Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 5 Feb 2005 14:18:08 -0800
From:      "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org>
To:        Astrodog <astrodog@gmail.com>, freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Intel EMT64 Xeon vs AMD Opteron
Message-ID:  <20050205221808.GA9350@dragon.nuxi.com>
In-Reply-To: <42044AAF.1010002@freebsd.org>
References:  <000001c50a3c$50f2eba0$6800000a@r3140ca> <20050204103708.21608.qmail@web26801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <2fd864e05020419382a5e21b3@mail.gmail.com> <42044AAF.1010002@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ 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)



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050205221808.GA9350>