Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:19:48 06/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 29, 2003 at 00:30:41, Keith Evans wrote: >On June 28, 2003 at 23:39:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 28, 2003 at 14:36:32, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >> >>>On June 28, 2003 at 14:23:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On June 28, 2003 at 12:12:15, Jay Urbanski wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 28, 2003 at 10:33:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Those are not true 64 bit processors. Supposedly 32 bit stuff runs just >>>>>>fine on them, but they have 64 bit extensions. >>>>> >>>>>How is Opteron not a true 64-bit processor? >>>> >>>> >>>>Because it executes 32 bit instructions _also_. >>>> >>>>IE it is X86 compatible. >>> >>>So does the Itanium. That doesn't make it any less of a 64-bit processor. >> >> >>The Itanium is not X86 compatible. In any shape or form. There is an >>emulator, of course. But then the Alpha has a vax emulator. > >The interesting question is what are the implications of the Opteron not being a >"true" 64-bit processor? Did you mean to imply that it is inferior to "true" >64-bit processors, or just that it was that much more of a challenge to design? >In other words, is there any reason why anybody buying one should care? > >(I'll consider buying an Opteron if the EDA companies ever support it with >64-bit apps.) My point was not that it will be bad. But that it _could_ be better. Going to 64 bits while supporting legacy X86 architecture stuff is not the way to fastest performance.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.