Re: Apple, Jobs, and the irony of it

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

"Charlie" <charlied@NOSPAMbboard.com> wrote:

>"Supertimer" <supertimer@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> The Itanium runs 32-bit applications under emulation
>
>How does the Opteron run 32-bit applications?  The AMD website and the Opteron
>data sheet are vague about how it is done.

The Opteron runs 32-bit applications in a 32-bit mode
natively.  That is, it can crunch x86 code.  Opteron
was built upon the Athlon K7 but has been extended
to 64-bits (x86-64).  G5 does the same thing with
32-bit code designed to run on the G4 processor.
This is no less emulation than a IIGS 65C816 chip
running 8-bit 65C02 instructions.  In all cases (G5,
Opteron, 65C816), the code is run natively.

Itanium2 has a completely new instruction set.
It is a VLIW chip and it runs x86 32-bit software
the same way that the Transmeta chip does,
translating x86 instructions in real-time into the
native IA-64 instructions.  If you have every seen
a Transmeta based PC, you will know how much
more slowly this kind of emulation works than
the native processing an Opteron, G5, or 65C816
can perform for older code.

>32-bit applications on an Itanium 2 run in "compatibility mode" which is a
mode
>that is NATIVE to the processor.

Itanium2 is not processing the x86 instructions
natively.  It runs in 32-bit mode similar to a
Transmeta chip and not even Transmeta claims
that this is native.

>> and it does so slower than a good 32-bit Athlon XP
>> or Intel's own 32-bit P4 for that matter.
>
>True, but that still doesn't make the Opteron first <grin>.

It makes the Opteron the first 64-bit x86 processor
capable of running existing 32-bit apps natively.

I guess there are many firsts.  Alpha being the
first 64-bit processor in something some people
would call a personal computer.  Itanium being
the first Intel 64-bit procesor.  Opteron being the
first x86 64-bit processor.  And, from this
discussion, I can see how Apple can claim the
G5 Mac computer (not processor) being the
first 64-bit computer (not processor) sold as a
personal computer rather than with the badge
of workstation.

>Anyway, I am not trying to put down AMD's processors.  If fact my next
computer
>(I intend to build my own) will probably have a AMD processor.  I just don't
>like when AMD (and for that matter most major companies) play loose with the
>facts when marketing their products.

My original intention was to point this out with
regard to Apple's advertisement of the G5.  But the
discussion has brought out that basically, all these
companies do it although I still maintain that
sometimes, Apple's claims are the most
exaggerated.  Remember them calling the G3 a
supercomputer on a chip. Now THAT one was
funny.

Meanwhile, Cray is building a supercomputer
called Redstorm for the Department of Energy's
Sandia National Laboratories using Opteron
processors.

>By the way, AMD says the Opteron is meant to be used in workstations and
>servers (whatever that means) and they will have a 64-bit Athlon out in
>September, 2003.

It is marketing strategy.  AMD wants to crack
the workstation and server market that Intel
has traditionally dominated.  It has more or less
succeeded in the enthusiast market.  Apple
is pushing the G5 as a PC rather than a
workstation because it wants to go after the
enthusiast market, the same market that
the Athlon succeeded in.

The Athlon-64 is an Opteron with some of the
features removed.  Two instead of three
HyperTransport links and one instead of two
DDR memory controllers.  Certainly more
powerful than a 32-bit Athlon but I'd rather have
the Opteron.