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>