By: Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar), August 22, 2013 10:03 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Gabriele Svelto (gabriele.svelto.delete@this.gmail.com) on August 22, 2013 5:28 am wrote:
> Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on August 21, 2013 5:18 pm wrote:
> > AMD produced what the market wanted. Microsoft blessed it. The end. No elaborate theories required.
>
> The fact that K8 also provided a remarkable performance boost over whatever Intel had
> to offer had no small part in it. If K8 wouldn't have been a performance-competitive
> part then x86-64 adoption might not have been as quick and enthusiastic as it was.
Yes, you're absolutely correct. We're all lucky that AMD hit a home run with K8, or rather that Intel was busy striking out with P4 at the time. Had it been like the situation for the past few years where AMD lags Intel significantly, only those who really needed 64 bits would have gone with K8, and Intel could have safely ignored it and continued pushing IA64 while keeping x86 at 32 bits.
> Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on August 21, 2013 5:18 pm wrote:
> > AMD produced what the market wanted. Microsoft blessed it. The end. No elaborate theories required.
>
> The fact that K8 also provided a remarkable performance boost over whatever Intel had
> to offer had no small part in it. If K8 wouldn't have been a performance-competitive
> part then x86-64 adoption might not have been as quick and enthusiastic as it was.
Yes, you're absolutely correct. We're all lucky that AMD hit a home run with K8, or rather that Intel was busy striking out with P4 at the time. Had it been like the situation for the past few years where AMD lags Intel significantly, only those who really needed 64 bits would have gone with K8, and Intel could have safely ignored it and continued pushing IA64 while keeping x86 at 32 bits.