-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Are the conroes 64bit?
- Thread starter Jimbo
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 13,496
Conroe and AMD64s arn't "true" 64 bit processors, IIRC only Itels Itanium is "true" 64-bit.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
being able to handle a flat out 64bit number makes a cpu 64bit, true or not. both conroes, and any emt64bit intel cpu and all athlon 64's(some semprons had it disabled?) can handle such a number. the itanium can ONLY do 64 bit numbers and has to run a stupidly slow emulator to run 32bit numbers, the emt64 and ath 64 setups can also run 32bit natively, doesn't make them any less true, just different design.
- Joined
- 2 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 8,721
- Location
- Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Conroe understands EM64T instructions. EM64T is Intel's implementation of AMD's AMD54 instruction set. For all intents and purposes Intel's chips are just "as 64 bit" as AMD.
Itanium is purely 64 bit; it cannot run legacy 32 bit code expect in emulation just as Drunkenmaster has said.
Itanium is purely 64 bit; it cannot run legacy 32 bit code expect in emulation just as Drunkenmaster has said.
Lies. A64 and Conroe can both perform 64-bit arithmetic from general registers in a single clock cycle. So it's 64-bit...Concorde Rules said:Conroe and AMD64s arn't "true" 64 bit processors, IIRC only Itels Itanium is "true" 64-bit.
Actually Conroe can even do 128-bit SSE in a single cycle too but those aren't general purpose registers
PS: How did I know when this thread first started that it would dissolve into the usual drivel regarding "64-bit'ness"
- Joined
- 2 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 8,721
- Location
- Cleveland, Ohio, USA
I think Intel's problem here is that it did not put "64" in the name. Everybody knows that the Athlon 64s are 64 bit but how many know that the Pentium D line is also 64 bit?
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 2,813
- Location
- Suffolk
Thats true but the mobile equiv is not 64bit (Intel that is)
- Joined
- 2 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 8,721
- Location
- Cleveland, Ohio, USA
The current Intel mobile lineup including the Yonah is not 64 bit.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 May 2006
- Posts
- 499
But merom will be 64 bit though right? When is thta launching?
- Joined
- 2 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 8,721
- Location
- Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Merom is due August 2006 and it will be 64 bit.
Why do people keep saying EM64T, and AMD64 arnt true 64bit?
Thats like saying 80386 wasnt true 32bit.
X86 processors have various modes of operation, which can be selected by the operating system.
Real Mode, This is what 8086/80186. Its available even on the new Conroe processors.
Protected Mode, Added by 80286, increased addressable memory, and a few other bits and pieces.
386 Enhanced Mode. Added by 80386 as a true 32bit mode.
Very little was added between Enhanced mode, and the release of AMD64, which added a new mode for true 64bit operation. This mode is only used when running a 64bit operating system like Linux, Solaris or Windows XP64/Vista64
EM64T is fully compatible with AMD64 and includes the same 64bit Mode.
The processors have 64bit general registers, 64bit memory interfaces, can processes 64bit instructions in a single clock cycle. The only limitation is that EM64T as implemented by Pentium is limited to 36bit Physical memory address space (64bit virtual memory), and AMD64's have 40bit physical memory addressing.
***I have read that EM64T's documentation/and/or hardware was upgraded to match AMD's 40bit memory addressing.***
If the argument is that the processors still contain 'Real Mode' then all X86 processors are 16bit, just like the original 8086.
Even the 8088 was a 16bit processor, and it only had an 8 bit memory bus. It had to transfer 16bit words over two clock ticks every time it accessed main memory.
Thats like saying 80386 wasnt true 32bit.
X86 processors have various modes of operation, which can be selected by the operating system.
Real Mode, This is what 8086/80186. Its available even on the new Conroe processors.
Protected Mode, Added by 80286, increased addressable memory, and a few other bits and pieces.
386 Enhanced Mode. Added by 80386 as a true 32bit mode.
Very little was added between Enhanced mode, and the release of AMD64, which added a new mode for true 64bit operation. This mode is only used when running a 64bit operating system like Linux, Solaris or Windows XP64/Vista64
EM64T is fully compatible with AMD64 and includes the same 64bit Mode.
The processors have 64bit general registers, 64bit memory interfaces, can processes 64bit instructions in a single clock cycle. The only limitation is that EM64T as implemented by Pentium is limited to 36bit Physical memory address space (64bit virtual memory), and AMD64's have 40bit physical memory addressing.
***I have read that EM64T's documentation/and/or hardware was upgraded to match AMD's 40bit memory addressing.***
If the argument is that the processors still contain 'Real Mode' then all X86 processors are 16bit, just like the original 8086.
Even the 8088 was a 16bit processor, and it only had an 8 bit memory bus. It had to transfer 16bit words over two clock ticks every time it accessed main memory.
64 bit doesnt automatically give any performance gains.
If you simply want to add 1+1, then less data needs transfering from ram if you use 8bit, let alone 64bit. On the other hand, if you want to count the number of subatomic particles in the universe, then a 64bit processor will be a better choice.
Gaming has been able to use 128bit SSE instructions since the first P4 chips, although the SSE engine in Core2 is so much faster than P4's that alone would factor in a large gain in anything compiled to make use of SSE2 or better.
With P4 switching to 64bit seemed to have large performance penalties. AMD didnt suffer this way as their implementation of 64bit is good. Conroe appears to be better than AMD at 32bit, and unlike P4 it doesnt have a serious problem with 64bit work. All in all Core 2 is a good 'general purpose' processor.
If you simply want to add 1+1, then less data needs transfering from ram if you use 8bit, let alone 64bit. On the other hand, if you want to count the number of subatomic particles in the universe, then a 64bit processor will be a better choice.
Gaming has been able to use 128bit SSE instructions since the first P4 chips, although the SSE engine in Core2 is so much faster than P4's that alone would factor in a large gain in anything compiled to make use of SSE2 or better.
With P4 switching to 64bit seemed to have large performance penalties. AMD didnt suffer this way as their implementation of 64bit is good. Conroe appears to be better than AMD at 32bit, and unlike P4 it doesnt have a serious problem with 64bit work. All in all Core 2 is a good 'general purpose' processor.
