AMD's so called 64Bit Proc and the G5...
- Thread starter Tab
- Start date
Who cares about the G5, 'cept for appleheads....the Ilameium and I2 chips are also 64 bit - and only 64-bit, no x32 compatibility.
Both are true 64bit processors, when running the right OS. The 64bit registers make them true 64bit, but only 32 bit registers are used unless running in "64bit native" mode. What may have some people thinking that they arent true 64bit may be because of their 48bit memory adressing. Basically it comes down to the fact that adressing in the terabytes is plenty for quite some time, most people dont break the 2GB that is the limit with 32bit.
Here is a good link for technical info on the K8 architecture.
A quote:
"For those who really want to know what it takes to build a world class 64 bit speculative out of order processor core for a multi-processing environment."
Here is a good link for technical info on the K8 architecture.
A quote:
"For those who really want to know what it takes to build a world class 64 bit speculative out of order processor core for a multi-processing environment."
I agree 100%.
-The Athlon64/Opteron is indeed not 64-bit.
-Nvidia has never cheated on a benchmark (ever).
-The Catalyst 3.8's will make your monitor explode.
-ATI is cheating on virtually everything to get that kind of speed.
-AMD rules the 64-bit market with 100% marketshare.
-Intel is about to collapse under it's own weight.
-XGI will be ruling the video card market in 3 years.
Any more hearsay and rumours I can agree with
. What's next, Intel cheating on it's Hyperthreading??
-The Athlon64/Opteron is indeed not 64-bit.
-Nvidia has never cheated on a benchmark (ever).
-The Catalyst 3.8's will make your monitor explode.
-ATI is cheating on virtually everything to get that kind of speed.
-AMD rules the 64-bit market with 100% marketshare.
-Intel is about to collapse under it's own weight.
-XGI will be ruling the video card market in 3 years.
Any more hearsay and rumours I can agree with
. What's next, Intel cheating on it's Hyperthreading?? The A64 is not a true 64-bit chip. While the itanium does have 32-bit support. If you were to compare it to say the alpha or a power4+ core then you can see an actual full 64-bit chip. Most of which aren't stuck with any of the x86 underpinnings and inneficiencies. All amd did was tack on 64-bitness while keeping the same core as the k7. In all acuality the operon and all its derivitaves are not 64-bit chips for the general consumer either. So amd should stop spreading thier 64-bit lies about, since there isn't a release version of any windows that supports thier 64-bit extensions. You could go the linux route, but then there really isn't a consumer software base worth mentioning about. All they have is a beta MS OS. So it is not much of a 64-bit when hardly any installed base supports it. When it comes down to it, full 64-bit chips put the hurt on amd's butcher job that they had to do to the elderly x86 platform. If you were to compare the power4+, McKinley, and the operon all with the same storage, memory configurations, mhz, you would find that it looses out. Just put aside the fact that the power4+ integrates 4 cores onto one package.
So to answer the origional question I know for sure that the operon isn't a full 64-bit processor since it still contains x86, while I haven't heard much about the g5 at all.
http://www.digit-life.com/articles/ibmpower4/
Heres some indepth info about the power4+ core.
So to answer the origional question I know for sure that the operon isn't a full 64-bit processor since it still contains x86, while I haven't heard much about the g5 at all.
http://www.digit-life.com/articles/ibmpower4/
Heres some indepth info about the power4+ core.
Thats rediculus saying that the AMD64 is true 64bit because it is an extension of X86. Well with that reasoning, Intels IA32 isnt true 32bit because it is just an extension of 16bit.
Boonesmi
Lifer
- Feb 19, 2001
- 14,448
- 1
- 81
uhh get a clue... x86 and 64bit are not mutually exclusiveOriginally posted by: Wolfdog
The A64 is not a true 64-bit chip. While the itanium does have 32-bit support. If you were to compare it to say the alpha or a power4+ core then you can see an actual full 64-bit chip. Most of which aren't stuck with any of the x86 underpinnings and inneficiencies. All amd did was tack on 64-bitness while keeping the same core as the k7. In all acuality the operon and all its derivitaves are not 64-bit chips for the general consumer either. So amd should stop spreading thier 64-bit lies about, since there isn't a release version of any windows that supports thier 64-bit extensions. You could go the linux route, but then there really isn't a consumer software base worth mentioning about. All they have is a beta MS OS. So it is not much of a 64-bit when hardly any installed base supports it. When it comes down to it, full 64-bit chips put the hurt on amd's butcher job that they had to do to the elderly x86 platform. If you were to compare the power4+, McKinley, and the operon all with the same storage, memory configurations, mhz, you would find that it looses out. Just put aside the fact that the power4+ integrates 4 cores onto one package.
So to answer the origional question I know for sure that the operon isn't a full 64-bit processor since it still contains x86, while I haven't heard much about the g5 at all.
http://www.digit-life.com/articles/ibmpower4/
Heres some indepth info about the power4+ core.
true that most 64bit processors are not x86, but thats basically off topic and doesnt apply to the discussion
Originally posted by: Wolfdog
The A64 is not a true 64-bit chip. While the itanium does have 32-bit support. If you were to compare it to say the alpha or a power4+ core then you can see an actual full 64-bit chip. Most of which aren't stuck with any of the x86 underpinnings and inneficiencies. All amd did was tack on 64-bitness while keeping the same core as the k7. In all acuality the operon and all its derivitaves are not 64-bit chips for the general consumer either. So amd should stop spreading thier 64-bit lies about, since there isn't a release version of any windows that supports thier 64-bit extensions. You could go the linux route, but then there really isn't a consumer software base worth mentioning about. All they have is a beta MS OS. So it is not much of a 64-bit when hardly any installed base supports it. When it comes down to it, full 64-bit chips put the hurt on amd's butcher job that they had to do to the elderly x86 platform. If you were to compare the power4+, McKinley, and the operon all with the same storage, memory configurations, mhz, you would find that it looses out. Just put aside the fact that the power4+ integrates 4 cores onto one package.
So to answer the origional question I know for sure that the operon isn't a full 64-bit processor since it still contains x86, while I haven't heard much about the g5 at all.
http://www.digit-life.com/articles/ibmpower4/
Heres some indepth info about the power4+ core.
Dumb from the ground up!
DivideBYZero
Lifer
- May 18, 2001
- 24,117
- 2
- 0
Originally posted by: pspada
Originally posted by: Wolfdog
The A64 is not a true 64-bit chip. While the itanium does have 32-bit support. If you were to compare it to say the alpha or a power4+ core then you can see an actual full 64-bit chip. Most of which aren't stuck with any of the x86 underpinnings and inneficiencies. All amd did was tack on 64-bitness while keeping the same core as the k7. In all acuality the operon and all its derivitaves are not 64-bit chips for the general consumer either. So amd should stop spreading thier 64-bit lies about, since there isn't a release version of any windows that supports thier 64-bit extensions. You could go the linux route, but then there really isn't a consumer software base worth mentioning about. All they have is a beta MS OS. So it is not much of a 64-bit when hardly any installed base supports it. When it comes down to it, full 64-bit chips put the hurt on amd's butcher job that they had to do to the elderly x86 platform. If you were to compare the power4+, McKinley, and the operon all with the same storage, memory configurations, mhz, you would find that it looses out. Just put aside the fact that the power4+ integrates 4 cores onto one package.
So to answer the origional question I know for sure that the operon isn't a full 64-bit processor since it still contains x86, while I haven't heard much about the g5 at all.
http://www.digit-life.com/articles/ibmpower4/
Heres some indepth info about the power4+ core.
Dumb from the ground up!
I have to second that notion. This just doesn't make any sense! As said before, just because it has 32-bit compatibility does not exclude it from being a 64-bit chip!
they are true 64 bit chips simply because both can run programs that are 64 bit only. I dont know about the g5, but the athlon 64 series is 64 bit and can run 32bit as well. You cant go saying it is not 64 bit when it is capable of doing 64 bit things as we speak.Just wait for windows XP 64 bit edition. Then tell me amd 64 is not 64 bit.
DivideBYZero
Lifer
- May 18, 2001
- 24,117
- 2
- 0
Well of course it did! In appleland, reality is obviously warped, so why couldnt time be warped such that 6 months later is actually seen as happening earlier.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter