4 ms·
I think those projections weren't really all that crazy. AMD surprised everyone with AMD64, and they were the only ones that could have done 64-bit x86 other th
by tyingq 5y ago
I think those projections weren't really all that crazy. AMD surprised everyone with AMD64, and they were the only ones that could have done 64-bit x86 other than Intel. Intel should have had better spies at AMD :)
- chasil 5y agoThey did. There was a skunkworks project to copy it, and the copy was not entirely correct. https://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=366538 https://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=366538
- Grazester 5y agoDid you post the wrong link or something? That link only talks about Intel implementation(EM64T) of AMD64
- chasil 5y agoThis is likely more appropriate. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/52858-picking-up-the-chips-for-2003 https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/52858-picking-up-the-chi... Also related to the 3.06GHz P4 launch were rumors that Intel has secretly included x86-64 support in the new P4 in the form of disabled circuitry on the chip’s die. Such circuitry is allegedly the product of Intel’s skunkworks Yamhill project, which is intended to give Intel some flexibility in responding to the potential threat posed by AMD’s upcoming x86-64 “Hammer” line of processors. Intel has repeatedly denied the existence of Yamhill, insisting that the only 64-bit instruction set they plan to support is IA-64. So will we see Yamhill publicly unveiled in 2003? It’s possible, but not likely. https://www.theregister.com/2002/01/25/intels_yamhill_itanic_on_ice/ https://www.theregister.com/2002/01/25/intels_yamhill_itanic...