peter, re:<Yamhill in Prescott, disabled (for now)>
even more evidence that Prescott will indeed use Yamhill technology:
See this quote from x-bit labs:
"We also have some info (proven by Intel as well) that Prescott may also support Yamhill technology, which will allow these CPUs to process 64bit codes. However, Intel will finalize its decision about including or not including Yamhill technology into the upcoming Prescott core a bit later, depending on the success of the coming AMD Hammer competitors."
I am very dubious about Yamhill being included in the first version of Prescott to be released probably mid 2003. The idea presented above is that, if AMD's Hammer series appears to be successful, Intel will enable the Yamhill technology in it's first Prescott chips.
To do this, Intel would have to abandon Socket 478 and develop a whole new set of chipsets capable of handling the wider address bus. Motherboards would also have to support address bits that may never be enabled. There is no chance that all of this could even be ready by mid-03.
Another thing that doesn't make any sense is that, it will be at least March, 2003 before Intel even knows if Clawhammer is a "success." That is absolutely too late to get any kind of software support for a NEW instuction set, call it i86-64, before March, 2004. Therefore, the idea of deciding inclusion/exclusion of Yamhill technology based on AMD's success necessarily EXCLUDES the idea of doing anything except copying AMD's x86-64 exactly.
The idea of expecting software support for a concept that may or may not be included is ludicrous, expecially if the decision won't be made for a year. Even getting motherboard makers to build products for a new socket and new chipsets, but not knowing whether to have a 32-bit address bus or a 40-bit address bus until a few months before product release is ridiculous.
Petz |
