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>
index | next in thread | raw e-mail
>> 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. Tomhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B1D77424948FD611A3B80000C0109EEF024FB103>