WHATS THE FUTURE- AMD64 or IA86?

[kan]

hi,
This is the one question that always comes to my mind! "Who will rule our future? AMD64 or IA86?
What do u guys think what is more sensible? Targeting my new OS to AMD64 platform or to IA86 platform?
Personally i think AMD64 is better! Future is 64bit computing! Isn't it?????

Ok so if i decide to develop my new os for amd64 platform, are there any tools/resources available to developing my OS?
Are djgpp ,assembler , bochs available for AMD64 OS developement?
Can we run all the above programs on existing 32bit platform(basically on Windows)?

So it this toooooo early for developing for AMD64? But i really believe in AMD64.

I want your opinion!!!!

[programertobe]

Well, Intel has pretty much ruled the proccessing world for ever, but AMD is closing in fast. I would think that AMD because of the higher speed, and more graphics capabilities.

That's just my personal opinion

[gaf]

Hey Kan,
you seem to have mixed up some of the terms, so I'll better put this straight first.

Code: Select all

x86  - The computer architecture Intel introduced with their 8086. When
       AMD started they simply copied the Intel design and produced 
       cheeper (and sometimes faster) clones, this is why AMD
       processors are also x86 compatible.

IA32 - This is the 32bit x86 design introduced with the i386. Most of
       todays processors, including P4 and the AthlonXP are still 
       compatible with this design. 
 
AA64 - This is the 64bit design that AMD uses, it's based on the x86.

IA64 - Intel's 64bit extension is a whole new approach and not based
       on the x86.

Future is 64bit computing! Isn't it?????

Well, that seems to be the way the development is going. I personally still doubt that 64bits are really neccesarry for the average home-user next door who uses his computer for games, office and internet mainly (99.9% percent of the users). The real advantages of 64bit computers are only interesting for professional users who either run programs that need more than 4GB of virtual memory (severs, databases, etc) or need to calculate with *really* big integer numbers (scientists ?).

Personally i think AMD64 is better

I think you should first have a look at Intel's 64bit design before you decide which one's really better. Although I'm not really an expert when it comes to IA64, it sure has some advantages (e.g designed from scratch, TAGGED-TLB !FINALLY!).

Just my 2cents...

regards,
gaf

[Legend]

Well, IA64 would have had some potenial, if it wouldn't be far too expensive. It was aimed only for the server market as it seems (or high-end workstations) and isn't doing there any good, too.

Is AMD64 technically nice? Well, as you still have a good load of p-mode stuff to do, I think not!

But as usual the cheaper solution wins.

64 bit computing isn't that important then moving from 16 bit to 32 bit. Numbers higher then 65536? Easy. Higher then 4 billion? Not so often.
Or if your apps use more then 4gb of ram ... doubtful, however, for now as it seems, if look at recent games ...
And on the x86 platform, the long mode doesn't really introduce anything new at all (except finally the NX bitt?)

So yes, 64 bit computing will be coming, but it is not as impressive as the number suggests ...

[smiddy]

I think the AMD64 design is a nice transition into 64bit computing and is going to be far easier to move to than Intel's variation. The future is 64 bit computing no matter which platform you choose. The one that seems more likely to catch the mass market looks like AMD's variation.

[Da_Maestro]

Topics like this are always hard to predict so I'm not going to fill my mouth with words and regret it later :\ so I'll just give my opinion.


IA-64 certanitly has it's advantages over AA-64, being a RISC processor with nice features. It's problem at the moment is that it is a new architecture. Without compadability with IA-32 programs, the IA-64 will lose.

However, the Itanium series of CPUs implements an IA-32 compadability similar to VM86 mode on IA-32 processors, so it isn't totally out of the race. It is just a matter of time to see which one will be superior.

Then again what better than an architecture built on IA-32. Bring in AA-64. It is definitly a cheaper alternative, not just in the price of the physical hardware but also in that an IA-32 operating system will run on the AA-64 system without modification, whereas the IA-64 requires a system compiled in it's native machine code.

There are the facts. I personally hope that IA-64 wins over, because the ISA is alot cleaner to work with, but in the real world it doesn't look so good.

Adam

[rexlunae]

The question is really silly in the first place, because these are not the same class of processors. Itanium is not really a desktop processor, unlike Athlon-64. It costs too much, and Intel doesn't seem to be trying to position it that way. It will probably have a place in clusters, and various types of servers, but then again so will Opteron, Power, and others. On the desktop, 32-bit x86 is far from dead, and only once 64-bit is really needed there will Intel follow AMD's lead and release 64-bit x86 CPU. I'm not sure if Intel ever really thought that IA-64 would make it to the desktop, but at this point I think they have given up on that.

[rmg]

well here's my two bits..

Personally, I've already begun planning my own OS and will be targetting ONLY x86-64, so it might be obvious what I think you should do

I've been skimming through AMD's architecture docs and there seem to be some interesting differences between AMD64 in long mode and typical x86 in p-mode. Couple highlights (to me anyways):

- flat memory model (no segmentation)
- no hardware based multitasking (not the whole story, don't flame me)
- a hand full of extra general purpose registers

For the record, I completely agree that 64-bits is generally overkill, but I look at the 32-64 transition as an opportunity to wipe the slate clean.. sort of (if you ignore the fact that AMD64 is essentially an extension of x86, but I think that's the only way it'll ever happen)

~rmg

[VioLK]

what about Cell???

[rmg]

what about Cell???

Too early to tell I think, but it is certainly very interesting.

I read somewhere that they are planning an x86 (x86-64?) cored version as well as the original PPC cored version. I'm not sure if that was official or just wish-full thinking though.

[bubach]

I read that Intel is introducing a x86 compatible 64-bit processor..
Does anyone have some facts on this? Is it "compatible" with AMD's?

[Legend]

There are some differences (SYSENTER / SYSCALL and such things seem to be different AGAIN) and I heard they had forgotten one instruction that AMD had reintroduced (should be removed), but perhaps they have corrected this.

[Anton]

For the record, I completely agree that 64-bits is generally overkill, but I look at the 32-64 transition as an opportunity to wipe the slate clean.. sort of (if you ignore the fact that AMD64 is essentially an extension of x86, but I think that's the only way it'll ever happen)
~rmg

My thoughts...
When you work on a 32-bit processor, you are not forced to use 32bit registers. You have 16 and even 8 bit register. The same is for the 64 bit processors(at least x86 compatible). So, no one is forcing you to use 64-bit where a 32 bit register will be appropriate. What is good, is that when you do need a 64-bit register you can use it.
What's more important is that the ip register is also 64bit. This means that no more woring about allocating 4g for each process(this is mentioned in the thread "Why kernels map themselves into process address spaces") It is obvious that programs exist, which use 4g(or even more) of memory. And i am pretty shure that in the near future, no program will need the full 64-bit address space. This means that you can memory map many devices, kernel, disks, what ever, into the memory, and work with all devices using memory without using i/o. This is a very good point. This means that when you open some file, you can memory map it. And work with it as if it is in memory, you don't need fread,..., and you can open any file(an iso of a 8g DVD disk for instance) And you don't have to worry about cloging the address space. 64-bit will fit everything you need.

Anton.

[Legend]

Some programs may have some bad effects when compiled for a 64-bit platform, especially as with pointers you are basically forced to use 64 bits there.

[DruG5t0r3]

Microsoft will most probably go for Intel, I'm sure everyone knows here that a more than acceptable percentage of computers runs off Windows...Intel will get the big part of the pie and they will grow larger...Remember thats it's not always because of the design but because of the money. What I like about AMD64 is that it's more backward compatible, like when they made the switch from 16-bit processors to 32. While Intel made the switch from scratch, which may help since you don't need to be backward compatible and may help in performance issues.

We may well assist at something like this, Linux will support AMD64 and Windows will support IA64...