OSDev.org

I'm a little bit confused, are those platforms 100% compatible? I wonder that because it's claimed that Intel has made its 64-bit processors compliant with the AMD64 ones to keep up with the market.

But if so, why are there AMD64 and IA64 versions of software packages?

Hi,

~ wrote:But if so, why are there AMD64 and IA64 versions of software packages?

IA64 is Itanium, and AFAIK recent Itaniums are entirely incompatible with 80x86 (earlier Itaniums had a "80x86 mode", but Intel dumped it when they found out software emulation was faster).

ET64 is Intel's 64-bit 80x86 CPUs, and it's almost entirely compatible with AMD's 64-bit 80x86 CPUs...


Cheers,

Brendan

But to make this clear, AMD was the first to make a successful transition of 80x86 to 64bit with AMD64..

Intel just cloned AMD's work..

Kinda in reverse eh? First AMD making their own x86 clone.. then in the end Intel cloning something from AMD development.

Brendan wrote:ET64 is Intel's 64-bit 80x86 CPUs

It's actually called EM64T...

Hi,

Colonel Kernel wrote:It's actually called EM64T...

Doh - yes it is

To be honest I'd prefer to use something that doesn't favour either manufacturer, like "x86-64", "x64" or "64-bit 80x86"...

BTW the Wikipedia has a reasonable list of the differences between Intel's x86-64 and AMD's x86-64.


Cheers,

Brendan

Brynet-Inc wrote:But to make this clear, AMD was the first to make a successful transition of 80x86 to 64bit with AMD64..

Intel just cloned AMD's work..

Kinda in reverse eh? First AMD making their own x86 clone.. then in the end Intel cloning something from AMD development.

This was only because intel tryed, and failed to create a new platform in Itanium. Though it is a shame it failed, i was never impressed with IA64, so hopefully next time someone will think up a new platform that doesn't suck and that is not stuck n the past with x86.

I think we have this oppertunity with Trusted Platform, i definetly won't be using New PC's after that, and plan to build standard PC's without it until a new architecture uses M$ arrogance to gain dominance (just pray to god it isn't macintosh )

Colonel Kernel wrote: It's actually called EM64T...

Isn't it 'Intel@64' nowa days ?

os64dev wrote:

Colonel Kernel wrote: It's actually called EM64T...

Isn't it 'Intel@64' nowa days ?

Yeah in there documentation, but what really matters in reality is what the we call it. And by we i do not mean the easily effected b marketing masses, or the marketers and companies looking to confuse with cool sounding names, i literally mean me and a secret clan of ancient name protectors... Seriously though even AMD changed the name from there first, just stick to the general consensus and don't let big brother change your history.