AMD Hammer Date Slips
For a little while it was looking like the AMD Hammer CPUs were going to come out a bit ahead of schedule, but now that doesnt seem to be the case. Check out the news.com article.
-
MarksmanX
replyNOOOOO! Don't fuck up AMD! That's what happened to 3Dfx! Lastthing I want is to pay those insane prices for intel chips when Doom III is released.
-
Well current cpus' can run doom3, so I cant imagine they will be hiking up the prices for these current chips. Plus the 2.8 is way too expensive, Intel know ppl will still by at this price :(
-
AMD not having a viable competing chip = bad for all of us.
I don't wanna pay £250 for a low end cpu again >:(
last intel chip I bought was a P3-600E (Coppermine) that was £215
a frickin' 2200+ is around that price now...-
er..
around two-thirds of that even.. £215 verses £135
For some reason I had a mental image of a pricelist from a few months ago when the 2200+ was introduced.
-
-
-
He is also very interested in what he can do with 64-bit architecture. Have you forgotten that?? And how many consumers are going to buy a 64-bit Intel crap that has no backwards compatibility whatsoever with every program and game ever created for consumers?
Therefore,
AMD = TEH WIN!-
-
Actually you would need a 64-bit OS to take advantage of it. Carmack did say he will be working on it but it won't be out anytime soon. Plus the nice limbo with AMD 32-64 instructions and intels instructions with nothing final on which the market or OS going to support, it's a shitty time to buy a 64-bit processor. So more than likely waiting is the best idea then being an early adopter being burned at the end when so and so doesn't support so and so.
-
Here's an idea, ignore IA-64 completely because it sucks unless a major amount of money is thrown at it?
an IA-64 chip priced to compete with the Clawhammer would perform REALLY badly :/-
-
Itanium-II does perform fairly well (especially compared with Merced), but it is NOT in any way a commodity processor..
Intel could afford to loss lead in an attempt to fend off AMD, but they couldn't loss-lead THAT core.
-
-
-
link? the only thing i remember him saying about 64bit was this
A 64 bit binary is likely to be slightly slower than a 32 bit binary, because pointers will consumer more memory bandwidth. You only get a speed benefit from 64 bit when you need long integers, or you need to access more than (roughly) 2 gigs of memory.
john carmack-
-
-
Carmack could probably find a use for 64bit precision single-cycle floating point hardware.. :)
I think the current cores have that already though-
-
yeah, but this is John Carmack we're talking about, the man who wants 64bit framebuffers so that his lighting algorithms don't start to cause artifacts due to the number of passes.
If something can be done at a respectable speed whilst being much more precise, I'd reckon he'd go with it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Factors you're forgetting:
1) Itanium cores SUCK TOTALLY for x86-32bit code
2) Clawhammer will be priced at or slightly above current AthlonXP (maybe MP) pricepoints, compared to ~$4000 per chip for an Itanium-II
3) CH and SH will be FASTER than an AthlonXP per clock
64bit verses 32bit doesn't make much difference really, but other optimisations like the ondie memory controller AND improved branch prediction etc etc. put an Opteron of some kind on my 'keep an eye on it' list.-
-
Itanium is a pure 64bit processor with onboard x86-32 emulation hardware... expect an 800Mhz Merced to perform like a Pentium @ 90Mhz on 32bit code...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
