Is there a difference between the capabilities of AMD's Athlon64 and Intel's 64 bit processors they keep hinting at? Whenever anyone talks about AMD it's it a "64 bit processor" whereas with Intel they seem to say their new processors have "64 bit extensions." To me the difference sounds subtle but seems like there could be a huge difference.
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
64 bit (AMD and Intel)
- Thread starter sappo
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
- Location
- Vancouver, WA
From what I've read, the two are synonomyous. Intel has 'extended' their chip to support the extra registers, extra opcodes, etc. It should be backwards compatable with AMD's 64-bit since they will both have to be running on Windows 64-bit edition 
Intel COULD have placed a few extra features in there, but I don't think they would have since their whole 64-bit stance in the first place seems a bit jumbled. The only way to know for sure of course is to wait and see.
JigPu
Intel COULD have placed a few extra features in there, but I don't think they would have since their whole 64-bit stance in the first place seems a bit jumbled. The only way to know for sure of course is to wait and see.
JigPu
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2001
They are pretty much the same, the only real difference is not having stuff like 3dnow and having sse3 instead, or hyperthreading. Those aren't really x86-64 things per se.
One thing though, is that AMD added the NX bit to their Hammers for buffer overrun protection. That isn't strictly an x86-64 feature either, but it is a real nice thing to finally have in an x86 processor and Intel didn't implement it.
One thing though, is that AMD added the NX bit to their Hammers for buffer overrun protection. That isn't strictly an x86-64 feature either, but it is a real nice thing to finally have in an x86 processor and Intel didn't implement it.
