Core 2 Duo x86 8 replies

Please wait...

error41

Your mom is over 9000!!!!!!111

50 XP

9th April 2006

0 Uploads

597 Posts

0 Threads

#1 12 years ago

I am running a core 2 duo e6600 which I thought was a 64 bit (x64) processor. If I open up its properties and check details it says something along the lines of ACPI-Genuineintel-x86..-..Family etc. Does this mean it is actually 32 bit or is it just because my os is a 32 bit interface?




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#2 12 years ago

X86 just means it supports legacy CPU X86 code. AMD X2's are also 64 bit CPU's but also support legacy X86 code.

X86 code is still the standard.

x86 architecture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#3 12 years ago

...

No, it means that, like everything else Intel sells to the common man, it's based on the same architecture developed by IBM and originally given to the world in the form of the... 8086.

64-bit extensions have nothing to do with architecture, and all Conroes have them.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#4 12 years ago

C38368;3806790...

No, it means that, like everything else Intel sells to the common man, it's based on the same architecture developed by IBM and originally given to the world in the form of the... 8086.

64-bit extensions have nothing to do with architecture, and all Conroes have them.

Just repeatin whats fed me

64-bit Long Mode

Main article: x86-64

By 2002, it was obvious that the 32-bit address space of the x86 architecture was limiting its performance in applications requiring large data sets. A 32-bit address space would allow the processor to directly address only 4 GB of data, a size surpassed by applications such as video processing and database engines, while using the 64-bit address, one can directly address 16777216 TiB (more than 16 billion MB) of data, although most 64-bit architectures don't support access to the full 64-bit address space (AMD64, for example, supports only 48 bits, split into 4 paging levels, from a 64-bit address).

AMD, who would traditionally follow the lead of Intel, took the initiative of extending the 32-bit x86 architecture to 64-bit, initially calling it x86-64, later renaming it AMD64. The Opteron, Athlon 64, Turion 64, and later Sempron families of processors use this architecture. The success of the AMD64 line of processors coupled with the lukewarm reception of the IA-64 architecture prompted Intel to reverse-engineer and adopt the instruction set, adding new extensions of its own and branding it the EM64T architecture, and later re-branding it Intel 64.

In its literature and product version names, Microsoft and Sun refer to AMD64/Intel 64 collectively as x64 in the Windows and Solaris operating systems respectively. Linux distributions refer to it either as "x86-64", its variant "x86_64", or "amd64". BSD systems use "amd64" while Mac OS X uses "x86_64".

This was the first time that a major upgrade of the x86 architecture was initiated and originated by a manufacturer other than Intel. It was also the first time that Intel accepted technology of this nature from an outside source.




marvinmatthew

Tech is where you'll find me..

50 XP

13th April 2005

0 Uploads

3,627 Posts

0 Threads

#5 12 years ago

You just need to install a 64-bit OS in order for Windows to recognize the chips 64-bit potential.




error41

Your mom is over 9000!!!!!!111

50 XP

9th April 2006

0 Uploads

597 Posts

0 Threads

#6 12 years ago

Thankyou, I do appreciate the quick replies. Just making sure.




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#7 12 years ago
Anlushac11;3806800Just repeatin whats fed me

I wasn't responding to you; we replied to the OP at the same time.

That article isn't correct, however.

Rewind 25 years: IBM didn't want to be in the business of either producing 8086 chips for themselves or evolving the architecture all that much, so it was licensed to Intel. IBM also didn't want a sole supplier, and part of the license required that Intel share the production with another company, which was (or would become--I'm not sure) AMD. That contract (possibly the patent on x86) expired not all that long after Intel introduced Pentium or Pentium II. This is when AMD introduced K6. Cyrix (now owned by VIA) came along around this time with their 686 chip, and the whole lot of them (PII, K6, etc) were all sixth-generation evolutions of x86. Fast forward most of a decade and Intel launches Itanium, using their proprietary IA64 architecture, which was not based on x86, but was rather a ground-up design. About this time, Intel (probably with Netburst) started calling their x86 implementations IA32 internally.

x86-64 was (and to a lesser extent, is) a generic catch-all for 64-bit extensions for the x86 architecture. AMD and Intel call their versions AMD64 EM64T, respectively, but it's all the same.

Depending on who you ask, Intel either reverse engineered AMD's extensions (likely), or had extensions written into the original Netburst design (also likely). The most likley story is that both are true, but M$ refused to redesign their codebases for two 64-bit extension sets (as they had previously done for IA64), citing that "enough is enough," so Intel incorporated AMD64-compatible extensions into EM64T.

And that brings us current.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#8 12 years ago

The story I heard was that when IBM started supplying Computers to the Military the Military told IBM you have to select to alternate suppliers in case of a attack and one of you is wiped out the others can continue the work.

IBM chose Intel and AMD. Intel was larger and better known and IBM had worked with them before. AMD was a small company not very well known.

The way I remember the 64 bit stuff was Intel was going to try and force everyone to IA-64 which ran 64 bit applications really well but ran 32 bit apps like crap.

AMD's 64 bit extension on the other hand ran 64 bit really well but it also ran legacy 165 bit and 32 bit apps just as well. Many companies were not ready to migrate and develop new technology and programs for 64 bit so AMD got alot of support. IA-64 just never caught on. If it had and AMD had not come up with their 64 bit extensions we probably would be living with 64 bit apps as standard.




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#9 12 years ago
Anlushac11;3807521The story I heard was that when IBM started supplying Computers to the Military the Military told IBM you have to select to alternate suppliers in case of a attack and one of you is wiped out the others can continue the work.

Could be; I don't recall the specifics.

The way I remember the 64 bit stuff was Intel was going to try and force everyone to IA-64 which ran 64 bit applications really well but ran 32 bit apps like crap.

IA-64 was just as capable with 32-bit applications as it was with 64-bit applications. But the compiler was very expensive to license, so why would a company in need of Itanium compile anything for 32-bit application? You're confusing "32-bit apps" for anything and everything compiled for x86. Itanium & Itanium 2 both contained an x86 emulation unit that was capable of essentially decompiling an x86 app run on the platform and recompiling it as an IA-64 app. This process was, however, very inefficient. This is where the reduced performance came from.

AMD's 64 bit extension on the other hand ran 64 bit really well but it also ran legacy 165 bit and 32 bit apps just as well. Many companies were not ready to migrate and develop new technology and programs for 64 bit so AMD got alot of support. IA-64 just never caught on. If it had and AMD had not come up with their 64 bit extensions we probably would be living with 64 bit apps as standard.

EM64T runs 16- and 32-bit stuff just fine. Probably 8-bit as well. The problem in running "old" apps isn't with hardware; it's a software issue.