaha
Nov 24, 2003, 07:35 PM
I think it's fantastic we're back in the game. The mere fact that we're "in competition" with Intel is a testament to how much better off we are with IBM than we were with Motorola.

ITR 81
Nov 24, 2003, 07:40 PM
AMD won't have 90nm until around the middle of next yr compared to IBM which will have them probably by the end of Jan. and at the latest by Feb.

I know IBM already has 65nm design which I don't even think Intel has completely worked out yet. I don't even think AMD has 65nm design yet.

TMay
Nov 24, 2003, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by ITR 81
AMD won't have 90nm until around the middle of next yr compared to IBM which will have them probably by the end of Jan. and at the latest by Feb.

I know IBM already has 65nm design which I don't even think Intel has completely worked out yet. I don't even think AMD has 65nm design yet.

I would expect that PPC at 65nm and AMD at 65nm will be in the same time frame, more or less (since IBM is driving the technology). Isn't nvidia a partner as well? With all of the game console manufacturers, this could become very interesting.

x86isslow
Nov 24, 2003, 07:47 PM
amd is our main competitor now. their 64-bit platform continues to expand, while intel's itanium line cant really compete.


and what news from the riddermark..(too much Lotr).. i mean what news/rumors from Moto? will we EVER see a new Moto chip?

ThomasJefferson
Nov 24, 2003, 08:10 PM
I used to read this kind of news story with dred, but with the G5 and the IBM roadmap, I say - no problemo.

We can do that. And do it with style.

So nice to be back in the game.

mproud
Nov 24, 2003, 08:23 PM
Nothing like some good, healthy competition.

BRING IT ON!

Trowaman
Nov 24, 2003, 08:34 PM
Competition good

Competition results in lower prices:D So let's kick some butt guys!

cthorp
Nov 24, 2003, 09:06 PM
I won't pretend to be very knowledgeable of the processor industry but I do work in advertising. Notice they do not have 65 nm but "plan" to have one in over a year. What happens physcologically is that people associate Intel with 65 nm. Most people don't read the details. Until they have something of substance then it is not worth much. My impression of this is just INTEL generating spin to try and get a little of the lime-lite dominated by the G5.

davetrow1997
Nov 24, 2003, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by cthorp
I won't pretend to be very knowledgeable of the processor industry but I do work in advertising. Notice they do not have 65 nm but "plan" to have one in over a year. What happens physcologically is that people associate Intel with 65 nm. Most people don't read the details. Until they have something of substance then it is not worth much. My impression of this is just INTEL generating spin to try and get a little of the lime-lite dominated by the G5.

Intel with 65nm? INTEL generating spin? I'm confused; don't you mean Big Blue here.. ?

MorganX
Nov 24, 2003, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by cthorp
I won't pretend to be very knowledgeable of the processor industry but I do work in advertising. Notice they do not have 65 nm but "plan" to have one in over a year. What happens physcologically is that people associate Intel with 65 nm. Most people don't read the details. Until they have something of substance then it is not worth much. My impression of this is just INTEL generating spin to try and get a little of the lime-lite dominated by the G5.

They are currently sampling SRAM at 65nm. I don't see any vapor or deception here.

Macco
Nov 24, 2003, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by Trowaman
Competition good

Competition results in lower prices:D So let's kick some butt guys!

Seeing as IBM is basically the only PPC producer left, and Apple would never switch to Intel, competition isn't really so relevant.

cthorp
Nov 24, 2003, 09:29 PM
Again, not a chip guy butÉI don't think SRAM is quite the same as a working processor. However I don't know the industry well enough to know what it takes to get from where they are right now to having a working processor, butÉ they seem to think more than a year. Again my impression is that this is just PR trying to position themselves as technology leaders before the Christmas rush.

If any techies out there want to explain the ins and outs of all this it would be interesting.

There is not a single company that doesn't generate spin. I heard enough from Motorola over the years. And I am sure I've heard it from Big Blue. But right now about 2 feet from where I am sitting I have a Dual 2 ghrz G5 with 1.5 gigs of RAM(plenty of room to grow), 250 GB HD, 9800 pro video card, and loving it. And that my friends is what counts.

rjstanford
Nov 24, 2003, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by Roller
This basically means is that there'll be no time for resting on laurels in the ongoing chip war. The challenge for Apple and IBM will be to develop low-power chips to compete in the laptop space. I hope that they're not counting on this shift to do it - basically, everyone benefits the same amount from a move to smaller production sizes. The P-M (aka Centrino chip) is a kick-ass mobile chip <I>today</I>, definately the one to beat. Sure, a 65nm G5 would be fantastic. Just beating yesterday's intel won't impress anyone though, since they're going to be right there with the process, effectively nullifying the relative gain.

Its nice that intel and IBM have similar timeframes though - it somewhat validates the technology claims of both to be able to churn out the high-density high-transistor chips in the real world.

-Richard

cthorp
Nov 24, 2003, 09:37 PM
never mind.

I'm just blowing smoke myself. But I do love my G5.

trog
Nov 24, 2003, 09:47 PM
Interesting how Intel and MS can only talk about what they're doing three years into the future now (but oh boy, its gonna be great!:rolleyes: )

The times they are a changin'

dguisinger
Nov 24, 2003, 09:52 PM
Everyone likes to bash the Itanium chips but it actually is started to take off, and a great design. You don't see Apple carrying extra luggage from the 6502 or 680x0 processors in the PPC.

If you have ever programmed in x86 assembly you would know that it is complete hell because the x86 instruction set has been extended many, many times.

It has gone from the 4004 (4-bit), to the 8008 (8-bit), to the 8080, 8086/8088, 80186 (flop), 80268 (added memory production), 80386sx/dx (added 32-bits), 80486sx/sx2/dx/dx2/dx4 (added floating point internally), Pentium, Pentium MMX (added basic vector processing), Pentium Pro (Added support for more than 32-bit addresses), Pentium II, Pentium III (Added SSE), and Pentium 4 (Added SSE2, CPUID)....and lets not forget that in either the Pentium or Pentium Pro they added SMP support. And how about 3D Now, a failed instruction set from AMD.

The AMD is a horrific design. It once again adds extends the processor, adding more complexity to decoding and execution, and to assembly language design. No new registerers. The x86 has always suffered from a lack of registers. Modes have to be switched, which adds overhead.

The Itanium 2 fixes many problems from the original Itanium. It is even further reduced than RISC...its designed from the ground up as a modern processor....the compiler gets to define instructions in blocks, and specify how it works across multiple pipelines to correctly fill the processor to its max...instead of extra decoding at execution time. Its a simpler design, but leads to more complicated compilers, a problem that plagued the first processor.

The only part that the Itanium does not deal well with is legacy x86 code. But out of complete seriousness, if you are running 64-bit apps, there aren't many 32-bit apps you should be running at the sametime. The Itanium does very will in benchmarks.

Dell refused to work with the first Itanium, but are now seling a good number of the new Itanium 2s. While competition is good, the AMD 64 bit processors area really bad idea, from the ground up, they are based on a very outdated instruction set, one that has been extended around 10 times. It is time for the x86 architecture to be retired.

themadchemist
Nov 24, 2003, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by x86isslow
and what news from the riddermark..(too much Lotr).. i mean what news/rumors from Moto? will we EVER see a new Moto chip?

didn't they spin off most of their processor division?

MisterMe
Nov 24, 2003, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by dguisinger
Everyone likes to bash the Itanium chips but it actually is started to take off, and a great design. You don't see Apple carrying extra luggage from the 6502 or 680x0 processors in the PPC.

If you have ever programmed in x86 assembly you would know that it is complete hell because the x86 instruction set has been extended many, many times.

It has gone from the 4004 (4-bit), to the 8008 (8-bit), to the 8080, 8086/8088, 80186 (flop), 80268 (added memory production), 80386sx/dx (added 32-bits), 80486sx/sx2/dx/dx2/dx4 (added floating point internally), Pentium, Pentium MMX (added basic vector processing), Pentium Pro (Added support for more than 32-bit addresses), Pentium II, Pentium III (Added SSE), and Pentium 4 (Added SSE2, CPUID)....and lets not forget that in either the Pentium or Pentium Pro they added SMP support. And how about 3D Now, a failed instruction set from AMD.

The AMD is a horrific design. It once again adds extends the processor, adding more complexity to decoding and execution, and to assembly language design. No new registerers. The x86 has always suffered from a lack of registers. Modes have to be switched, which adds overhead.

The Itanium 2 fixes many problems from the original Itanium. It is even further reduced than RISC...its designed from the ground up as a modern processor....the compiler gets to define instructions in blocks, and specify how it works across multiple pipelines to correctly fill the processor to its max...instead of extra decoding at execution time. Its a simpler design, but leads to more complicated compilers, a problem that plagued the first processor.

The only part that the Itanium does not deal well with is legacy x86 code. But out of complete seriousness, if you are running 64-bit apps, there aren't many 32-bit apps you should be running at the sametime. The Itanium does very will in benchmarks.

Dell refused to work with the first Itanium, but are now seling a good number of the new Itanium 2s. While competition is good, the AMD 64 bit processors area really bad idea, from the ground up, they are based on a very outdated instruction set, one that has been extended around 10 times. It is time for the x86 architecture to be retired. Your check is in the mail.

Mr. Michael Edwards, Asst. V. P.
Public Relations
Intel Corporation

dguisinger
Nov 24, 2003, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by MisterMe
Your check is in the mail.

Mr. Michael Edwards, Asst. V. P.
Public Relations
Intel Corporation

Rofl. I wish.

i_am_a_cow
Nov 24, 2003, 10:21 PM
everyone should do this:

I'm sending an email to IBM saying

"IBM IS SOOOOOOOOOOO TIGHT. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOO TIGHT. LIKE THE TIGHTEST COMPANY EVER BESIDES APPLE."


or something along the lines of that :D

singletrack
Nov 24, 2003, 10:47 PM
Not that I'm a Moto apologist but Motorola claim they'll have 65nm before anyone else according to The Register. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/34171.html

They've also got Dual-core G4+ coming up which could be a kick ass laptop chip even if IBM can't get the 970 suitable for laptop use.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/31026.html

If they do manage that, it's quite a change on past performance.

Sol
Nov 24, 2003, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Where's AMD in all of this?!?! :confused:

I think I read that AMD is with IBM on this. When IBM gets 65nm chips into production AMD will fabricate their chips there and so will nVidia.

Who knows if Intel will really produce one in time. They will have to do more than shrink x86 compatibility if they want the faster computers. IBM and Apple changed enough of the dual G5 PowerMac to make it a solid upgrade from anything that came out before it. Can Intel and Microsoft do the same thing for PC users?

Turning them towards Apple is not a sign that they can do that. By the time 65nm CPUs come out there will be a mass migration of users going from PC to Apple.

peejay
Nov 24, 2003, 11:32 PM
don't think SRAM is quite the same as a working processor. However I don't know the industry well enough to know what it takes to get from where they are right now to having a working processor, butÉ they seem to think more than a year. Again my impression is that this is just PR trying to position themselves as technology leaders before the Christmas rush.

If any techies out there want to explain the ins and outs of all this it would be interesting.


Memory and logic are usually produced in different fabs, but the technology is almost all the same to produce it. The most critical stage is the photo process, which is common to both. They'll be using ArF (Argon-Flouride excimer laser) scanners that should print a 35-40nm line in tests, but the realities of production call for some process lattitude. The lens and illumination of the scanner can be fine tuned to favor dense patterns (memory) or isolated lines (logic). Processors are harder to do because they have a few more layers. Both Intel and IBM have been running 65nm in development for some time now.

Motorola is still scratching marks on cave walls compared to either of these guys. Apple is good to be rid of them.

iMeowbot
Nov 24, 2003, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Where's AMD in all of this?!?! :confused:

Oh, them. The intel press release about 65 nm is clearly a bit of damage control to show it isn't falling very far behind the IBM-AMD alliance.

AMD announced last week that it is adding a new fab to its Dresden facility to build wafers at the 65 and later 45 nm processes. The equipment will be pretty much a twin of the 65 nm fab in IBM's E. Fishkill plant. AMD's schedule is about the same as the one intel hinted at, with parts appearing in 2005 and volume production in 2006. IBM should begin a bit earlier.

dho
Nov 24, 2003, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by singletrack
Not that I'm a Moto apologist but Motorola claim they'll have 65nm before anyone else according to The Register. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/34171.html

They've also got Dual-core G4+ coming up which could be a kick ass laptop chip even if IBM can't get the 970 suitable for laptop use.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/31026.html

If they do manage that, it's quite a change on past performance.

This I will have to see to believe

edit: good eye though :)

scem0
Nov 25, 2003, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by Trowaman
Competition good

Competition results in lower prices:D So let's kick some butt guys!

quite right...

I'm really hoping IBM will lower prices and invest more time and effort into winning this chip war. God knows it will benifit them.

But in all truth, this is great news for me.

And even if Intel wins this chip war, all is good. Apple has acknowledged that they can run OS X on x86 and they will if Intel offers anything significantly better than IBM/AMD/moto/etc.

I have nothing against Intel. You can't blame a company for making good products.

scem0

dracoleb
Nov 25, 2003, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by singletrack
Not that I'm a Moto apologist but Motorola claim they'll have 65nm before anyone else according to The Register. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/34171.html

They've also got Dual-core G4+ coming up which could be a kick ass laptop chip even if IBM can't get the 970 suitable for laptop use.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/31026.html

If they do manage that, it's quite a change on past performance.

Could this be where the rumor of a dual processor G4 Powerbook came from? Perhaps it a dual core G4 if the G5 didn't come in time rather than a dual processor. It would seem more feasible as-well

tortoise
Nov 25, 2003, 12:32 AM
A new process technology won't save them unless the figure out how to build good cores again. By the time Intel has 65nm, most everyone else will have it or will be getting it shortly. And the other folks have clean and scalable core designs.

Intel is just trying to stay in the news by pre-announcing a process technology way ahead of its time, kind of like how Microsoft pre-announces their products years in advance in an attempt to gain some type of mindshare in the absence of a real product.

tortoise
Nov 25, 2003, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by ITR 81
AMD won't have 90nm until around the middle of next yr compared to IBM which will have them probably by the end of Jan. and at the latest by Feb.

IBM and AMD have a nice fab technology relationship which means that AMD will probably get process technologies around the same time IBM does, though it may take them a bit longer to get them running in their fabs. I don't know the specifics, but I do know they have a technology and fab sharing agreement. This is a pretty good deal all around; IBM uses some of AMDs chip designs and fabs, while AMD gets access to IBMs process technologies. This really plays to the strengths of both companies.

Yes, the G5 contains pieces of AMD technology in it. But at least it isn't Intel. :-)

dongmin
Nov 25, 2003, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by singletrack
Not that I'm a Moto apologist but Motorola claim they'll have 65nm before anyone else according to The Register. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/34171.html

They've also got Dual-core G4+ coming up which could be a kick ass laptop chip even if IBM can't get the 970 suitable for laptop use.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/31026.html

If they do manage that, it's quite a change on past performance.
Can't believe people are referencing old Moto roadmaps, especially one cooked up by the Register. (Long-time readers will remember that the Register was predicting G5s two Januaries ago.) Steve himself has said that Apple is working on fitting a G5 in its laptops; as soon as Apple figures out how, it's dropping Moto completely. It's as simple as that.

Moto is desperately trying to spin/sell-off its semiconductor business. It's basically a sinking ship for them. On top of it all, they're focussing more and more on the embedded market, i.e. low-power chips. Dual-cores makes no sense. The article you linked is full of sketchy claims like "The G4+ that appears on the January roadmap will be fabbed at 0.1 micron, the sales sheet say." ???

tortoise
Nov 25, 2003, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by dguisinger
The AMD is a horrific design. It once again adds extends the processor, adding more complexity to decoding and execution, and to assembly language design. No new registerers.

Uhhh, say what? You are definitely mistaken. When running in AMD64 native mode, it uses a different register model from ia32 style x86, and has a hell of a lot more registers. The "x86-64" moniker is slick marketing, but it is a clear break from the x86 ISA lineage. It can get away with it because it fakes the ia32 ISA better than the real thing. AMD64 has the compiler efficiency of RISC-like register models, with the core optimization of CISC-like opcodes, which is an appropriate design choice for modern CPU cores.

In AMD64 native mode, you have twice the number of registers as IA32 x86, and they are all general purpose (unlike IA32). The Opterons may be IA32 compatible, but the native AMD64 ISA is a very efficient and fairly elegant design that is optimized for modern CPU cores. In native mode, all the really annoying baggage of IA32 x86 is eliminated.

MacsRgr8
Nov 25, 2003, 02:50 AM
Originally posted by dongmin
Steve himself has said that Apple is working on fitting a G5 in its laptops; as soon as Apple figures out how, it's dropping Moto completely. It's as simple as that.


G5 in PowerBooks.
Not sure when the G5 will come into the iBooks (or eMacs). I think the G4 will stay in these products throughout 2004.... <wishing not>.

Analog Kid
Nov 25, 2003, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by dguisinger
Everyone likes to bash the Itanium chips but it actually is started to take off, and a great design.


Yeah, really taking off... I hear they sold a few thousand over the past year!

Almost a whole wafer!

:rolleyes:

Analog Kid
Nov 25, 2003, 05:24 AM
Personally, I see this as a "pay no attention to our troubles at 90nm, 65nm is right around the corner" statement.

Intel better get 65nm fired up on time or they're in real trouble. They can afford to be sloppier than the competition, but not too many times in a row...

Itanic is a money pit. 90nm isn't going well-- and even if they ship what they promise they're still looking at a commodity chip over 100W. If they can't get 65nm together with a well built core and lower leakage then their vast resources are going to be under some strain...

1macker1
Nov 25, 2003, 08:19 AM
LOL @ Intel being in trouble. They are ahead of everyone else, including IBM.

mrsebastian
Nov 25, 2003, 10:59 AM
i just want my 20ghz 17" powerbook :D

stingerman
Nov 25, 2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by Macco
Seeing as IBM is basically the only PPC producer left, and Apple would never switch to Intel, competition isn't really so relevant.

Seeing that the Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony are all now going to use IBM PowerPC Cell processors for their new game systems, I think competition is pretty relevant.

stingerman
Nov 25, 2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by tortoise
Uhhh, say what? You are definitely mistaken. When running in AMD64 native mode, it uses a different register model from ia32 style x86, and has a hell of a lot more registers. The "x86-64" moniker is slick marketing, but it is a clear break from the x86 ISA lineage. It can get away with it because it fakes the ia32 ISA better than the real thing. AMD64 has the compiler efficiency of RISC-like register models, with the core optimization of CISC-like opcodes, which is an appropriate design choice for modern CPU cores.

In AMD64 native mode, you have twice the number of registers as IA32 x86, and they are all general purpose (unlike IA32). The Opterons may be IA32 compatible, but the native AMD64 ISA is a very efficient and fairly elegant design that is optimized for modern CPU cores. In native mode, all the really annoying baggage of IA32 x86 is eliminated.

The native AMD 64 bit mode is nice to have even if it isn't going to be used in Windows for another 3 years if then. But their are Linux builds that can take advantage of it. One never knows, so I would rather have 64-bits than not have it, even if I don't get to use it for a while. But, then again, I would want the latest processor in three years not the one I buy today. So, for most of us the AMD64 Bit mode is more a technology preview. Whereas the G5 is here today running an awesome OS, which will continue to add G5 optimizations.

Eliminate the IA32 baggage and eliminate all those programs that depend on it. If the software don't work, what good is the chip. You can still run DOS and Win16 Apps in Windows, and believe you me that is still a requirement for many companies. Not mine ;) IBM built in special ISA add-on for Apple to migrate their VM to 64-bits and maintain compatibility with 32-bit OSX and even Classic, while using the 64-bit ISA natively. That s what you call a partner.


"AMD64 has the compiler efficiency of RISC-like register models, with the core optimization of CISC-like opcodes,"

Hmmmm. I'm going to need to puke. CISC-like opcodes is badddd not goodddd. It is much harder to optimize CISC op codes since each can do so many different things.

Malic
Nov 25, 2003, 12:53 PM
According to New Scientist...

Other chip makers say they are also on track to release 65-nanometre technology soon. "I think we're all marching to the same timeframe," IBM spokesman William O'Leary told the San Francisco Chronicle.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994424

tortoise
Nov 25, 2003, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by stingerman
IBM built in special ISA add-on for Apple to migrate their VM to 64-bits and maintain compatibility with 32-bit OSX and even Classic, while using the 64-bit ISA natively. That s what you call a partner.

This "feature" is nearly useless, and has been supported by Intel for many years (PAE). Having more than 4Gb of available RAM is worthless for most purposes if you can't address more than 4Gb memory within a process. It is a hack that makes for good marketing but has almost no use in real applications. I run large memory applications that need lots of physical RAM, and I can't use a G5 for those purposes unless I am running Linux on it. Since LP64 compatibility pretty much defines "64-bit OS", I am somewhat annoyed that Apple has been selling a 32-bit OS on 64-bit hardware as a "64-bit" system without any roadmap to ACTUALLY delivering a real 64-bit system.

Originally posted by stingerman
Hmmmm. I'm going to need to puke. CISC-like opcodes is badddd not goodddd. It is much harder to optimize CISC op codes since each can do so many different things.

Actually, this is not true. It is harder to optimize traditional CISC register models at a software level. It is easier to optimize CISC opcodes in the CPU core. AMD64 redid the classic x86 register model (which WAS pretty ugly) so that compilers could optimize software in the way they can for RISC ISAs. They used simple CISC-style opcodes to retain core performance optimization. A bit of a hack for compatibility's sake, but a very smart engineering choice as well. RISC ISAs do have some disadvantages on modern silicon cores (though this was not nearly as true many years ago).

Of course, I would point out that the extremely high core efficiency of Opterons running AMD64, even in the absence of an AMD64 specific optimizing compiler, is a fine testament to their engineering design choices. We are a mixed shop here, but the Opterons (running AMD64 native) are the fastest systems we have for our high-performance codes, including the G5s. I prefer (and use) OSX workstations, but Opterons are generally faster for our purposes clock-for-clock. Which is all I really care about -- I use whatever works best.

Jonathan Amend
Nov 25, 2003, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by stingerman
The native AMD 64 bit mode is nice to have even if it isn't going to be used in Windows for another 3 years if then. But their are Linux builds that can take advantage of it. One never knows, so I would rather have 64-bits than not have it, even if I don't get to use it for a while. But, then again, I would want the latest processor in three years not the one I buy today. So, for most of us the AMD64 Bit mode is more a technology preview. Whereas the G5 is here today running an awesome OS, which will continue to add G5 optimizations.


Microsoft will release a completely 64-bit OS for the AMD64-line next year (supposedly in H1, betas are already out there). Apple has yet to say anything about such an OS for the G5. I don't know where you got 3 years from, unless you thought Longhorn would be the first AMD64 OS.

Analog Kid
Nov 25, 2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by 1macker1
LOL @ Intel being in trouble. They are ahead of everyone else, including IBM.

Not sure if this was a reply to my post or not, but if it is I suggest you read what I said...

If they continue to screw up and the competition stays strong they, like any other company, will have trouble.

It's not clear to me that they're so far ahead of the pack any longer. It's quite possible that the 90nm G5 will ship in volume at the same time as if not before Intel manages volume production of Prescott.

It's neither easy, nor cheap, to build a mass market machine around a 100W chip. OEMs will deal with it in the short term to continue selling Intel chips, but if it keeps up you can be sure they'll look around for alternatives.

Prescott has to be the last of it's line, and Intel has to offer a workable chip at 65nm-- on time.

I think Intel itself realizes this, which is why they're eager to press release any advances on future technology a year in advance. This wasn't a talk at a technology symposium, this was a PR move.

Yes, Intel has a strong reputation, and impressive engineering history, but that doesn't make them immune to failure. Itanic was what, 2 years late? I had several friends working on that chip, and it was a fiasco. It left a lot of people wondering if Intel was still capable of designing entirely new cores.

Yes, Intel has a lot of resources and experience so they can afford a few goofs. My point was simply that if they don't get it together the inefficiency is going to cause them trouble.

manitoubalck
Nov 25, 2003, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Where's AMD in all of this?!?! :confused:

My thoughts exactly. Though how long they stay with 130nm depends on how hight they can push the current generations of 64 prcessors (Opterons and Athlon 64.) A 90nm Opteron would be something to smile about:)

Remember that the Athlon 64FX (2.2GHz) is only marginally slower than a P43.2EE in 32-bit mode, wait till both the G5 and AMD chips are running wide open in 64-bit mode with oodles of RAM.

dho
Nov 25, 2003, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by manitoubalck
....
Remember that the Athlon 64FX (2.2GHz) is only marginally slower than a P43.2EE in 32-bit mode, wait till both the G5 and AMD chips are running wide open in 64-bit mode with oodles of RAM.

Would that really boost up normal perforance? My understaning is that the intel is simply a faster chip. 3.2 intel with 4 gigs should run cirlces around the 2.2 amd with 8 gigs. Maybe I am mistaken, but i dont think the relative lack of ram is causing THAT much of a bottleneck for the current intel.

IIvan
Nov 25, 2003, 10:52 PM
It would seem to me that AMD would have a really tough time winning in the chip war. The specs for their processors are a little low compared to Intel in numbers, if not performance, and the majority of the serious peecee people I know see AMD procs as inferior (kinda like they do to Apple...) I would bet that Intel keeps dominating the PC market, with (hopefully!) some more serious competition from Macs using IBM.

Of course, this is all speculation, especially considering how often chip-makers don't come through on time or at all just consider that we were supposed to see Prescott in late August to September, then October, now Q1 2004... and this .65 is 2005- seems like just marketing hype to me

tortoise
Nov 25, 2003, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by IIvan
It would seem to me that AMD would have a really tough time winning in the chip war. The specs for their processors are a little low compared to Intel in numbers, if not performance, and the majority of the serious peecee people I know see AMD procs as inferior (kinda like they do to Apple...)

Eh? AMD chips are the darlings of the high performance computing crowd, and quite popular with gamers as well. Clock-for-clock, they school Intel chips. There were some problems with motherboard reliability early on though. AMD floating point performance has been superior to Intel's for some time now, which has made them popular for supercomputing clusters.

For most intents and purposes, a 2.0 GHz Opteron wipes the floor with Intel processors that are clocked much higher. AMD chips not only some of the fastest you can buy per clock, they are also among the very fastest you can buy in absolute terms as well. Intel chips are only fast in narrow domains, and even then at insane clock rates. The G5 is generally a bit slower than an Opteron clock-for-clock, but it will make a better general purpose processor than Intel's current lineup and has a much better architecture than the P4 in its various incarnations.

singletrack
Nov 26, 2003, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by dongmin
Can't believe people are referencing old Moto roadmaps, especially one cooked up by the Register.

The older Register story was written back before SNDF 2003 which is where Motorola released info on the 7447/57 and their future plans, including dual core.

Unfortunately, the relevant presentation is now not available. H1112 by Chuck Corley although the first one does mention dual cores.

http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?nodeId=02VS0llCc5pzMPYZjglff5tfP8n1kKD9fk

Analog Kid
Nov 26, 2003, 03:12 AM
Originally posted by tortoise
...The G5 is generally a bit slower than an Opteron clock-for-clock...

Not sure this is true in all domains-- judging by the Top 500 list we've all been following 2200 2GHz G5s had a faster Rmax and Rpeak than 2800+ 2GHz Opterons...

Yeah these are cluster benchmarks, but I think Rpeak is a theoretical number ignoring interconnect issues. This also neglects SIMD performance (I don't know how that stacks up).

Of course this is all from memory and I'm too lazy to find the source so I might be wrong...

GulGnu
Nov 26, 2003, 03:48 AM
Originally posted by dho
Would that really boost up normal perforance? My understaning is that the intel is simply a faster chip. 3.2 intel with 4 gigs should run cirlces around the 2.2 amd with 8 gigs. Maybe I am mistaken, but i dont think the relative lack of ram is causing THAT much of a bottleneck for the current intel.

I am very, very curious as to from where you recieved that impression? The general consensus right now is that the AMD Athlon 64 FX-51 has the edge in gaming and similar applications, while the P4 EE does media encoding, etc. better.

Regards, GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!

jefhatfield
Nov 26, 2003, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by Macrumors
eeTimes (http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/OEG20031124S0075) and ZDNet (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5111327.html) are reporting on Intel's push into the 65-nm chip design space.

Intel announced that they are targeting 65-nm chips in 2005 with SRAM samples at this time. ZDNet (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5111327.html) provides a good overview of the advantages and challenges in reducing chip size. In short, a smaller chip "improves performance, reduces costs and can potentially cut energy consumption."

Current chips, including the PowerPC 970, have been produced at 130-nm, but both Intel and IBM are ramping up 90-nm chip production at this time. 90nm PowerPC (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031119182013.shtml) chip technology will be presented in February 2004 by IBM and will presumably make their way into future Macintoshes.

As previously reported (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031121150200.shtml) IBM also plans on introducing 65-nm chips in 2005 using their SSOI (Strained Silicon on Insulator) technology.

whew, about time

i don't want to hear about "heat" issues anymore and going to .065 microns will be great for the laptops especially and i assume it will improve battery time

as it stands now, even the best laptops have to be recharged nightly by a student if they reasonably use it for school and gaming, which i know will happen:p

rjstanford
Nov 26, 2003, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by tortoise
... Clock-for-clock, they school Intel chips.True, as is the case with the G5 - still, this only really matters if you're competing clock-for-clock rather than chip-for-chip. IBM and AMD get more done per cycle, intel traditionally offers higher numbers of cycles.AMD floating point performance has been superior to Intel's for some time now, which has made them popular for supercomputing clusters.Again a similar situation to the IBM chips. Unfortunately, for an awful lot of applications its integer performance that really counts, which is why intel's poor specFP showings have never really hurt them outside the research and supercomputer setting. Moving to 64-bit will make this even more critical, as some applications that currently use floating-point will be able to move to integer-based designs, which are generally more accurate.For most intents and purposes, a 2.0 GHz Opteron wipes the floor with Intel processors that are clocked much higher. AMD chips not only some of the fastest you can buy per clock, they are also among the very fastest you can buy in absolute terms as well.That's a better comparison. Comparing power per clock is like looking at two engines are comparing Horsepower-per-liter -- of great interest to engine builders, pretty much irrelevant to most people/companies.Intel chips are only fast in narrow domains, and even then at insane clock rates.Well... again, nobody really cares about the clock rates being high. And the "narrow domains" are those that matter the most to a lot of consumers and businesses (integer processing).The G5 is generally a bit slower than an Opteron clock-for-clock, but it will make a better general purpose processor than Intel's current lineup and has a much better architecture than the P4 in its various incarnations. I'm interested in seeing how the PM's replacement does - these are built from the old PIII lineage, remember, and the current sets in Centrino laptops are remarkably powerful, seemingly performing clock-for-clock with the G5 in the tests that I've seen and done. I don't know what kind of yields they're getting of these chips, but can't help but wonder what a high-power version would be like. Still, right now intel can churn out very fast P4s for very little money, which is probably the best solution for most consumers. Even businesses, once you get out of the rendering type environments are better served with their historically strong integer performance. This is the area where I'd really like to see IBM and AMD make some strides.

-Richard

Drifter
Nov 27, 2003, 10:19 PM
Bring it on Mutha Fugga!

Big ****ing deal. Didn't Intel say they were going to be in the 64 bit area for desktops too?

Big things generally move slow in dramatic change. Like Microsoft.
IBM can change faster than Intel can. Even if they get to 65, I'm sure IBM could get there before then. IBM has prototypes for products we won't see for two years. I'm sure we'll be there.

Maybe by then more people will unplug themselves from the ************ world of Wintel.

This might get interesting. Know what this means IBM? WORK FASTER DAMNIT! :D
I want my ****ing G6 by Winter 04!

Which is faster, G5 or AMD?
I didn't get the MacWorld yet.

jefhatfield
Nov 28, 2003, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Drifter
Bring it on Mutha Fugga!

Big ****ing deal. Didn't Intel say they were going to be in the 64 bit area for desktops too?

...

Which is faster, G5 or AMD?
I didn't get the MacWorld yet.

i think overall the PC world still has the speed crown according to that issue

but not as by much when we only had the G4 on our side

if ibm and apple keep on track, or actually, better than expected, then hopefully by late next year or in 2005 we will catch up with the wintel/win-amd world

the next challenge after that will be to get prices down and capture more market share...he he...like ten percent since our long standing five percent of the market has mostly been under four percent in recent years...blah