Re: Intel says no to 64-bit until MS Longhorn arrives?

Jan Panteltje wrote:

> On a sunny day (Mon, 29 Mar 2004 05:30:51 GMT) it happened Eric
> <> wrote in <fwO9c.119143$1p.1674990@attbi_s54>:
>
>>> Carlo
>>Not foolish, smart! Do you think Intel is just sitting there? What do you
>>think the initial costs are in marketing, developing compilers, 64 bit
>>apps, OS's, drivers etc etc? Whos funding that? Not Intel, AMD! And once
>>that is all done, Intel releases their "32 bit extended to 64 bit" CPU to
>>the world (the one (or more)they are testing and refining now), and whos
>>ahead then? Remember, its about money, thats all, nothing more, just
>>money and in the end Intel will come out on top in this saga.
>>Eric
> The Intal CPU will have these bugs... oh I mean errata sheet...
> No one is gonna buy, everyone will wait for the next mask.
> By the time they get it right AMD will be 128 bits ;-)
> JP

Well, no one is going to go to 128 bits any time soon.
There is no reason to. Actually there is really no need for 64 bits
on the home desktop. In the server (think big servers, ie nasdaq, banking
etc) world, 64 bits is badly needed and itanium (ia64) fills that bill very
nicely. x86-64 wont change that. The only reason x86-64 is even being
worked on is because it sits well with the marketing folks.
I am willing to bet that you will NEVER see AMD or Intel
produce a mainstream 128 bit processor (at the most, maybe a "contracted
for" specialty cpu for some kind of gov scientific use) in your lifetime.
As for bugs, surely you dont suggest that AMD is bug free?
Both companies work very hard to produce bug free chips, but
with the current chip complexity (in both camps) that is nearly
impossible.
Eric

On a sunny day (Thu, 01 Apr 2004 22:13:13 GMT) it happened Eric
<> wrote in <Zt0bc.154280$1p.1985948@attbi_s54>:
>nicely. x86-64 wont change that. The only reason x86-64 is even being
>worked on is because it sits well with the marketing folks.
>I am willing to bet that you will NEVER see AMD or Intel
>produce a mainstream 128 bit processor (at the most, maybe a "contracted
>for" specialty cpu for some kind of gov scientific use) in your lifetime.
>As for bugs, surely you dont suggest that AMD is bug free?
>Both companies work very hard to produce bug free chips, but
>with the current chip complexity (in both camps) that is nearly
>impossible.
>Eric
One point, 64 bit, NEEDED, what we need as a fator of > 100 (preferably
>100) increase in speed for video desktop processing.
And that will only increase with HDTV.
ALready now people are asking for 'on the fly' encoding of HDTV on the PC.
That would require a terahertz clock or so.
64 bits helps.
JP