Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 18:18:56 -0700 From: "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" <chad@shire.net> To: RW <list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: EM64T supported? Message-ID: <0F1E68F2-D2C9-4E20-8B55-83786ED12AB4@shire.net> In-Reply-To: <200511180035.18168.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> References: <20051117150323.U1019@ganymede.hub.org> <437CD68F.2030008@t-hosting.hu> <200511180035.18168.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Nov 17, 2005, at 5:35 PM, RW wrote: > On Thursday 17 November 2005 19:14, K=F6vesd=E1n G=E1bor wrote: >> EM64T is Intel's 64-bit processor architecture. It uses 64 bit =20 >> registers >> so it gets around the 4GB limit. It is very similar to AMD64 >> architecture ... > > > IA-64 was Intel's 64-bit architecture. IA-64 is one of Intel's architectures. > EM64T is Intel's attempt to make AMD64 > compatible processors. EM64T is another of Intels 64bit architectures. Happens to be =20 (mostly) compatible with AMD 64 bit but it is Intel's. Intel may =20 have been inspired (read copied) AMDs, but AMD's is called something =20 else. "is" as in "belongs to", not as in "developed by". AMD calls =20 theirs something different and I believe the opcode mnemonics are =20 different. Chad > > Credit where credit's due. --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad@shire.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0F1E68F2-D2C9-4E20-8B55-83786ED12AB4>