*** From the Archives ***

This article is from November 14, 2002, and is no longer current.

Under the Desktop: Do Content Creators Dream of 64-Bit Chips?

Content creators often seek ways to eke out just a bit more performance from their workflow. This search can be expressed as the nexus of two time-tested adages: "time is money" and "a penny saved is a penny earned." It’s an incremental process.

The logical starting point for such time saving is the processor in our system. We hope that a faster processor can trim seconds off the time it takes to apply a Photoshop filter or twiddle an image pixel.

As I’ve noted before, a faster processor isn’t necessarily a strict measure of performance, especially when comparing different processor architectures, such as the situation between Macs and PCs. In addition, the installed memory, the disk cache, and other hardware and system software tweaks can prove of equal or greater importance for overall performance, depending upon the hardware configuration and the job at hand.

Yet, the arrival of 64-bit processors to the creative desktop — the same high-powered computing now used in CAD and scientific workstations — could provide our imaging applications with a significant jump forward in performance. As I mentioned in my previous column about the recent Microprocessor Forum conference, 64-bit addressing can handle large operations that are currently difficult or impossible for current 32-bit systems. And they usually do everything else faster too.

A number of chip manufacturers discussed their 64-bit and 32-bit roadmaps. For Windows users there was Advanced Micro Devices’ Opteron line of processors and Intel’s IA-64 series, called Itanium. In the earlier column, I ran down in excruciating detail IBM’s PowerPC 970, the 64-bit chip that reportedly will be the next-generation processor for the next-generation Power Macintosh about a year from now. (Who knows? Perhaps the PowerPC 970 will be dubbed the generation-after-next, depending on Apple’s marketing during the year ahead).

While the needs of professional content creators rarely arose as a topic at the conference — there were brief mentions in sessions for desktop and server processors — I was very interested in the presentation covering AMD’s Opteron processor in the server section. This chip holds considerable promise to bring new performance levels to machines running Windows (or Linux, if you’re into that OS).

Opteron Opportunities
Code-named SledgeHammer, Opteron is AMD’s high-performance processor aimed primarily at server applications and Unix workstations. The chip is due in machines by the middle of 2003 (see figure 1).

Figure 1: If seeing is believing, then the Opteron is real and here it is. Of course, AMD neglected to provide any scale, like a dime or a quarter. This could be a pair of earrings, except one is gold and the other silver, or maybe a cigarette case. When compared to competing high-end server chips, Opteron is small. For example, Intel’s Itanium is 460 square millimeters while the Opteron is only 180 mm2.

Opteron offers a number of useful features for creative pros: it provides very high integer and floating-point performance, both of which are helpful for heavyweight content creation; and it supports up to 5.3 GB of DDR RAM.

In addition, the chip can be easily used for multiple processor system and incorporates HyperTransport, a new industry-standard bus architecture to interconnect processors, memory and other system components (see figure 2).

Figure 2: AMD marketing (and engineering) seem to believe in repurposing designs. This old diagram of the "Hammer" architecture is exactly the same as the one found in their Opteron literature, expect that the word "Hammer" is replaced by Opteron, without quote marks. Note the HyperTransport layer at the bottom. This technology is offered royalty free through the HyperTransport Consortium and is already supported on some graphics cards.

According to Fred Weber, vice president of AMD’s computational products group, a 2-GHz Opteron will be speedy indeed. Using the Standard Performance Evaluation Corp. 2000 (SPEC2000) tests, he said the chip rated a 1,202 and 1,170 for integer and floating-point performance, respectively; in comparison, according to InStat/MDR, a 2.5-MHz Intel Xeon currently holds respective 893 and 878 ratings. And 1.8-GHz PowerPC 970 provides 937 and 1,051 for the integer and floating-point tests, respectively.

Just as important for content creators, the Opteron is designed to run both 32-bit and 64-bit programs. While program developers will need to rewrite their applications to support this capability, still, users will be able to take advantage of the processor’s high speed for their current Windows applications. The forthcoming PowerPC 970 offers a similar value proposition to Mac users.

Several Linux vendors announced support for this x86-64 capability; Windows developers will need a set of 64-bit extensions to Windows. (It’s often difficult to gauge Microsoft’s level of support for any technology and the company publicly supports the Opteron. At the same time, one Geek.com report drew consternation when Microsoft representatives left the Opteron out of a presentation on 64-bit .NET servers at a Japanese conference and only mentioned the Intel Itanium processor. The old FUD at work.)

If you’re interested in more details about the Opteron, check out the lengthy overview at Tom’s Hardware Guides.

Compare and Contrast
AMDS’s decision to provide the Opteron with 32-bit backward compatibility (or 64-bit forward compatibility, depending upon your situation and application) is opposite to the course taken by Intel. The result may prove a mixed result for content creators.

Long ago, Intel bifurcated its processor lines into 32-bit and 64-bit architectures, called IA-32 and IA-64, respectively. The Itanium and the recently announced Itanium2 chips are the representatives of the IA-64 line, while the IA-32 camp is crowded with different flavors of Pentium 4, including the Celeron on the low end and the Xeon for the high end.

And that split approach has been successful. Intel has driven the performance of its IA-32 processors to amazing lengths. This week, it announced 3-GHz Pentium 4 chips and at the conference there were presentations on HyperThreading, its acceleration scheme used in some processors, as well as Banias, which is a technology that improves performance in versions aimed at notebook and embedded applications.

However, the Itanium’s 64-bit capabilities may prove out of reach for professional content creation applications. In a presentation at the chip conference, Robert Yung, Intel’s chief technology officer of its enterprise processor division, explained that the 64-bit processor line was aimed at large database servers and engineering analysis workstations. That’s it. The company puts content creation tasks into a 32-bit market segment dubbed "Financial/Multimedia Applications." Intel offers the Xeon for these applications.

For entry-level servers, Intel’s Xeon "offers a good, low-cost solution," said MDR General Manager Kevin Krewell. "But when it comes to floating point, that’s the area that it’s must vulnerable to the [AMD] SledgeHammer."

While the AMD processor offers exceptional floating-point performance for 32-bit applications, content creators could also make good use of 64-bit addressing, Krewell pointed out. "As data sets grow larger, servers and graphic workstations will require 64-bit computing. It’s not a question of if, [rather] it’s when."

And there’s the conundrum. Developers of professional content creation tools on the Windows platform face a tough decision on the 64-bit question: Should they program an entirely separate version for the Itanium, ignoring Intel’s market segmentation advice; or write an x86-64 version for the AMD Opteron? Or instead, do they simply keep improving their 32-bit software knowing that both Intel and AMD’s processors will provide a fast hardware platform for their code.

The safe bet is on the latter course. Most developers will take the path of least resistance where it comes to 64-bit addressing, and it will be tough to blame them.

As the rabbinic saying goes: "Not to answer is one kind of answer." Still, that lack of response from developers could turn Krewell’s "when" into a 64-bit "whenever."

Read more by David Morgenstern.

>