Intel Yamhill (AMD64) official

[az]

Xeon Nocona will include CT (formerly Yamhill), for workstations and small servers.

It is also built into Prescott, but not active.

AZ

[Tjalfe]

where is the news link?

and with the increased number of transistors etc, I suspected that they had done something like that with the Prescott

[Tjalfe]

ahh found one

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5160169.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed

SAN FRANCISCO--Intel will come out with a server chip next quarter that adds 64-bit processing power to its current x86 line of processors, the company's chief executive said Tuesday.
In a keynote speech at the Intel Developer Forum here, CEO Craig Barrett called the arrival of Nocona "one of the worst-kept secrets in San Francisco." Intel had been widely expected to show off such a chip.

Nocona processors for two-processor servers will arrive in the second quarter said Barrett, followed quickly by Prescott processors with 32/64-bit capability for single-processor servers and workstations. Prescott and Nocona are functionally the same processor but differ in cache size and bus speed. The 32/64-bit technology will then come to chips for servers with four or more processors in 2005, Barrett added.(Technically, the chips are code-named Nocona and Prescott, and the 32/64-bit capability goes by the code name Clackamas.)




Although this means that Intel could bring a 32/64-bit chip to PCs soon, Barrett said the company has no plans do so in the near future. There are a few good reasons for this, PC executives and analysts have said for some time. Very little desktop software exists for 64-bit desktops, and the amount of memory that would go into a 64-bit desktop would greatly escalate the price.

While Intel was expected to reveal its 32/64-bit plans at the conference, the chips are set to come out far earlier than most predicted. Most analysts thought that Intel's first 32/64-bit chip would be Tejas, due late in 2004 or early 2005. In December, one analyst, Rick Whittington, predicted that Intel would release a 32/64-bit chip this year, but admitted at the time that he had no solid evidence to back up the theory.

Nocona will use the same core as Prescott, Intel's current desktop processor, meaning that Intel could quickly migrate the 64-bit architecture to desktop processors.

During his keynote, Barrett demonstrated a 64-bit x86 chip running on a Dell Dimension XPS desktop machine.

The move to add 64-bit extensions to the existing x86 architecture is a long time in coming for Intel. Rival AMD has been taking such an approach for a while, having already shipped both its Opteron server chips and its Athlon 64 desktop processors.

Intel, meanwhile, resisted such a move, trying to spur the market for its new 64-bit architecture, known as Itanium. Itanium is not directly compatible with today's x86 software, though it can run such programs through a slower emulation mode.

"Their hand was forced," said Anil Vasudeva, an analyst at Imex Research. Still, Vasudeva said the opportunity for chips like Nocona is much larger than that for Itanium.

Although the move may hurt its Itanium strategy, analysts say Intel faces no legal obstacles in adopting AMD's approach.

Among other things, adding 64-bit instructions enables support for more than 4GB of memory.

Microsoft will support Intel's new architecture in the second half of 2004, a Microsoft representative said. Versions of the Linux OS from Red Hat, SuSE and MontaVista will support it in the second half, Barrett added.

Novell's SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 9 is scheduled to arrive in July with support for Intel's 64-bit extensions, spokesman Joe Eckert said. A beta version is due in March, he added. Intel's approach is compatible with AMD's, the Microsoft representative said. "There will be one operating system that will support all (64-bit) extended systems," the representative said.

Barrett concurred, noting that the design of the chips from the two companies will differ, but software and operating systems for this market "probably for the most part will run on both systems."

Intel and AMD entered into an extensive cross-licensing deal in 1995 that largely will insulate Intel from legal liability in this area, according to legal experts.

CNET News.com's Stephen Shankland and Ina Fried contributed to this report.

[rugger]

About time Intel did something sensible.

Might give then a chance to fully cook the Itanium architecture.

[rylan]

Makes me laugh because they're essentially following AMD's lead and trying to play catchup somewhat. Hopefully this will make Intel finally dump the Itanium Itanic core. Microsoft almost slapped Intel around because they didn't want to develop another 64bit OS, so the Intel chip is going to be compatible with the Athlon64.

[Chrono_Wanderer]

lol... Yamhill... years ago i thought this would be a workstation chip with IA-64. Never guessed its an AMD64 chip.

funny that Intel never mention AMD64 technology tho

[Chrono_Wanderer]

Quote from article:

In its response to Intel, AMD pointed to its earlier shipment of a 64-bit x86 chip and to its "AMD64" branding of the technology. "AMD welcomes Intel to the world of AMD64, said Ben Williams, director of server and workstation marketing at AMD.

[Marshmallowman]

I think yamhill was always going to x86-64.

So thats the second large AMD standard intel has started using (that and Hyper Transport)

Times are a chang'in

[The PIT]

Bad news for AMD though as it'll stop users jumping ship. What AMD need is more reliable chipsets/drivers from Via and Nvidea. I thought Nvidea was more reliable but I keep hearing the odd rumble of discontent.
There was no way Intel was going to let AMD have it there own way.

[Indiana]

Originally posted by The PIT
Bad news for AMD though as it'll stop users jumping ship. What AMD need is more reliable chipsets/drivers from Via and Nvidea. I thought Nvidea was more reliable but I keep hearing the odd rumble of discontent.
There was no way Intel was going to let AMD have it there own way.

The 64Bit capabilities should be no reason for anyone to jump ship now - considering the amount of 64bit software and the sorry state of the 64Bit Windows test versions (don't even talk about the drivers )

What IS a reason to jump ship is the Athlon64s superior gaming performance rivalled only by the ridicuously expensive P4EE - and this won't change in the near future....


Regarding chipsets: The VIA K8T800 boards run as stable as any i875 / i865 Boards - the latter Intel chipsets do have their share of compatibility problems with specific hardware and/or AGP8x and/or Fastwrites, and/or....
All in all there's no real difference in stability between a recent AMD system and a recent Intel-system.
Old Intel systems might be more stable than both of the above, but do not perform well.

[isochar]

But Xeons are not intended for gaming...

[Chrono_Wanderer]

SiS's PCI-Ex chip should be here soon....

since nvidia anounced GeForce PCX yesterday... at IDF

[VJ]

I wonder if there will be versions that suit existing mainboards... hmmm... 64-bit Xeons on i7505 perhaps ?


Jörg

[KvHagedorn]

Why would anyone want some cheap clone chip? Better to stick with genuine AMD.

[isochar]

Originally posted by VJ
I wonder if there will be versions that suit existing mainboards... hmmm... 64-bit Xeons on i7505 perhaps ?


Jörg

No. The 64-bit enabled chips will use the 775 "pin" ball-grid interface.