🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
New CPU
Phoe: In the end everything comes down to assembly.
Graylien: I didn''t say it would be 6 times faster =)
This post has made me unsertain. My computer is getting old and I wan''t to buy some new stuff in the near future. If there will come a big step in cpu technology i don''t want to buy any old cpu''s, but I wan''t to be able to run all my old programs.
I would like to know what will run on Intels new cpu.
If anyone knows, please make a post =)
Graylien: I didn''t say it would be 6 times faster =)
This post has made me unsertain. My computer is getting old and I wan''t to buy some new stuff in the near future. If there will come a big step in cpu technology i don''t want to buy any old cpu''s, but I wan''t to be able to run all my old programs.
I would like to know what will run on Intels new cpu.
If anyone knows, please make a post =)
Assembly isn''t used for much anymore, I agree. So what''s your point? I said that looking at a chips assembler language is probably the lowest level that a programmer should have to descend to. When you write a program in, say, C++, it get compiled to the machines native assembly syntax, and then into machine language (the bits and bytes of opcodes and such). So, really, it''s always used, just not explicitly. The important thing here is that a program compiled into 80x86 machine code results in 32-bit instructions, which will not run by itself on a 64-bit machine. Likewise 64-bit instructions will not work on a machine expecting a 32-bit instruction.
I''m going over Intel''s page on it at http://developer.intel.com/technology/itj/index.htm
Seems they''ve already ported linux and some other OS''s kernel to it...of course, linux is all that really matters ;o) but, I''m sure it won''t prove horribly difficult, maybe for win98 legacy stuff, but not for NT4/Win2k.
Sure it all comes down to assembly, but for programming for the OS, it''s the API that matters...and the API can be made to work all over. Maybe we''ll start seeing some of linux rubbing off on windows..games and such that have to be compiled for the different processors.
Seems they''ve already ported linux and some other OS''s kernel to it...of course, linux is all that really matters ;o) but, I''m sure it won''t prove horribly difficult, maybe for win98 legacy stuff, but not for NT4/Win2k.
Sure it all comes down to assembly, but for programming for the OS, it''s the API that matters...and the API can be made to work all over. Maybe we''ll start seeing some of linux rubbing off on windows..games and such that have to be compiled for the different processors.
ZomeonE: Do you know if the Itanium can run 6 complex instructions at once? Personally, I''ve read nothing on this new Intel design, so I wouldn''t know.
I have to buy a new system too (which is what attracted me to this thread), and I think that I''m going to go for an Athlon, but I''m definitely waiting for the 200MHz FSB support. I''m a fan of their design, but that doesn''t mean it''s a better chip! I''ve given up trying to have the fastest chip, the companies move too quick now.
All I know for the new 64-bit Intel is that any backward compatibility will have to be via software/firmware support. The 32-bit 80x86 CISC instructions will not translate directly to 64-bit P7 code. I assume that all important s/w vendors will release upgrades to registered owners, and probably for a reasonable price. We all know that their will always be something new on the horizon when it comes to CPU''s, it''s just a question of how long you can wait.
I have to buy a new system too (which is what attracted me to this thread), and I think that I''m going to go for an Athlon, but I''m definitely waiting for the 200MHz FSB support. I''m a fan of their design, but that doesn''t mean it''s a better chip! I''ve given up trying to have the fastest chip, the companies move too quick now.
All I know for the new 64-bit Intel is that any backward compatibility will have to be via software/firmware support. The 32-bit 80x86 CISC instructions will not translate directly to 64-bit P7 code. I assume that all important s/w vendors will release upgrades to registered owners, and probably for a reasonable price. We all know that their will always be something new on the horizon when it comes to CPU''s, it''s just a question of how long you can wait.
Yeah, thats what I''m thinking is most likely for windows based software, we''re going to see a whole lot of "upgrades". I''m sure alot of publishers already have plans going on that avenue, it''ll probably be halfway into 2002 before any appreciable amount of home users start buying them though, I''m sure they''ll cost a fortune at first.
Phoe: You bring up a good point. It would be great if we could just recompile for a new chip. Maybe some of the Open Source initiatives will rub off on the Windows world, but it''s a long, uphill battle. It just sucks that if you buy a new Itanium and then try to install your favourite program (that might be a few years old and obsolete in every way except in terms of fun or familiarity), it''s not going to work out.
And your right, NT will work on the P7. There''s already a 64-bit version for the Alpha (also: Win2K is NT 5.0).
And your right, NT will work on the P7. There''s already a 64-bit version for the Alpha (also: Win2K is NT 5.0).
Yup, I know Win2k is NT5. Thats one of the reasons I love it, multiple processers, stability, NTFS, multiple platforms (It also runs on power PC's and MIPS, well, NT4 did anyways).
But yeah, as for older games, we'll have to keep around an older machine. Then again, I'm a firm beleiver in having 2 computers.
Oh, and above I meant 2001, not 2002
This thread is turning into a full fledged rope.
Edited by - Phoe on 1/9/00 3:28:31 PM
But yeah, as for older games, we'll have to keep around an older machine. Then again, I'm a firm beleiver in having 2 computers.
Oh, and above I meant 2001, not 2002
This thread is turning into a full fledged rope.
Edited by - Phoe on 1/9/00 3:28:31 PM
I''m not in the position to have 2 pc''s.
I can''t understand why Intel would make a cpu which isn''t backwards compitable with all software today.
I''m not sure I will get it if I can''t run the software I have today. I''ll just hope that Intel will do something about that, so that people like me can run their old software that they''ve paid a lot of money for.
I can''t understand why Intel would make a cpu which isn''t backwards compitable with all software today.
I''m not sure I will get it if I can''t run the software I have today. I''ll just hope that Intel will do something about that, so that people like me can run their old software that they''ve paid a lot of money for.
Backwards combatability is a very nice thing, yes, but it also bogs us greatly. There''s a reason why win95/98...well..suck, that 16 bit compatability.
BTW, if you want backwards compatability, don''t buy Win2k unless all your programs are 32 bit...and don''t even think of programming dos...because you can''t.
And not in the position to have 2 PC''s...you don''t keep your old parts? I generally never bother selling off my old components, they''re only worth pennies.
BTW, if you want backwards compatability, don''t buy Win2k unless all your programs are 32 bit...and don''t even think of programming dos...because you can''t.
And not in the position to have 2 PC''s...you don''t keep your old parts? I generally never bother selling off my old components, they''re only worth pennies.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
