>On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:18:24 -0400, krw wrote:
>>
>> miles.bader@necel.com says...
>>>
>>> Of course AMD _did_ come up with "x86-64", which is an improvement over
>>> the x86 (obviously even Intel thinks so).
>>
>> Intel did too, but had no interest in pushing it forward to product.
>
>Funny, that's not how I recall it. Intel dropped their x86-64 bit plans
>after trying to push it onto Microsoft, and Microsoft telling them to
>shove off. I think this link will get more to the truth.
That was later. Intel had explored 64-bit extensions to X86 years
earlier. (How could they not? CPU's are their business.)
>miles.bader@necel.com says...
>>
>> I suppose if AMD hadn't been around, there would have been a greater
>> chance of Intel getting their butts whipped by some other architecture,
>> instead of by AMD.
>
>What architecture? You grossly underestimate the x86 inertia.
Yeah, I recall how years ago some nutcases saying things like the
Pentium 3 (yes, the 3) was "already obsolete" upon release, because it
did not support IA64, which was set to blow X86 out of the market when
it was released.
Of course, more sensible minds thought "Huh? It'll be more expensive,
yet run all the software slower, since all the software is X86, so why
would I want it?"
> Wes Newell wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:18:24 -0400, krw wrote:
>>>
>>> miles.bader@necel.com says...
>>>>
>>>> Of course AMD _did_ come up with "x86-64", which is an improvement
>>>> over the x86 (obviously even Intel thinks so).
>>>
>>> Intel did too, but had no interest in pushing it forward to product.
>>
>>Funny, that's not how I recall it. Intel dropped their x86-64 bit plans
>>after trying to push it onto Microsoft, and Microsoft telling them to
>>shove off. I think this link will get more to the truth.
>
> That was later. Intel had explored 64-bit extensions to X86 years
> earlier. (How could they not? CPU's are their business.)
Of course they had. But they didn't want 64 bit to come out for x86 to
compete with Itanium. And by trying to protect it, they basically *******
themselves. Only after AMD released theirs did they try to bring their x86
64 bit code out. MS had already done a version of windows for Itanium and
weren't going to play Intels games at their expense.
>On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:45:45 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>
>> Wes Newell wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:18:24 -0400, krw wrote:
>>>>
>>>> miles.bader@necel.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course AMD _did_ come up with "x86-64", which is an improvement
>>>>> over the x86 (obviously even Intel thinks so).
>>>>
>>>> Intel did too, but had no interest in pushing it forward to product.
>>>
>>>Funny, that's not how I recall it. Intel dropped their x86-64 bit plans
>>>after trying to push it onto Microsoft, and Microsoft telling them to
>>>shove off. I think this link will get more to the truth.
>>
>> That was later. Intel had explored 64-bit extensions to X86 years
>> earlier. (How could they not? CPU's are their business.)
>
>Of course they had. But they didn't want 64 bit to come out for x86 to
>compete with Itanium. And by trying to protect it, they basically *******
>themselves. Only after AMD released theirs did they try to bring their x86
>64 bit code out. MS had already done a version of windows for Itanium and
>weren't going to play Intels games at their expense.
None of that disputes what Keith or I have claimed. I think we're all
on the same page, now.
> Yeah, I recall how years ago some nutcases saying things like the
> Pentium 3 (yes, the 3) was "already obsolete" upon release, because it
> did not support IA64, which was set to blow X86 out of the market when
> it was released.
>
PIII obsolete? Hmm...trivia of the day - what microarchitecture did Intel
base the core on? And what microarchitecture does the core have little if
anything to do with?
"Zootal" <giganews@zootal.nospam.com> writes:
>> Yeah, I recall how years ago some nutcases saying things like the
>> Pentium 3 (yes, the 3) was "already obsolete" upon release, because it
>> did not support IA64, which was set to blow X86 out of the market when
>> it was released.
>>
>PIII obsolete? Hmm...trivia of the day - what microarchitecture did Intel
>base the core on? And what microarchitecture does the core have little if
>anything to do with?
>
Former: Netburst, IIRC.
Latter: Anything other than netburst?
"Scott Lurndal" <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote in message
news:G08Sj.12211$V14.6591@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
> "Zootal" <giganews@zootal.nospam.com> writes:
>>> Yeah, I recall how years ago some nutcases saying things like the
>>> Pentium 3 (yes, the 3) was "already obsolete" upon release, because it
>>> did not support IA64, which was set to blow X86 out of the market when
>>> it was released.
>>>
>>PIII obsolete? Hmm...trivia of the day - what microarchitecture did Intel
>>base the core on? And what microarchitecture does the core have little if
>>anything to do with?
>>
>
> Former: Netburst, IIRC.
> Latter: Anything other than netburst?
>
> scott
Um...are you sure you don't want to reverse those answers? Or do you mean
former architecture=netburst, latter (core) = anything but?
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Zootal <giganews@zootal.nospam.com> wrote in part:
>> Yeah, I recall how years ago some nutcases saying things like the
>> Pentium 3 (yes, the 3) was "already obsolete" upon release, because it
>> did not support IA64, which was set to blow X86 out of the market when
>> it was released.
>>
> PIII obsolete? Hmm...trivia of the day - what microarchitecture
> did Intel base the core on? And what microarchitecture does the
> core have little if anything to do with?
The Pentium III was little more than a Pentium II with the L2
cache chips integrated on-die and running faster. The P2 was
little more than a slot repackaging of the PentiumPro which was
a completely new effort for Intel having nothing in common with
the original Pentium and PentiumMMX.
In many ways the P4 has nothing in common with the P3 or core,
and looks much more like a dressed up, overclocked original Pentium.
>
> The Pentium III was little more than a Pentium II with the L2
> cache chips integrated on-die and running faster. The P2 was
> little more than a slot repackaging of the PentiumPro which was
> a completely new effort for Intel having nothing in common with
> the original Pentium and PentiumMMX.
>
> In many ways the P4 has nothing in common with the P3 or core,
> and looks much more like a dressed up, overclocked original Pentium.
>
> -- Robert
>
That is pretty much my understanding. The P4's netburst architecture was a
dead end road, and not even cranking up the clock to 3.8GHz gave the
performance people wanted. The core did not inherit from the P4, but was
based on PPro/II/III architecture.
Re: AMD planning 45nm 12-Core 'Istanbul' Processor ? 
Linear Mode
