Hammer Prototype Test

[Hulk]

I have to jump in on Brian's side here. Not to say that 64 bits isn't an improvement, it's just that it isn't nearly as critical to mainstream users as the jump from 16 to 32 bits.

32 bits for one allowed a flat memory architecture, which as you all know, stopped applications from stepping all over each other. Sure, individual apps still go down, but rarely, and they usually don't take the OS with them. The reduction in memory paging the OS and apps ALONE makes the 16 to 32 bit jump bigger than anything 32 to 64 will do. Yes, with 32bit processors and NT/Win2000/XP, the age of truly USABLE computers was ushered in.

16>32bits REVOLUTION

32>64bits EVOLUTION

I said it before and I'll say it again, Hammer being 64 bits will make no difference to the mass market UNLESS it can prove itself with TODAY'S software.

When released, Hammer will be benched on 32 bits operating systems and those benches will make or break it just as they did for the Athlon.

[Jerry Jones]

Here's an excellent PDF document that summarizes the technical details associated with HAMMER:

http://www.x86-64.org/documentation_folder/MPF_Hammer_Presentation.pdf

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Brian Ellis]

OK, let's put the discussion on another plane.

How many PC purchasers are going to
a) spend USD 5,000 on a new machine plus
b) spend another USD 1,000 on Windows Advanced Server Limited Edition (the only 64 bit version of Windows available)
c) spend another USD n,000 to update all their software
in order to type e-mails and Word files (assuming appropriate software becomes available),
when they can buy a new machine that will do all that and more for USD 800 or less?

Or maybe you think that the 64 bit HP workstation at USD 14,000 is likely to be given away with a packet of corn flakes?

Being of Scottish origin, I was told to go ca'canny wi' ma bawbees or, to translate it into English, a fool and his money are soon parted.

It will be a very long time before 64 bit becomes mainstream, if ever, because you have the start of a hen and egg situation.

[Ray Austin]

Ok Brian,

I am sure an elite machine could easily cost $5,000. But let's get real here... it's not going to cost that much. These 64bit machines are due anytime now and will be mass market by 2005. Sledge hammer was actually slated to have been released already. So it is coming.

here is a good link... it's a little dated but shows there is plenty brewing.... http://www6.tomshardware.com/mainboa...017/index.html

We are not talking server software either. The OS is being worked on... I don't think AMD is that stupid to make a 64bit processor and not have an OS for it. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it don't exist. There is no reason for it to exist....yet.

Updating software will be gradual there is no need to do that all at once due to backward compatibility.

Furthermore, you're always going to have the $300-800 PC crowd that will never change, just like you'll have the $5,000 PC crowd. It comes down to what you want to do with it that takes you to whatever price point you decide on.

The majority of the public doesn't know the differance between RAM and a harddrive... it rather moot to discuss that.

The fact that the sledgehammer is in final testing and chipsets are available it's only a matter of time. Don't forget Moore's law....
every 18months.... something, something, something.

Being of Irish and German descent, I was told yada, yada, yada to translate it hmmm.... Penny wise, pound foolish.

Only if Intel gets it's way and AMD goes belly up. Otherwise the Rooster will crow.

Plus I'll also add that I never said it was critical. It is however "CRITICAL" for AMD.

Thanks Elie.... never knew this place existed.

[the maddman]

Originally posted by Brian Ellis
OK, let's put the discussion on another plane.

How many PC purchasers are going to
a) spend USD 5,000 on a new machine plus
b) spend another USD 1,000 on Windows Advanced Server Limited Edition (the only 64 bit version of Windows available)
c) spend another USD n,000 to update all their software
in order to type e-mails and Word files (assuming appropriate software becomes available),
when they can buy a new machine that will do all that and more for USD 800 or less?

Or maybe you think that the 64 bit HP workstation at USD 14,000 is likely to be given away with a packet of corn flakes?

Being of Scottish origin, I was told to go ca'canny wi' ma bawbees or, to translate it into English, a fool and his money are soon parted.

It will be a very long time before 64 bit becomes mainstream, if ever, because you have the start of a hen and egg situation.

Well, HP's Itanium based workstation can't be compared to a Hammer box. Hammer will run your old, 32 bit apps just as well as it's native 64 bit. It is aimed at the general public, they can't axe backwards compatibility like Intel did.

I'm sure the first Hammer boxes will be pushing the high end, but I'm not sure they'll even get $5000 for one, the hey day of computers is over, it'd have to be loaded to run that much.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2109107,00.html

Microsoft has a version of windows waiting for Hammer. There will be a Windows-64 home edition that most people will run. You won't have to update your software, they've already shown a Hammer running 32bit on 64bit windows, and for apps that don't need 64bit address space, they might even run a bit faster that way, only time will tell.

The whole point of AMD's hammer is to run 32bit faster than an Athlon at the same clock, and have 64bit there. They know the average desktop doesn't need it, but remember, Sun sells a lot of way underpowered Sparc boxes just so developers can compile and test 64bit code at their desk. This gives AMD a unified code base across all their chips, you can write and test code on a cheap dual Athlon64, and run the same binary on a 8+ CPU Opteron.

[Brian Ellis]

So will the HP Itanium workstation run your 32 bit apps (just as well, otherwise they'd never sell one ) What's more important, it will run Linux.

Your ZDnet story doesn't look all roses, either. The OS for the Opteron servers is the one I mentioned earlier. Believe it or not, it is a variant of W2k, not even XP !!!

Maybe we should wait for the Toffee Hammer

[funky-d-munky]

Brian, why are you being so difficult about this? Do you believe suddenly the fastest upgrading industry in the world is going to stop!
Wether we need 64-bit or not it's comming. The latest video cards are cpu bound. Does that mean they should be shelved? Absalutely not. Because we all know within 2 years the 9700pro and GFFXultra we be considered crap cards.

There are simply 2 choices: The Itanium which fits all your points of 2 posts ago.
Or A64: That is the fastest 32bit cpu ever made and has support for 64bit.
You would think that someone who is taking a Quaker type mentality towards the PC biz would be singing praise to the A64, and dissing the Itanium.
funky

[Ray Austin]

Aaaah finally the point rings from the hill tops!

It has never mattered whether we need something or not. Heck if all your gonna do is run a word program, surf the net and play solitaire you certainly don't need a 2GHZ machine for that.

But it's never been about what you need. It's about what you want. Speed sells. It's seductive in a fast paced world. Just ask the GHZ maniacs themselves. Intel

AMD knows this as well why did they switch to product # label?

Why are they calling the new Athalon.... Athalon 64? even tho I like sledge hammer better! But I don't know maybe folks at the local hardware store are upset about this????

And if AMD didn't have something worthwhile in the 64bit delusional state that you confess it to be... why has intel been secretly working on a 64bit desktop chip of their own?

It's coming.... like it or not. And no we won't have to run server software on it either.

[Topha]

the thing is that the 64bit bus isnt the only feature of the athlon 64. its 32 bit performance is (mhz - mhz) much better than that of the athlon xp, not to speak of the intel p4. that makes the cpu attractive for desktop AND server pc's. from what i heard so far the desktop athlon 64 wont be much more expensive than the athlon xp, making it affordable for home users to buy.

the opteron, which has more Hypertransport and memory controllers and can be run in systems with up to 8 opterons will of course be much more expensive, but it will compete with the itanium2, not the p4.

so neither home users nor companys will need 64 bit software, the cpu will be fast enough with existing programs.

[funky-d-munky]

Swiped this from a Japanese web site ala hardocp.

http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTA0MzYxMTA3Mk1UWjBtOEE3N0hfMV8xX2wuZ2lm

Its amazing to see the current AMD XP line will replace the Durons by summer. Then be replaced by the 512kb 2nd cache Bartons by x-mas. Thats pretty funny. By next year at this time the cheapest cpu you can buy will be a 3000+ Barton.
funky

[Ray Austin]

If you're looking for a tighter timeline it looks like the Easter bunny could have a couple of good eggs in his basket...

April time line.....

http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Article.asp?datePublish=2003/01/15&pages=14&seq=92

Thanks East Bunny.... Bawk, Bawk

Chickens never had anything to do with it.