There was a rumour not so long ago, after Intel had copied the AMD64
instruction set that Intel had already developed and abandonned its own
extensions a long time ago, so it wasn't really copying AMD. I think
either Barrett or Otellini or both implied as much in some statements,
which I can't find right now.

Anyways this old article from around the time of the Opteron's original
release, there was an interview with an Intel official. The official
stated that they had investigated adding 64-bit extensions to the x86,
but decided it was too difficult.

"Despite the advantages, converting a 32-bit machine into a 64-bit one
isn't easy. Four separate design teams at Intel examined how the company
could take one of its 32-bit chips and transform it into a 64-bit
machine, said Richard Wirt, another senior fellow at Intel. After
running simulations, all four teams concluded that such a transition
wouldn't be economically feasible, he said."
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-985432.html

Obviously the following year after this article, Intel changed its mind
completely and added x64 after all. But it does show it had no active
pre-existing research project into the 64-bit extensions, and it just
followed AMD's design lead on it.

Yousuf Khan

> There was a rumour not so long ago, after Intel had copied the AMD64
> instruction set that Intel had already developed and abandonned its own
> extensions a long time ago, so it wasn't really copying AMD.

That's not a rumor.

>I think
> either Barrett or Otellini or both implied as much in some statements,
> which I can't find right now.

It wasn't just them.

> Anyways this old article from around the time of the Opteron's original
> release, there was an interview with an Intel official. The official
> stated that they had investigated adding 64-bit extensions to the x86,
> but decided it was too difficult.

I really hope you don't believe everything you read.

> "Despite the advantages, converting a 32-bit machine into a 64-bit one
> isn't easy. Four separate design teams at Intel examined how the company
> could take one of its 32-bit chips and transform it into a 64-bit
> machine, said Richard Wirt, another senior fellow at Intel. After
> running simulations, all four teams concluded that such a transition
> wouldn't be economically feasible, he said."
> http://news.com.com/2100-1001-985432.html

He's toeing the party line here, converting to 64b isn't that hard.
The P4 made it a bit harder...but hardly impossible. Intel probably
decided not to go down this route because they wanted folks to use IPF
and because it didn't make sense to push desktop x86 to 64b. Now, that
might have been a good differentiating feature for Xeons versus
Pentiums, but I think it's too much of a change to be feasible between
what are largely similar cores.

Moreover, you should see the large hole in your theory:
Intel might have more than 4 design teams. Oops, suddenly Wirt's
statement isn't as insightful.

> Obviously the following year after this article, Intel changed its mind
> completely and added x64 after all. But it does show it had no active
> pre-existing research project into the 64-bit extensions, and it just
> followed AMD's design lead on it.

No, they really did...a long time back. I can't speak for Wirt or any
executives, but I know people who worked on 64 bit extensions to x86
that were canned. You're obviously entitled to believe what ever you
want, but your conclusions are wrong.

DK

Wasn't that the imfamous "Yamhill" project?

There's certainly a ton of old stuff still on the web about it.

gaf1234567890 wrote:
> Wasn't that the imfamous "Yamhill" project?
>
> There's certainly a ton of old stuff still on the web about it.

No Yamhill was Intel's reverse engineering of AMD's x86-64 spec. What
I am talking about is before Yamhill.

DK

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 00:00:34 -0500, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>There was a rumour not so long ago, after Intel had copied the AMD64
>instruction set that Intel had already developed and abandonned its own
>extensions a long time ago, so it wasn't really copying AMD. I think
>either Barrett or Otellini or both implied as much in some statements,
>which I can't find right now.
>
>Anyways this old article from around the time of the Opteron's original
>release, there was an interview with an Intel official. The official
>stated that they had investigated adding 64-bit extensions to the x86,
>but decided it was too difficult.
>
>"Despite the advantages, converting a 32-bit machine into a 64-bit one
>isn't easy. Four separate design teams at Intel examined how the company
>could take one of its 32-bit chips and transform it into a 64-bit
>machine, said Richard Wirt, another senior fellow at Intel. After
>running simulations, all four teams concluded that such a transition
>wouldn't be economically feasible, he said."

Of course it "wouldn't be economically feasible" because it would sink
Itanic - just as we are witnessing today. With all the billions of
investment sinking with it.

>http://news.com.com/2100-1001-985432.html
>
>Obviously the following year after this article, Intel changed its mind
>completely and added x64 after all. But it does show it had no active
>pre-existing research project into the 64-bit extensions, and it just
>followed AMD's design lead on it.

Was it pre-existing Yamhill design with some tweaks to get it
compatible with AMD instruction set, or just a rush copy job (call it
reverse-engineering of AMD64 or whatever) - doesn't matter at this
point. Now AMD64 is a fact of life, and most likely Vista will take
it mainstream.
>
> Yousuf Khan

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Of course it "wouldn't be economically feasible" because it would sink
> Itanic - just as we are witnessing today. With all the billions of
> investment sinking with it.

LOL! Sure that's one way to interpret that.

But I think what they were referring to was that they were looking to
extend the x86 architecture out to 64-bit even before they embarked on
the Itanium project. And then after they did all of the feasibility
studies, they decided that Itanium was the better 64-bit route to
follow.

> >Obviously the following year after this article, Intel changed its mind
> >completely and added x64 after all. But it does show it had no active
> >pre-existing research project into the 64-bit extensions, and it just
> >followed AMD's design lead on it.
>
> Was it pre-existing Yamhill design with some tweaks to get it
> compatible with AMD instruction set, or just a rush copy job (call it
> reverse-engineering of AMD64 or whatever) - doesn't matter at this
> point. Now AMD64 is a fact of life, and most likely Vista will take
> it mainstream.

No, Yamhill was initiated after AMD64 came out. It then got renamed to
Clackamas, then CT, then IA-32e, and finally EM64T. It was always after
AMD64, but the only thing mysterious about it was whether it was going
to follow AMD64 exactly, or was it going to venture out in a different
backward-compatible direction. I got the feeling that they were
venturing into a different direction with Yamhill, but then Microsoft
got word of it, and told them to change it back to AMD64, and thus it
got renamed to Clackamas.

Yousuf Khan

David Kanter wrote:

>gaf1234567890 wrote:
>> Wasn't that the imfamous "Yamhill" project?
>>
>> There's certainly a ton of old stuff still on the web about it.
>
>No Yamhill was Intel's reverse engineering of AMD's x86-64 spec. What
>I am talking about is before Yamhill.

In the end, didn't Intel trade SSE(X) for AMD64?

David Kanter wrote:
>>Anyways this old article from around the time of the Opteron's original
>>release, there was an interview with an Intel official. The official
>>stated that they had investigated adding 64-bit extensions to the x86,
>>but decided it was too difficult.
>
>
> I really hope you don't believe everything you read.

You are really going to have to be more specific here. How far did Intel
get in its design? Did it define new instructions, new memory models,
lay down circuits, etc.? Or did it just run some preliminary
simulations? From what I can see here, all they ever did was run some
simulations and then declared it a lost cause.

>>"Despite the advantages, converting a 32-bit machine into a 64-bit one
>>isn't easy. Four separate design teams at Intel examined how the company
>>could take one of its 32-bit chips and transform it into a 64-bit
>>machine, said Richard Wirt, another senior fellow at Intel. After
>>running simulations, all four teams concluded that such a transition
>>wouldn't be economically feasible, he said."
>>http://news.com.com/2100-1001-985432.html
>
>
> He's toeing the party line here, converting to 64b isn't that hard.
> The P4 made it a bit harder...but hardly impossible. Intel probably
> decided not to go down this route because they wanted folks to use IPF
> and because it didn't make sense to push desktop x86 to 64b. Now, that
> might have been a good differentiating feature for Xeons versus
> Pentiums, but I think it's too much of a change to be feasible between
> what are largely similar cores.

Actually it was a pretty major feat. I certainly didn't think it was
possible, either. They increased some things, and reduced other things;
up until that point the x86 design was just a continuous series of
adding stuff in, but never removing things. I didn't see them doubling
the number of general purpose and SSE registers. Removing the segment
mechanism. And they did this while still maintaining backward
compatibility in the 32-bit modes. I knew if they kept the segment
mechanism, they'd have a lot of trouble, but I never imagined they could
actually decide to get rid of it.

>
> Moreover, you should see the large hole in your theory:
> Intel might have more than 4 design teams. Oops, suddenly Wirt's
> statement isn't as insightful.

All Wirt said was that they assigned 4 design teams to work on this
specific project. They're not going to assign all of their design teams
to work on this project. And the 4 teams just did simulations, and then
stopped. We don't know how detailed of a simulation they did.

>>Obviously the following year after this article, Intel changed its mind
>>completely and added x64 after all. But it does show it had no active
>>pre-existing research project into the 64-bit extensions, and it just
>>followed AMD's design lead on it.
>
>
> No, they really did...a long time back. I can't speak for Wirt or any
> executives, but I know people who worked on 64 bit extensions to x86
> that were canned. You're obviously entitled to believe what ever you
> want, but your conclusions are wrong.

But you don't know how far along the design process these guys got into.

Yousuf Khan

chrisv wrote:
> In the end, didn't Intel trade SSE(X) for AMD64?

I think they didn't have to trade anything for anything. Intel's cross
license allowed it to take AMD64, while AMD's cross licence allowed it
to take SSE. However, AMD's cross license didn't allow it to take
Intel's FSB, therefore Intel's cross license didn't allow it to take
Hypertransport, either.

Yousuf Khan

> You are really going to have to be more specific here. How far did Intel
> get in its design? Did it define new instructions, new memory models,
> lay down circuits, etc.? Or did it just run some preliminary
> simulations? From what I can see here, all they ever did was run some
> simulations and then declared it a lost cause.

Unfortunately, I cannot be much more specific in public...since a lot
of this information could get someone fired or in trouble.

> >>"Despite the advantages, converting a 32-bit machine into a 64-bit one
> >>isn't easy. Four separate design teams at Intel examined how the company
> >>could take one of its 32-bit chips and transform it into a 64-bit
> >>machine, said Richard Wirt, another senior fellow at Intel. After
> >>running simulations, all four teams concluded that such a transition
> >>wouldn't be economically feasible, he said."
> >>http://news.com.com/2100-1001-985432.html
> >
> >
> > He's toeing the party line here, converting to 64b isn't that hard.
> > The P4 made it a bit harder...but hardly impossible. Intel probably
> > decided not to go down this route because they wanted folks to use IPF
> > and because it didn't make sense to push desktop x86 to 64b. Now, that
> > might have been a good differentiating feature for Xeons versus
> > Pentiums, but I think it's too much of a change to be feasible between
> > what are largely similar cores.
>
> Actually it was a pretty major feat.

I don't really agree. I think the path to 64b was pretty obvious, and
both AMD and Intel probably filled in the dots (so to speak) in their
specs. I bet if you talked to smart engineers from AMD and Intel
in...let's say 1997 about a hypothetical 64b x86 they would come up
with very similar notions about what to do.

> I certainly didn't think it was
> possible, either. They increased some things, and reduced other things;
> up until that point the x86 design was just a continuous series of
> adding stuff in, but never removing things. I didn't see them doubling
> the number of general purpose and SSE registers. Removing the segment
> mechanism. And they did this while still maintaining backward
> compatibility in the 32-bit modes. I knew if they kept the segment
> mechanism, they'd have a lot of trouble, but I never imagined they could
> actually decide to get rid of it.

Keeping segments in 64b would have been retarded. I wouldn't have done
it, and if I could figure that out, I'm sure Intel and AMD could.

> > Moreover, you should see the large hole in your theory:
> > Intel might have more than 4 design teams. Oops, suddenly Wirt's
> > statement isn't as insightful.
>
> All Wirt said was that they assigned 4 design teams to work on this
> specific project. They're not going to assign all of their design teams
> to work on this project. And the 4 teams just did simulations, and then
> stopped. We don't know how detailed of a simulation they did.

His statement also doesn't rule out that the fact that another team
might have gone a lot farther. Let's just pretend for a second,
suppose one of the teams found that it was a great idea to go to 64b
and would improve performance, cure cancer, end world hunger etc.

Now, suppose someone said: "this will kill Itanium" and Intel therefore
decided x86 should be 32b as a result. Do you expect someone from
Intel to say "We decided not to pursue x86 for marketing reasons
relating to IA64?" in public? Maybe 20-30 years from now, but not in
2003.

> > No, they really did...a long time back. I can't speak for Wirt or any
> > executives, but I know people who worked on 64 bit extensions to x86
> > that were canned. You're obviously entitled to believe what ever you
> > want, but your conclusions are wrong.
>
> But you don't know how far along the design process these guys got into.

I know a bit; not a lot, but I can't really share a lot of that
information.

DK