6 ms·
"Since its introduction over 20 years ago, the Intel® 64 architecture became the dominant operating mode." This is how Intel takes credit for AMD's x86-64.
by CrLf 3y ago
"Since its introduction over 20 years ago, the Intel® 64 architecture became the dominant operating mode."
This is how Intel takes credit for AMD's x86-64.
- deaddodo 3y agoI still shake my head at how they were able to successfully rebrand it from amd64 to x86-64; yet ia32 is still semi-accepted as the "official" name of x86.
- ed25519FUUU 3y agoI’m not sure they’ve been successful. The string amd64 is everywhere.
- ghshephard 3y agoWithout going through various repos, I'm struggling to recall ever even seeing "x86-64" - It's always amd64 that I look for - so the rebrand wasn't that successful.
- milsorgen 3y agoI remember it a fair bit right after 64 bit became mainstream. In the excitement phase it was generally amd64 then as it became fully established and adopted it was most often referred to as x86-64, at least in the press.
- zamadatix 3y agoI think both are pretty common. E.g. uname -a says x86_64 and GCC/Clang use x86-64 for defining the target while, on the other hand, MSVC (and a lot of Microsoft stuff in general) uses amd64 as do many BSDs.
- 908B64B197 3y ago> MSVC (and a lot of Microsoft stuff in general) uses amd64 as do many BSDs. That's partly because Microsoft had support for ia32 (x86) and ia64 (Itanium). So amd64 was to differentiate the architecture (and it was unclear Intel would ever extend x86).
- viraptor 3y agoDebian-based systems are slightly confused with dpkg architecture returning amd64 and uname returning x86_64.
- usefulcat 3y agoCompiler explorer (godbolt.org) uses x86-64, as do the man pages for gcc and clang. I suspect there are plenty of other places too.
- m463 3y agoBut my filesystem is full of references like /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu
- bombcar 3y agoIt makes it clearly different from arm64 at least, which may be part of it.
- JoshTriplett 3y agoamd64 was an attempt to "brand" the 64-bit version of x86, just as ia32 was an attempt to "brand" the 32-bit version of x86. Many people rejected both and just say x86 and x86-64 as generic names.
- roqi 3y ago> amd64 was an attempt to "brand" the 64-bit version of x86 The "64-bit version of x86" is actually the new ISA created by AMD that was backwards compatible with x86 and added a 64-bit mode. I'm sure that you agree that the company that creates a ISA has the right to name it.
- JoshTriplett 3y agoThey have every right to say what they'd rather it be called, and others have every right to ignore them and use a generic name if they prefer.
- CodeArtisan 3y agoAMD64 is specific to AMD, then Intel released EM64T. x86-64 is the common subset between the two.
- fomine3 3y agoIt was IA-32e, terrible name
- brundolf 3y agoEarlier today I used `arch -x86_64` on my mac to run something in Rosetta (Intel mode)
- filmor 3y agox86-64 was the original name by AMD, they rebranded it shortly before commercial availability to AMD64. Kernels and compilers had already been updated at that time and just kept the "old" name.
- cesarb 3y ago> I still shake my head at how they were able to successfully rebrand it from amd64 to x86-64 It's the opposite: the original name was x86-64, and amd64 is a later rebranding. See, for instance, the original web site for this (then) new architecture: https://web.archive.org/web/20000829042251/http://www.x86-64.org/about https://web.archive.org/web/20000829042251/http://www.x86-64...
- shiomiru 3y agoI get the opposite impression: amd64 is something I see quite often, while ia32 is pretty much exclusively referred to as x86. (Even though for the average user, ia32 would be much easier to recognize as "32-bit", and amd64 as "64-bit", both of which are often found on download buttons.)
- askvictor 3y agoamd64 looks much too similar to arm64 (though that's the latter's fault)
- alfalfasprout 3y agothere'a also `aarch64`
- pgeorgi 3y agoarm64's official name is AArch64
- naikrovek 3y agoI don't think that's the case anymore. at the very least they are interchangeable names, and I believe that "arm64" is the name going forward. I read this somewhere a couple weeks back, but I don't remember the source.
- pgeorgi 3y agohttps://developer.arm.com/architectures https://developer.arm.com/architectures mentions AArch64, no mention of arm64. There's "A64" for the instruction set, and https://developer.arm.com/Architectures/A64%20Instruction%20Set%20Architecture https://developer.arm.com/Architectures/A64%20Instruction%20... also mentions the various armv8-* names, but still no mention of arm64.
- sidewndr46 3y agoMy understanding is that the cross licensing agreement with AMD allows them to license the technology and brand it as their own.
- quantified 3y agoThank Microsoft for holding up 64-bit Windows until Intel had a chip.
- macjohnmcc 3y agoThey were doing Windows NT for the Itanium. They were holding out hoping that this thing would take off.
- rbanffy 3y agoI remember they didn’t port a lot of stuff to it - it was running mostly the BackOffice family of server apps. I don’t think one could run Outlook on them.
- macjohnmcc 3y agoWhen I was at Microsoft during the time I had X86, Alpha, MIPS, PPC (for a short time) and Itanium. We only did the builds for Itanium once in a while because the developers and the testers shared the expensive hardware. I believe the only versions of the product (Systems Management Server) were for the X86, Alpha and MIPS.
- DaiPlusPlus 3y agoWindows XP x64 Edition was released for AMD64 around 2003-2004 before Intel’s x64 chips were out, the only CPUs were Athlon64.
- lancebeet 3y agoI recall using XP x64 edition on an Athlon64. I remember it having such poor software support that it was barely usable. I heard it was actually a version of Windows Server that they put the XP GUI on top of, but I'm not sure if that's true (Wikipedia only seems to partially corroborate it).
- bombcar 3y ago