Mike Marion wrote: > Quoting Randall Shimizu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> One has to remember that the only reason that Intel has a slight >> advantage is because most apps are 32 bit, With the exception of >> Intel's Itanium all it's other processors are 32 bit cores with 64 >> extensions. So all the benchmarks you see are for 32 bit processors. > > This is also wrong. The benchmark edge that Intel has right now is NOT > due to 32bit applications. They are edging out a lot in 64bit > benchmarks as well. > > You are correct in that the entire x86_64 architecture is based on the > x86 one, but it's more then just extensions added on. AMD took the same > tact that Intel had previously taken when expanding the original x86 > line from 16 to 32bit, building on top of the existing architecture. > > The platform does have the advantage that 32bit apps do still run > natively (vs emulation on ia64, which sucks royally) and will work > completely as a 32bit cpu if you install a 32bit OS.
Hey, thanks for the clarifications, MM. The AMD "barcelona" discussed in RS's link http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/12/01/amd_aims_to_reclaim_cpu_crown/ is also helpful. It looks like it's 65nm, though, and will not be readily available until sometime next year (Q2?). Hmmm, isn't that the time they are also promising to get around to 45nm capabilities .. maybe barcelona++ will come "soon" after barcelona?. 65nm _is_ an advance over current stuff -- that's 90nm isn't it? I can't find it now, but I thought I read that barcelona also provides improved virtualization support over current AMD. Also, socket 1207 is the coming thing, eh? Intel seems in the lead for bang/watt for now, a spec which seems to be gaining importance, I believe. Did I get any of this right? Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
