but unlike PD, im gonna cite my work: Wikipedia: In processor <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_processing_unit> design, *x86-64* is an extension of the x86 instruction set<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86>. It allows far larger virtual and physical address spaces than x86, doubles the width of the integer registers from 32 to 64 bits, increases the number of integer registers, and provides other enhancements. It is also known as * x64* (not to be confused with IA-64 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA-64>).
The x86-64 specification was designed by Advanced Micro Devices<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices> (*AMD*), who have since renamed it *AMD64*. The first family of processors to support the architecture was the *AMD K8<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_K8> * family of processors. This was the first time any company other than Intel made significant additions to the x86 architecture. Assuming we are talking chipsets and not the operating systems that use them of course. On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Andrew Badera <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ah but Brandon, YOU are now wrong :) > > I never claimed anything but x64 -- I didn't speak to x86-64 or any > other designation. > > I simply stuck to my original use of x64, and was right. Processor > Devil was wrong to tell me I was wrong in that usage. > > So, thanks for dropping by, but that's a #fail for you buddy. > > ∞ Andy Badera > ∞ +1 518-641-1280 > ∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private > ∞ Google me: http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew%20badera > > > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Brandon Betances <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Your both wrong. > > x86-64 and x64 are globally interchangeable. Doesn't matter whats more > > proper, everyone pretty much understands it as both. > > AMD 64 chipsets are NOW called AMD64, but the x86-64 spec is originally > from > > AMD, so again, either is correct. > > And Intel's x64 chips are not ALL called Intel 64 CPUs because the > Itanium > > spec is IA64. > > Yall gotta get ya shit together. > > > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Processor Devil < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> Well, you are the one who is blaming here, I did it in a good will :). > >> This time I really have to say I wasn't correct. > >> I took the google tour and found out that x86_64 CPU's are now called > >> simply x64 > >> little snippet here: > >> (X86-based 64-bit) Refers to the 64-bit versions of x86-based CPU chips. > >> Also called "x86-64." Intel's x64 chips are officially designated as > Intel > >> 64 CPUs (formerly EM64T), and AMD's x64 chips fall under the AMD64 > brand. > >> So I am sorry. > >> About my knowledge of processors. I used to program with x86 assembler, > I > >> moved to zArchitecture 6 months ago. > >> > >> 2009/9/19 Andrew Badera <[email protected]> > >>> > >>> About your terminology: I could give all of two shits. Quit harassing > >>> me, processor devil who doesn't know as much about processors, or > >>> terminology, as he/she would like to think. Shut up and sit down > >>> already. It's called Vista x64 AND x64 ARCHITETURE ALL OVER THE PLACE > >>> NOW F*CK OFF. THERE ARE FORUMS FOR x64. THERE ARE MICROSOFT PAGES > >>> TALKING ABOUT X64 PRODUCTS -- INCLUDING MSDN SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR VISTA > >>> x64. BUY A CLUE. JESUS CHRIST. Quit friggin' annoying me already -- > >>> and if you're going to do it, make it about A) something that matters > >>> and B) something you're correct about, THANK YOU AND GOOD BYE > >>> IGNORAMUS. > >>> > >>> You're smarter and more informed than the average bear, yet obviously > >>> still mentally crippled. Better luck next life. > >>> > >>> ∞ Andy Badera > >>> ∞ +1 518-641-1280 > >>> ∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private > >>> ∞ Google me: http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew%20badera > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Processor Devil > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > x64... :) > >>> > last time I told you it is x86_64 :) > >>> > About Windows 7... now you can buy new Vista system with possible > >>> > future > >>> > free upgrade to Windows 7 :) > >>> > > >>> > 2009/9/19 Andrew Badera <[email protected]> > >>> >> > >>> >> 1. Why don't you know? What does the Microsoft website tell you? > What > >>> >> does Google tell you? > >>> >> 2. Why would you buy Vista instead of Windows 7 at this point? If > >>> >> you're going x64, the issues you face will be approximately the same > >>> >> -- driver support. And at that, minimal. > >>> >> > >>> >> ∞ Andy Badera > >>> >> ∞ +1 518-641-1280 > >>> >> ∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private > >>> >> ∞ Google me: http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew%20badera > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 2:33 AM, jack me <[email protected]> > >>> >> wrote: > >>> >> > Hi, > >>> >> > > >>> >> > have any idea about on > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Genuine Windows Vista(R) Home Premium SP1 64 bit (English) > >>> >> > > >>> >> > .net 2005 and upper versions can run ? > >>> >> > > >>> >> > I am planning to buy a laptop from dell but i dont know that, on > >>> >> > this > >>> >> > operating system version 2.0 and upper version of .Net will work > >>> >> > fine. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Please suggest. > >>> >> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > >
