Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 5 Feb 2005 17:49:23 -0800
From:      Astrodog <astrodog@gmail.com>
To:        freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Intel EMT64 Xeon vs AMD Opteron
Message-ID:  <2fd864e05020517493a84ca5d@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050205221808.GA9350@dragon.nuxi.com>
References:  <000001c50a3c$50f2eba0$6800000a@r3140ca> <20050204103708.21608.qmail@web26801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <2fd864e05020419382a5e21b3@mail.gmail.com> <20050205221808.GA9350@dragon.nuxi.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 14:18:08 -0800, David O'Brien <obrien@freebsd.org> wrote:
> [ Please don't cross post! ]
> 
> On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 09:25:19PM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
> > Astrodog wrote:
> > >From what I understand, EM64T is essentally an extention to x86, so
> > >it will understand the AMD64 instructions, much the same way an
> > >Athlon64 does. Opteron, once again, from what I've read on the topic
> > >is "Actual" 64-bit, not an emulated version.
> ..
> > Both the AMD and Intel offering are just extensions to the ia32 design.
> > Opteron is no more 'true' 64-bit than Nacona is.
> 
> Just as the i386 was just extensions to the 80286 design, which was just
> extensions to the original 8086 design. ;-)
> 
> And just as the UltraSparc (Sparc v9) is just extensions to the 32-bit
> Sparc v8.
> 
> Astrodog, I'm courous, what is the definition of a True 64-bit CPU?
> 
> --
> -- David  (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
> 

Fair question. One I can't answer particularly well. I must admit
thats more AMD's marketing-speak than my own. I have noticed some
performance benifits on Opteron/AMD64, over Athlon64 processors, which
seemed to match what they said, and be unrelated to Hypertransport,
and cache. *shrug*

--- Harrison Grundy



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2fd864e05020517493a84ca5d>