retard Wrote:

> > Intel 64 is AMD64. Intel dropped their 64-bit implementation, EM64T, after AMD won.
> 
> That's bullshit, but I guess it doesn't matter, because most software uses the compatible subset of both versions.
> 
> See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Differences_between_AMD64_and_Intel_64

Yes, there are differences, but the fact remains that Intel had to develop its implementation to mimic AMD64[1].

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#History_of_Intel_64

"Intel found itself in the position of adopting the architecture which AMD had created as an extension to Intel's own x86 processor line."

Jesse Phillips wrote:
> retard Wrote:
> 
>>> Intel 64 is AMD64. Intel dropped their 64-bit implementation, EM64T,
>>> after AMD won.
>> That's bullshit, but I guess it doesn't matter, because most software uses the compatible subset of both versions.
>>
>> See:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Differences_between_AMD64_and_Intel_64
> 
> Yes, there are differences, but the fact remains that Intel had to develop its implementation to mimic AMD64[1].
> 
> 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#History_of_Intel_64
> 
> "Intel found itself in the position of adopting the architecture which AMD had created as an extension to Intel's own x86 processor line."

Yes, but EM64T _was_ AMD64. That part of your post was wrong. It was Itanium they dropped.

I don't think the differences between AMD's AMD64 and Intel's clone of AMD64 are any more significant than the differences between AMD and Intel for 32 bit. Obviously Intel marketing refuses to call it AMD64, but that's what it is. You could call it x86-64 to avoid that issue, but I don't think anyone should ever use the term "Intel64" unless they work for Intel.

Don wrote:

> Jesse Phillips wrote:
>> retard Wrote:
>> 
>>>> Intel 64 is AMD64. Intel dropped their 64-bit implementation, EM64T, after AMD won.
>>> That's bullshit, but I guess it doesn't matter, because most software uses the compatible subset of both versions.
>>>
>>> See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Differences_between_AMD64_and_Intel_64
>> 
>> Yes, there are differences, but the fact remains that Intel had to develop its implementation to mimic AMD64[1].
>> 
>> 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#History_of_Intel_64
>> 
>> "Intel found itself in the position of adopting the architecture which AMD had created as an extension to Intel's own x86 processor line."
>
> Yes, but EM64T _was_ AMD64. That part of your post was wrong. It was Itanium they dropped.


Ok, I'll admit that I thought it was called ia-64 but couldn't find a
reference to it so grabbed EM64T because it looked close. I
guess what I was thinking of was ia-32e though.