Innocent Devil Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 Microsoft named the 64 bit OS as Windows XP x64 or Windows Server 2003 x64so the application developers toowhere x64 come from ?the 32 bit intel Arch. is generally termed as "x86"But the newer 64 bit Arch is an extension to the same x86 arch & can run x86 arch apps.comparing x86 & x64 it seems to be a degradation ,isn't it ?so the 64 bit arch should be named "x86-64" bcoz it is an extension to x86Where did th 86 go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zxian Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 The x86 definition of processors refers to the instruction sets used by commonplace CPUs (Pentium4, Athlon, and variants). It's meant to be an extension of the old 86, 286, 386, and 486 processors.For a while, the original Pentium processor was dubbed the 586, but Intel wanted a stronger marketing platform, and therefore dubbed their new processor the Intel Pentium.You're entirely correct about the 64-bit architechture being an extension upon the existing x86 platform, and it is infact called x86-64 (Many 64-bit Linux distros are labeled with this).My guess is that the x86 was simply dropped since most consumers don't really know the history of processors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin L Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 AMD has x64 and Intel has x86-64... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zxian Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 Nope... AMD still uses the x86-64 instruction set. Look at any CPU-Z screenshot from an Athlon64 CPU.All "common" CPUs (any you would typically find in a home computer) are based on the x86 instruction set. The 64-bit processors have an extended version of x86 to allow for 64-bit processing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin L Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 woops my bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcloud Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 How can the architecture be the same if it is different. Does that mean it will run on the same processors built for x32? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zxian Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 The architechture is different for 64-bit processors. That's what makes it a 64-bit processor... What you're probably thinking of is the fact that the 64-bit architecture is backwards compatible, meaning that a processor that can handle the x86-64 instructions can also handle x86 instructions.The instructions are the software, the architecture is the hardware. Simply put, the old software can run on new hardware, but not the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcloud Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Yes, this is what I meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amp_man Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 (edited) For a while, the original Pentium processor was dubbed the 586, but Intel wanted a stronger marketing platform, and therefore dubbed their new processor the Intel Pentium.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Nope. Don't mean to sound like a prick or anything, but I still have one of these. The 586 was basically a 486 on steroids, it had a few extra extensions, and was usually clocked slightly faster (mine's 100MHz, but then again, I had a 150MHz 486). Most of the 586s were actually manufactured by IBM or Cyrix (Cyrix having since been bought out by Via), and Cyrix called them officially the 5x86, this is what I have. The Pentium and K5/6 lines were actually known (to those who actually gave a ****) as the 686s (and the Cyrix MII was the 6x86), and since then, the actual numbering has been dropped in favor of the generic "x86", since AMD and Intel have split so greatly in the architecture of their CPUs, and the other companies (Evergreen, IBM, Cyrix, and many others) have moved on to other markets or closed their doors.So, there's your history lesson for today Edited August 19, 2005 by amp_man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now