Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:59:52 07/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 30, 2003 at 21:08:49, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>On June 29, 2003 at 23:50:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On June 29, 2003 at 06:35:02, Tony Werten 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_. > >If this is your criteria, that means no UltraSparc, There we agree. Most of Solaris is _still_ 32 bit code. > PA-RISC, MIPS, or POWER >processors are "true" 64 bit processors because they're all fully backwards >compatible with their older 32 bit instruction sets, exactly like the Opteron. I didn't say they were not "full 64 bit processors". I said they were "less than optimal". There is a difference. > >Hmm, that's news to Sun, HP, SGI, and IBM. > >Actually, IA64 chips also run 32 bit "stuff" "just fine" (albeit slowly). So >Itanium is not truly 64 bit either. What do they run from the X86 world? Zilch. Not talking about software emulation here, but real hardware. The alpha can run vax code, but _not_ in hardware. > >-Tom
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.