View Full Version : By 2010 we'll get to choose 4 different x86 CPUs.
Karthik
10-20-2006, 01:12 AM
WE MANAGED to confirm that Nvidia has started to develop a CPU.
Charlie wrote about the interesting implications of Nvidia's good fortune in acquiring some folk from Stexar, a company that was known for its X86 marchitectural expertise.
And now we hear that development is underway at Nvidia's just-announced Portland, Oregon, Design Center, where chip folk are beaving away on 45 nanometre designs.
The project should bear fruit sometime in 2008, as Nvidia prepares plans to compete with Intel and AMD on the blended graphic and CPU concept.
This is what OEMs want in 2008. Sixty-five or 45 nanometre processes make this possible and AMD and Intel are going to do it, so Nvidia doesn’t have much choice.
It seems Nvidia might remain a feisty player in the years to come, unless someone fanatically swallows it.
Things are certainly heating up. µ
Source (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35216)
Intel better watch it's rear cause it's left, right and front is gonna be taken completely.
interesting... I wonder how this will play out, will nVidia and AMD (what was ATI) play nice with each other? Like would I be able to use an nVidia CPU with a ATI videocard and still get good preference? or will they perpiously hinder each other?
I will keep a close eye on this, because this seems very interesting to me, I don't understand why nVidia wouldn't just make a deal with Intel.
Jiminator
10-20-2006, 01:24 AM
well, competition is good for us, the consumers. i suppose they would likely have a pack in a quad core++ miniumum to have it competitive in 2010. i just hope nvidia can pull it off.
avatar_58
10-20-2006, 02:07 AM
I will keep a close eye on this, because this seems very interesting to me, I don't understand why nVidia wouldn't just make a deal with Intel.
Indeed. Although lets face it: Intel has money out of their ears. Nvidia would be surrendering not making a deal. Therefore they probably thought "The hell with all of you" and decided to make their own CPUs.
0marTheZealot
10-20-2006, 02:16 AM
4?
Intel, AMD, Nvidia. I count three...
Indeed. Although lets face it: Intel has money out of their ears. Nvidia would be surrendering not making a deal. Therefore they probably thought "The hell with all of you" and decided to make their own CPUs.
True, but nVidia is not exactly poor, they sell, a lot components, when it comes to integration they have Network cards, soundcards (used to anyways) they make the best chipset for gaming to date (The Nforce 4). Not to mention very good graphics cards.
They could just do something like only release the next nforce series chipsets on Intel boards, So this would be the deal, Intel makes sure nVidia's graphic chipsets are on all Intel boards and in exchange nVidia insures that only Intel boards get the Nforce series chips. they both get rich and live happly ever after.
avatar_58
10-20-2006, 02:40 AM
Well lets look at this way:
*Nvidia has less money than ATI (The marketting by ATI and such prove it)
*Intel has more money than AMD (AMD is the underdog in the CPU biz)
*AMD bought ATI without sweating meaning they have much more money
Using that you can see that Nvidia probably wouldn't have much chance of moving Intel around. They are like the Microsoft of Chips.
Duoae
10-20-2006, 03:34 AM
From what i've been reading on the subject for the past few months each cpu will have "onboard" and linked graphics capabilities. These sorts of integrated systems are aimed at companys with larger graphical desktop needs (ie Vista) rather than the enthusiasts such as ourselves.
Don't worry about these chips unless you want a low-mid end system. It will still be a two-horse race for us. (Unless MS is getting into the game - for which there are certain indications)
mon2908
10-20-2006, 05:28 AM
4?
Intel, AMD, Nvidia. I count three...
You forget to name VIA
http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/processors/
Using that you can see that Nvidia probably wouldn't have much chance of moving Intel around. They are like the Microsoft of Chips.
Meh, who would have thought that AMD would drub Intel so badly back when they were making crappy K6-2s? :p
Travis
10-20-2006, 08:41 AM
Meh, who would have thought that AMD would drub Intel so badly back when they were making crappy K6-2s? :p
hey, i had a K6-2 once!
...and yeah, it sucked. :p
Kevin Wolff
10-20-2006, 08:55 AM
You forget to name VIA
http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/processors/
In that case, 5. Isn't Transmeta still around?
Phayzon
10-20-2006, 01:43 PM
meh, I might actually have to put some thought into CPU shopping now. :(
Meh, who would have thought that AMD would drub Intel so badly back when they were making crappy K6-2s? :p
Shut up, the K6-2s rocked! :mad:
YicklePigeon
10-20-2006, 02:00 PM
The K6-2 was ok for it's time, served me well. I'd have preferred a K6-3 however...:| Oh well...
Regards,
Yickle.
0marTheZealot
10-20-2006, 04:20 PM
You forget to name VIA
http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/processors/
holy crap, I didn't know about them.
ZuljinRaynor
10-20-2006, 08:12 PM
By 2010 I'd expect x86 to be phased out.:insomnia:
Kevin Wolff
10-20-2006, 08:28 PM
Come on ZR, it's one of the computer industry's most important principles: x86 just won't go away.
Fraeon Waser Duhni
10-20-2006, 08:45 PM
That's because nobody has asked it to go away with a "pretty please with some sugar on top."
ZuljinRaynor
10-20-2006, 08:57 PM
But the way I see it, everything else has faded out except for BIOS.
Fraeon Waser Duhni
10-20-2006, 08:58 PM
But the way I see it, everything else has faded out except for BIOS.
That's going to be replaced by EFI. So...
ZuljinRaynor
10-20-2006, 09:08 PM
Yeah... so it's time x86 goes bye-bye.
Patrick102076
10-21-2006, 01:41 AM
I think SIS also produce x86 based chips.
x86 WILL go away, but only when intel isnt in the position whereby it would be economical suicide NOT to produce these chips, despite their inferiority.
x86 is the preverbial granny that just won't die; There's an increasing number of Power based machines being introduced, most of which run Linux, and since Power is now a major player in the consoles market, and with the bulk of the industry using high level languages which provide the portability, and so many 'classic' games layers using emulators, x86 cant be around for that much longer, can it?? Can it??
That's going to be replaced by EFI. So...
Or so you think
http://linuxbios.org/index.php/Main_Page
Say bye to EFI and hello to LinuxBIOS.
EFI is a lost cause, there never was a need for it, real programmers don't use BIOS calls anyways, real programmers use assembler functions to make the hardware they want to do what they want.
the BIOS is here to stay. x86 wont go away, like 20 years ago alot of people said the x86 would never make it past 16bits, we are at 64bits it wont stop at that either. they could add a few regesters maybe but thats about the only thing that i see as a problem in the future. I see sparc's owning x86's very soon.
meh, I might actually have to put some thought into CPU shopping now. :(
Shut up, the K6-2s rocked! :mad:
lol, I remember reading the sys reqs for Thief: They were something like: 266Mhz P2, 400Mhz K6-2... ><
Phayzon
10-21-2006, 09:56 AM
166MHz CPU
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thief:_The_Dark_Project
Kevin Wolff
10-21-2006, 12:52 PM
x86 cant be around for that much longer, can it?? Can it??
Yes. Windows is for x86. Therefore, unless Windows disappears or gets compiled for something else, x86 will not go away.
In fact, I'd say x86 is more prevalent now than it was ten years ago - a lot of high-end servers are now x86, instead of SPARC and even POWER. IBM and Sun make a killing off x86 server equipment...and now Dell and HP are in the same business.
ZuljinRaynor
10-21-2006, 01:39 PM
Isn't Vista a 64 bit platform too?
peoplessi
10-21-2006, 04:16 PM
I hope that x86 would die some time before 2010, it really isn't the way to go in the future.
Karthik
10-21-2006, 08:37 PM
I hope that x86 would die some time before 2010, it really isn't the way to go in the future.
That will never happen. The only way x86 will die is if they make a proper emulated software for custom CPUs. AFAIK, there's none out there.
ZuljinRaynor
10-22-2006, 11:37 AM
As much as I love BIOS and want it to stay... I want x86 to die so we all can have x64 instead.
Kevin Wolff
10-22-2006, 12:15 PM
As much as I love BIOS and want it to stay...
What's to love about BIOS?
I want x86 to die so we all can have x64 instead.
Um...there is no such thing as "x64." What you're thinking of is called "x86-64." Yes, it is still x86, just 64 bits wide. Using 64-bit chips will not kill off x86.
8IronBob
10-22-2006, 12:17 PM
Maybe by that time, AMD may develop an x128 processor, and wouldn't THAT be something to think about down the road?
Kevin Wolff
10-22-2006, 12:30 PM
Maybe by that time, AMD may develop an x128 processor,
No.
and wouldn't THAT be something to think about down the road?
Maybe in 30 years.
ZuljinRaynor
10-22-2006, 12:53 PM
What's to love about BIOS?
It's awesome.
Um...there is no such thing as "x64." What you're thinking of is called "x86-64." Yes, it is still x86, just 64 bits wide. Using 64-bit chips will not kill off x86.
Thanks for the expanation. Didn't know that.
Stay x86 then!
Kevin Wolff
10-22-2006, 05:55 PM
It's awesome.
What for?
Stay x86 then!
Oh, it very much should still die. ;)
ZuljinRaynor
10-22-2006, 06:11 PM
What for?
It just is. Great stuff.
Oh, it very much should still die. ;)
So should the whole Apple platform then as well. ;)
Nessus
10-22-2006, 09:30 PM
Man I hope this works out for them. Becasue if it doesn't the cost of R&D and marketing will be gigantic, if it's a flop it could sink them. Then instead of having a a choice of 3 processors we'll only have one graphics card company, and now they wont have to try so hard to write good drivers.
Phait
10-23-2006, 01:42 AM
Remember Cyrix?
Yeah...
Karthik
10-23-2006, 03:07 AM
Cyrix was cocky.
Jiminator
10-23-2006, 03:22 AM
AMD was cocky. They have been pwned and now are about to get seriously pwned. Now to see what they can come out with and how long it will take....
8IronBob
10-23-2006, 08:17 AM
Well, seeing as tho that AMD has studied Intel down to their core, and played a lot of politics to go toe to toe against that clowny monopolist in Intel, well, I should say that having Turion x2, AMD 64 x2, and Opteron going up against Core Duo, Centrino Duo, Core 2 Duo, and Intel Core Extreme, there's a ton riding on this rivalry, I dare say. IMHO, I'd like to see what the PowerPC offerings are going to be, if they ever enter the PC market again, which may or may not happen anytime soon.
peoplessi
10-23-2006, 10:30 AM
I agree, x86 is a thing we can't get rid off, I was really too optimistic with my comment. But the disregarding the timeframe, my comments basic idea stays the same.
Intel and AMD & Microsoft, mostly Intel, will steer and control the architechture changes. So we will have to stick with x86(-64) :)
I would gladly swap BIOS for EFI, but that too won't happen in near future.
Duoae
10-23-2006, 10:37 AM
IMHO, I'd like to see what the PowerPC offerings are going to be, if they ever enter the PC market again, which may or may not happen anytime soon.
From what i've read the Power6 features are nice, but the chips run above 3GHz.... which isn't what we really want now that power consumption is playing a big role in politics etc...
Patrick102076
10-23-2006, 10:56 AM
Ok guys,
I keep track of the goings on genesippc.com, among others
http://www.genesippc.com/products.php
http://www.mc.com/momentum/products.cfm?prodtype=boards
http://www.genesippc.com/press.php?date=20050926
ZuljinRaynor
10-23-2006, 03:00 PM
AMD was cocky. They have been pwned and now are about to get seriously pwned. Now to see what they can come out with and how long it will take....
Erm, they only just got pwned by new architecture...
Kevin Wolff
10-23-2006, 10:45 PM
So should the whole Apple platform then as well. ;)
Eh?
From what i've read the Power6 features are nice, but the chips run above 3GHz.... which isn't what we really want now that power consumption is playing a big role in politics etc...
Not necessarily. Intel is selling a 3GHz Xeon based on the Core 2 Duo. Despite all that, the POWER architecture will probably never be a player in the desktop market, because IBM isn't interested in that - noticed how they let Apple's chips lag behind, yet they sold great stuff to Sony and Microsoft.
Duoae
10-24-2006, 12:01 AM
Lag behind? I always thought a power 5 (4 etc) were more powerful than equivalent Pentiums at the time?
noticed how they let Apple's chips lag behind
Apple was only a small percentage of their business, so it's no suprise they didn't give a shit.
Patrick102076
10-24-2006, 05:56 AM
Eh?
Not necessarily. Intel is selling a 3GHz Xeon based on the Core 2 Duo. Despite all that, the POWER architecture will probably never be a player in the desktop market, because IBM isn't interested in that - noticed how they let Apple's chips lag behind, yet they sold great stuff to Sony and Microsoft.
Perhaps IBM had less motivation, seeing as they were only half of the apple equation. Freescale were supplying the G4, after all.
But the reason that Apple switched is not at all to do with power or efficiency, if it was they might not have felt the need to skew their benchmark test results in order to rationalize their switch to Intel. Perhaps cost was a factor, but my guess is that every imbecile without any real knowledge out to buy a new machine is thinking 'WIntel', so that's what they're going to look for in a shop, so it favored Apple to be associated with the Intel brand of processor. Which is probably the reason they didnt switch to AMD.
There are plenty of Powerpc desktop solutions, but its difficult to reach a market where the only names the average buyer knows are microsoft/windows
and Intel. If microsoft decide to produce a powerpc version of Windows, that might change everything.
Kevin Wolff
10-24-2006, 03:14 PM
Lag behind? I always thought a power 5 (4 etc) were more powerful than equivalent Pentiums at the time?
When the chip first came out, sure. But IBM/Motorola/Freescale could never keep it going, until some years later where they pumped out a new design to jump back up. But in Apple's case it was really the G4 that sucked, which was Freescale's design - the G5 was plenty fast, but it used too much power for what Apple wanted to do later on (aka, now).
Apple was only a small percentage of their business, so it's no suprise they didn't give a shit.
The PowerPC designs Apple used were scaled-down versions of the main POWER designs. There's no real reason that the chips would be slower simply because Apple is small; the chips were already there to begin with. They chose not to care about the desktop market (whether that be Apple or anyone else).
But the reason that Apple switched is not at all to do with power or efficiency, if it was they might not have felt the need to skew their benchmark test results in order to rationalize their switch to Intel.
Um...what are you talking about? Perhaps you need to watch the announcement presentation from last year. That was all they talked about. Performance numbers came up later, and they weren't surprising or skewed at all.
Jiminator
10-24-2006, 03:40 PM
Erm, they only just got pwned by new architecture...
core2 was a shock in two regards. the first was how much more computational power it could accomplish per mhz. the second was the lowered power requirements compared to anything else. These are both things that the amd group had been crowing about for years, nobody expected intel to come back and do it so well.
the next blow is going to come in the form of intel quad cores - this year.
so end results is that amd switches over to am2 - no performance gain. intel launches core2. intel will launch quad processors. amd probably won't have that until this time next year.
anyway it will be interesting to see their comeback.
ZuljinRaynor
10-24-2006, 06:27 PM
LOL @ Intel Quad Core. It's such a dirty method.
Duoae
10-25-2006, 04:24 PM
When the chip first came out, sure. But IBM/Motorola/Freescale could never keep it going, until some years later where they pumped out a new design to jump back up. But in Apple's case it was really the G4 that sucked, which was Freescale's design - the G5 was plenty fast, but it used too much power for what Apple wanted to do later on (aka, now).
Cool, i didn't know that.
Um...what are you talking about? Perhaps you need to watch the announcement presentation from last year. That was all they talked about. Performance numbers came up later, and they weren't surprising or skewed at all.
Er... it was shown that they lied in many of the presentations. The actual performance gains were much lower than they had in their slideshows. Though i don't doubt any power-saving numbers :)
Kevin Wolff
10-26-2006, 03:29 PM
Er... it was shown that they lied in many of the presentations. The actual performance gains were much lower than they had in their slideshows. Though i don't doubt any power-saving numbers :)
Their benchmarks were just the SPEC integer and floating-point tests, which have always been optimized for x86. It's no surprise that those came out to "5x faster," especially with an extra core. Apple's own, real apps were bound to be slower than that since they spent years trying to optimize them for PPC.
Given all that, Patrick's point still doesn't make sense to me. "OMG superfast" has been part of Apple's marketing for ages.
Sun's SPARC has the power to own every processor out there, the problem is they cost too much, are too technical for the average joe. But I mean cmon an 8 core, 8mb cache for each core and each core has its own dedicated FPU and ontop of that it has 128bit addressing, 64-threads and was "born" 64bit
Duoae
10-28-2006, 09:10 AM
Given all that, Patrick's point still doesn't make sense to me. "OMG superfast" has been part of Apple's marketing for ages.
I can see how he'd get to that assumption though since if you do a google search for something along the lines of "Apple lied about performance" or something, the G4 (OMG it beats evry intel EVAR!) marketing took a pretty big lashing on the internet...
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.