Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 12:58:55 -0500 From: "Haapanen, Tom" <tomh@waterloo.equitrac.com> To: amd64@freebsd.org Subject: RE: AMD64 and lang/gcc3x on -CURRENT Message-ID: <B1D77424948FD611A3B80000C0109EEF024FB103@SYNCRO>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> However, Intel haven't chosen either of the two names.. >> They've done their own one. "IA-32e" was mentioned several times >> at the IDF this week. David O'Brien: > My guess is it would wreck havoc with Intel's FUD that AMD64 isn't > really 64-bits if Intel also used "64" in the platform's name. Intel has > having to walk a very fine line to keep from damaging other product > lines... Since there is no universal name for the architecture, and Intel essentially is duplicating the "AMD64" instruction set, it makes sense to continue to use "amd64", I think. This is the same logic as "i386" which is called many things now by many different manufactureres, but still refers to Intel's original name. Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B1D77424948FD611A3B80000C0109EEF024FB103>