4 ms·

Someone with a better understanding of CPU architectures and instruction sets may be able to correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be more accurate to say th

Someone with a better understanding of CPU architectures and instruction sets may be able to correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Microsoft is working on bringing x86-64 emulation to Windows 10 on ARM? No doubt the headline is written to be a bit more consumer-friendly. AMD pioneered this version of the instruction set with AMD64, and Intel actually adopted it as Intel 64, with minor differences[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Intel_64 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Intel_64

flatiron 7y ago
If it’s strictly 64 bit it’s not x86-64 it’s amd64 but the rest of your comment is accurate.
molticrystal 7y ago
>The original specification, created by AMD and released in 2000, has been implemented by AMD, Intel and VIA. >Intel's project was originally codenamed Yamhill. After several years of denying its existence, Intel announced at the February 2004 IDF that the project was indeed underway. If Intel wasn't so focused on the Itanium they would of beat AMD by years. Anybody who was following the industry at the time knew about Yamhill at least by 2002, though Intel had conceptions on how to extend x32 to x64 well before that in a natural way, but instead went the resource and engineering draining Itanium route, allowing AMD to produce the first available chips. While I only know murmuring on the peripherial about Intel's early x64, I'd love to hear insider knowledge about why management decided Itanium was so hot that they dropped everything about bringing x32 to its logical x64 conclusion.
- Lev1a 7y ago
  > they would of beat * they would have beaten
chrisseaton 7y ago
> wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Microsoft is working on bringing x86-64 emulation to Windows 10 on ARM Isn’t that exactly what the title says? Which bit are you quibbling with? Or has the title been changed?
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  That AMD made x86-64, not Intel.
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    They’re all just different names for the same ISA, and both parties have extended it since. Are you complaining about credit? AMD just extended Intel’s design to a wider format. Why should AMD get more credit? I do write AMD64 myself, but title is fine.
    - sebazzz 7y ago
      It is probably nitpicking, but IA64/Intel64 is also used for the Itanium instruction set.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      > AMD just extended Intel’s design to a wider format. In that case just call it x86 as a catchall. But if you're going through the effort to specify the 64 bit ISA, then "Intel's" stops being particularly correct.
- axaxs 7y ago
  I'd argue that x86-64 is more clear and precise. Intel has other 64 bit architectures...

flatiron 7y ago

If it’s strictly 64 bit it’s not x86-64 it’s amd64 but the rest of your comment is accurate.

molticrystal 7y ago

>The original specification, created by AMD and released in 2000, has been implemented by AMD, Intel and VIA. >Intel's project was originally codenamed Yamhill. After several years of denying its existence, Intel announced at the February 2004 IDF that the project was indeed underway. If Intel wasn't so focused on the Itanium they would of beat AMD by years. Anybody who was following the industry at the time knew about Yamhill at least by 2002, though Intel had conceptions on how to extend x32 to x64 well before that in a natural way, but instead went the resource and engineering draining Itanium route, allowing AMD to produce the first available chips. While I only know murmuring on the peripherial about Intel's early x64, I'd love to hear insider knowledge about why management decided Itanium was so hot that they dropped everything about bringing x32 to its logical x64 conclusion.

Lev1a 7y ago
> they would of beat * they would have beaten

chrisseaton 7y ago

> wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Microsoft is working on bringing x86-64 emulation to Windows 10 on ARM Isn’t that exactly what the title says? Which bit are you quibbling with? Or has the title been changed?

Dylan16807 7y ago
That AMD made x86-64, not Intel.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  They’re all just different names for the same ISA, and both parties have extended it since. Are you complaining about credit? AMD just extended Intel’s design to a wider format. Why should AMD get more credit? I do write AMD64 myself, but title is fine.
  - sebazzz 7y ago
    It is probably nitpicking, but IA64/Intel64 is also used for the Itanium instruction set.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    > AMD just extended Intel’s design to a wider format. In that case just call it x86 as a catchall. But if you're going through the effort to specify the 64 bit ISA, then "Intel's" stops being particularly correct.
axaxs 7y ago
I'd argue that x86-64 is more clear and precise. Intel has other 64 bit architectures...