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>