Leopard will be 64 bit, judging by recent entries on the WebKit changelog (fixes for building with 64 bit AGL, etc...)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is Core Duo 64-Bit?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
ehurtley said:
Yep... But don't forget new versions did come around to today's XP -- 64 bit versions for Itanium and EMT64.
DeadKenny said:
Not really. NT Workstation was meant for the power users, NT Server was for the backroom. NT became Win2K which became XP which becomes Vista. I used Windows NT 3.1 back in 1992.
Intel and the Cell
..from the Register last year:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/03/cell_analysis_part_two/
Has any of this changed?
Sun is waiting for a "software paradigm shift"..and is using AMD 64's in the
new "Web Servers" (or whatever those boxes are).
Why don't they use the Intel Itaniums?
Why doesn't Apple use an "Itanium" (gee..Steve..where is my iToaster?)
Why does this site argue about whether or not something is "really 64 bit"?
Don't they want to tell us?
Gee..wonder why.
WW
<---ok 2 cones..and a trip the Dallas West End
..from the Register last year:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/03/cell_analysis_part_two/
Has any of this changed?
Sun is waiting for a "software paradigm shift"..and is using AMD 64's in the
new "Web Servers" (or whatever those boxes are).
Why don't they use the Intel Itaniums?
Why doesn't Apple use an "Itanium" (gee..Steve..where is my iToaster?)
Why does this site argue about whether or not something is "really 64 bit"?
Don't they want to tell us?
Gee..wonder why.
WW
<---ok 2 cones..and a trip the Dallas West End
Sun has its new massively multithreaded Niagara chip on the market now, and it's kicking butt in some markets.wms121 said:
Because Intel is their competitor.
Because that would be retarded. Itanium chips cost as much as entire Macs do, or more.
Because it's relatively complex, and many people have no idea what they're talking about.
Who is they? What is it that they supposedly want to tell us?
Overall, your post was remarkably incoherent.
wms121 said:
Itanium is proving to be a dead end. Intel launched it years ago (IIRC around 98-2000) and it was so different from the existing architecture that you might as well treat it like an entirely different chip from X86 like a DEC Alpha, and as a result expensive, and nobody wants to adopt it. The AMD and Intel X64/EMT64 chips are different in 64-bit mode but can still work with 32-bit operating systems, that's not the case with Itanium. So it's a hard-switch to adopt Itanium. I think it will die and the X64 chips will live on. Like the 286->386 transition, the 386 could still just be used as a fast 286 until the 386-aware operating systems were ready for prime time. Similar with the X64 chips, there is a 64-bit XP but it's painful to use because there aren't any 64-bit apps and you need brand new 64-bit drivers... Thus 64-bit XP is an interesting experiement but not ready for prime time yet. So you use your X64 chip to run good old 32-bit OS's.
Niagra's are NOT grid processors
http://www.sun.com/servers/coolthreads/overview/docs/Gartner_report.pdf
..they are T1 based thread switching systems.
Apple knows something.
WW
<--don't wake up again
http://www.sun.com/servers/coolthreads/overview/docs/Gartner_report.pdf
..they are T1 based thread switching systems.
Apple knows something.
WW
<--don't wake up again
Catfish_Man said:
The cheapest of the new dual-core Itanium 2 9000-series chips is only $696 (even this 'cheap' model has 6 MB of cache,) compared to the Core-based Xeon 5100 series' cheapest $256, and Core 2 Duo's $183. (For comparison, the upcoming NetBurst-based Xeon 7100 series' cheapest is $856.) Compare the MOST expensive chips in each line: Itanium 2: $3692 (this one has a whopping 24MB of cache!) Core Xeon 5100 series: $851, Core 2 Extreme: $999, Netburst Xeon 7100 series: $3157 (With only 16 MB of cahce.)
So you can see that Itanium 2 is reasonably priced in comparison to Intel's own Xeon 7100 series. (Both are targeted at similar markets.) And you can even get an Itanium 2 cheaper than the highest end Xeon 5100 series, and noticeably cheaper than the Core 2 Extreme. (Which I find ironic, since Core 2 Extreme is SLOWER than the fastest Xeon 5100 series processor.)
janstett said:
Itanium actually launched in 2001. It was SCHEDULED to launch in '98-'99, but was delayed. The new dual-core Itanium 2's are the fastest chips available for floating point, though, and very competitive on Integer. For 'big iron', they are a reasonable competitor to RISC chips like Sun's chips and IBM's POWER series.
Intel's biggest problem is that people assume it is meant to be an x86 replacement. (Back in the mid '90s, Intel did have that as a goal, but have since dropped it. They now wholeheartedly embrace EM64T as the future of x86.) It's not. It's a competitor to other 'big iron' chips from Sun, IBM, et al. It had been used as a 'workstation' processor for a while, but now it's purely a server processor.
..ok, lets figure this out...latest Itanium
..in production, and announced today:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060720235512.html
...could Apple possibly* use this chip?
WW
*(hint hint class..which type of processing is BEST for Optical Chips?)
[See:
http://www.intel.com/technology/computing/mi05041.htm
..multi-threading..and CISC go together...like RISC and Cell arch. ]
..in production, and announced today:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060720235512.html
...could Apple possibly* use this chip?
WW
*(hint hint class..which type of processing is BEST for Optical Chips?)
[See:
http://www.intel.com/technology/computing/mi05041.htm
..multi-threading..and CISC go together...like RISC and Cell arch. ]
Intel and 3D IC's....(ahem)
DARPA policy statement:
http://www.darpa.mil/mto/3dcircuits/
Intel Vision Statement:
http://www.intel.com/technology/magazine/silicon/moores-law-0405.pdf
..closing into the "2012" chips DOD wants...Steve "might have seen" some
interesting stuff in various labs. IBM stuff, Motorola stuff, and whatever
Andy Grove might have had in his back pocket at the time. The POWER
Architecture is still useful, but projects like "full 64-bit Core Duo" prove
Intel can catch up much faster than MOTO ever could.
That will be needed for either "arrayed optical with mixed CISC" or "radical
3D stacked IC" type chips.
Like the ones they showed you for the SkyNET System in Terminator II.
WW
<--resets the alarm again
DARPA policy statement:
http://www.darpa.mil/mto/3dcircuits/
Intel Vision Statement:
http://www.intel.com/technology/magazine/silicon/moores-law-0405.pdf
..closing into the "2012" chips DOD wants...Steve "might have seen" some
interesting stuff in various labs. IBM stuff, Motorola stuff, and whatever
Andy Grove might have had in his back pocket at the time. The POWER
Architecture is still useful, but projects like "full 64-bit Core Duo" prove
Intel can catch up much faster than MOTO ever could.
That will be needed for either "arrayed optical with mixed CISC" or "radical
3D stacked IC" type chips.
Like the ones they showed you for the SkyNET System in Terminator II.
WW
<--resets the alarm again
slooksterPSV said:
This has been replied to plenty of times already, but wanted to point out a good link-
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-1.html
ehurtley said:
Yeah, I exaggerated somewhat, but if you want even vaguely competitive integer performance you'll need the higher end ones. Core 2 is coming around 3k SPECint at the high end, and even the really expensive I2s only get just over 1600.
JackSYi said:
Indeed it is. Although AMD has had 64-bit versions of their mobile chip for a year now. (And Sun for a while crammed their 64-bit chip into a notebook.)
..(ahem) "Optical Computing"..is running late
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast28apr_1m.htm
..one more reason to watch both IBM and Intel.
Jobs made several decisions during the NeXT-Apple transistion he may
regret now.
Using the Power architecture at the time..led to direct IBM involvement.
Moving away from it leads right to Intel.
Motorola dropped out long ago..even before the PPC issues had come up.
Ars Technica is bereft of any "optical chip" news because the Industry.."doesn't think it needs another technology transistion" at this time.
BlueRay IS a transistion.
Optical Computers 'could follow' BlueRay patents.
Intel is a leading OC chip maker.
Any other "core-duo" conversations? You could probably argue there is a 128-bit or even a 256-bit Core Duo "lab chip somewhere" (remember Transmeta uses several of Intel's patents).
How much of "core-duo" is 128 bit is also a good question. Like the PPC, extended buses and AltiVec...the greater the bus bandwidth the better the performance metrics.
Arn...you posted the question, did you get your answer?
WW
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast28apr_1m.htm
..one more reason to watch both IBM and Intel.
Jobs made several decisions during the NeXT-Apple transistion he may
regret now.
Using the Power architecture at the time..led to direct IBM involvement.
Moving away from it leads right to Intel.
Motorola dropped out long ago..even before the PPC issues had come up.
Ars Technica is bereft of any "optical chip" news because the Industry.."doesn't think it needs another technology transistion" at this time.
BlueRay IS a transistion.
Optical Computers 'could follow' BlueRay patents.
Intel is a leading OC chip maker.
Any other "core-duo" conversations? You could probably argue there is a 128-bit or even a 256-bit Core Duo "lab chip somewhere" (remember Transmeta uses several of Intel's patents).
How much of "core-duo" is 128 bit is also a good question. Like the PPC, extended buses and AltiVec...the greater the bus bandwidth the better the performance metrics.
Arn...you posted the question, did you get your answer?
WW
ehurtley said:
actually they still do. although if i wanted to run solaris that badly, i'd get an x86 laptop and put solaris on it...
Waiting for Aiden....
Lessee...
32X2=64..Twice as fast
With a Merom, I am waiting for....
- My games to run twice
- Oracle to run twice as fast
- Render / compile times to be twice as fast
- Safari to be twice as fast
- Rosetta to be twice as fast
- DVD burning to be twice as fast
- Productivity to be twice as fast
- Floppy / USB drives to be twice as fast
- love making to be ...no wait....
Max.
Lessee...
32X2=64..Twice as fast
With a Merom, I am waiting for....
- My games to run twice
- Oracle to run twice as fast
- Render / compile times to be twice as fast
- Safari to be twice as fast
- Rosetta to be twice as fast
- DVD burning to be twice as fast
- Productivity to be twice as fast
- Floppy / USB drives to be twice as fast
- love making to be ...no wait....
Max.
maxvamp said:Lessee...
32X2=64..Twice as fast
With a Merom, I am waiting for....
- My games to run twice
- Oracle to run twice as fast
- Render / compile times to be twice as fast
- Safari to be twice as fast
- Rosetta to be twice as fast
- DVD burning to be twice as fast
- Productivity to be twice as fast
- Floppy / USB drives to be twice as fast
- love making to be ...no wait....
Max.
Excuse my ignorance, but I didn't think Bit Rate ( is that what its called) worked that way? Does it really make programs run Twice as fast?
poppe said:
If it were bit-rate, it probably would work that way, but here we are talking register size.
No, it would not work that way, and judging by the last bullet point, that is probably a good thing.
Max.
Mac Rules said:
When adressing more than 4GB of RAM it should increase the speed dramaticall yes. Otherwise a longer pathway trough the chip will increase the delay and therefore it will slow down the CPU in theory. Practically it might increase the speed because a 64bit ALU (with some tricks) is capable of calculating two 32bit numbers at once.
Honestly: Despite the advantage of having more than 4GB of RAM you won't have any benefit of a 64bit CPU on a notebook computer!
I even think that 64bit will be the end of the bus width discussion for quite some while. There might be 128bit CPUs one day (the same reason as today, no real need for it but maybe 64bit isn't enough to adress all memory and a 128bit can do two 64bit numbers, otherwise 65bit or 80bit or something like that would increase the memory quite significantly) but I'm quite sure that we'll never see 256bit. At least no one will ever find the need to adress 2^256bit of RAM ;-)
maxvamp said:
Wrong wrong wrong, it doesn't work that way. In fact, being 64-bit just for the sake of being 64-bit can make things SLOWER.
If I ask you to add these two numbers:
000000000000000000000000000000001 +
000000000000000000000000000000010
It will take you less time than to add these two numbers:
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 +
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010
The result is the same; which one can you add together faster?
Now, having said that, a switch to a 64-bit architecture usually also includes other generational improvements in design that will help cover that up and make it a positive experience but they have nothing to do with being 64-bit.
Worse, now you need an operating system that is 64-bit capable, and then that requires all new applications compiled for 64-bit mode and new drivers written in 64-bit mode, and then there's the problem of how do you run 32-bit applications?
The Windows world has been struggling with this for a few years now... The end result is that 64-bit XP is a toy that isn't ready for a mass market switch and people use their 64-bit chips to run the old 32-bit OS and apps.
deadkenny said:
"Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM!" -- Bill Gates, 1981
So, you never know.
janstett said:
OS X, since the G5 (i think) were 64 Bit, should be ready for 64 bit yes? Or was OS X never made 64 bit?