User:Inter/AMD

The AMD64 section in AMD gotta go. Not sure where to put it or how to merge it yet. Pasting it here to retain it while I think it over.

AMD64
AMD's future strategy is shown with the 64-bit AMD64 "Hammer" architecture (a.k.a. K8), based on the AMD Opteron. Whilst retaining support for the traditional x86 instruction set, the Hammer's native 64-bit mode is unique to AMD processors and incompatible with the IA-64 architecture used in Intel's Itanium processor (Intel has since announced an extension to their Xeon CPU based on and compatible with AMD64 known as EM64T). As a relatively straightforward extension and cleanup of the basic x86 architecture, from a technical perspective AMD's conservative approach looks likely to produce, at least initially, better price-performance than the Itanium and its successors.

This also gives AMD a marketing advantage in that it can leverage its ordinary 32-bit x86 processor market to naturally upgrade and adopt its 64-bit processors without introducing risk to the existing software infrastructure. The potential for this processor to compete with Itanium head on in its intended markets (high-end 64 bit servers) remains unclear.

AMD released its first AMD64 processor (K8), the Opteron, in March 2003. The Opteron is designed for workstation and server systems, including those containing more than one processor. However, Cray Inc. announced that it was going to use the Opteron as the basis for a top of the line super computer called "Red Storm", indicating that there seemed to be no limit for what sort of applications the Opteron could be used for. AMD then released Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 FX in September 2003 based on the same core architecture, which most benchmarks indicated both as performing equal or better than the Pentium 4. The Pentium 4 was previously a boon to Athlon 64, and had retained its performance advantage in streaming media processing applications. As of November 2004, there had been the 2700+, 2800+, 3000+, 3200+, 3400+, 3700+, 3800+, and 4000+ for the Athlon 64.

The AMD Athlon FX and the Opteron use a different numbering system. The Opteron includes three series, the 100's, 200's, and the 800's, each of which are meant for different types of servers and workstations. 100 Series Opterons are intended for Workstation, and uniprocessor configuration. The 200 series are intended for workstation or server use, and are not qualified to use more than 2 processors in the same system. 800 Series Opterons are used in 4 or 8 way (CPU) servers which anchor some of the most powerful computers built using Opteron. The Athlon 64 FX uses numbers going up, starting with 51. The three models available for the high-end Athlon FX include the FX-51, FX-53 and the FX-55. The recent release of the Athlon 64 FX-55 has shown that up against the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, you can't lose if you have the cash to spend on one, as the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition loses out on many categories that it previously held the crown in (like Media Encoding or Adobe Premiere). AMD thus regains the crown in those areas once again. The Hammer core is very similar to the Athlon in basic microarchitecture, but includes 4 major differences:


 * 1) The inclusion of the AMD64 instruction set;
 * 2) A built-in DDR memory controller;
 * 3) The HyperTransport point-to-point-bus.
 * 4) Support for the NX, or No-Execute bit, which serves to act as a hardware buffer against viruses and other software exploits.

These improve both the capabilities and performance of the Hammer versus the K7 Athlon.