64 bit - amd64?

[sandyd]

why is the 64bit cpu architecture still called amd64
even though modern standard intel processors are x64 bit capable (x86_64)?

[steeleyuk]

AMD were the ones who invented the 64-bit extensions.

Intel have their own IA-64 (now called Itanium) which is used on servers and such.

[Bachstelze]

AMD were the ones who invented the 64-bit extensions.

This. The 64-bit extensions you will find on Core 2s, Xeons, etc. are just the AMD ones rebranded (Intel actually paid AMD a license to use them), which is why the same OS can run on both.

[Eisenwinter]

Thus, AMD is superior.

I love AMD.

[gletob]

Thus, AMD is superior.

I love AMD.

I like how AMD has to licenses the x86 instruction set from Intel. Thus, Intel is superior.

I love Intel. (But sercretly only have enough money for AMD:P)

[NoaHall]

No, because intel made the worse instruction set. So, AMD is better.

[Frak]

I like how AMD has to licenses the x86 instruction set from Intel. Thus, Intel is superior.

I love Intel. (But sercretly only have enough money for AMD:P)
AMD totally reverse-engineered the x86 instruction set. They don't license it from anybody. Intel was lazy, and they had money, so they licensed it through AMD.

[Mehall]

AMD totally reverse-engineered the x86 instruction set. They don't license it from anybody. Intel was lazy, and they had money, so they licensed it through AMD.

Actually, while AMD originally reverse-engineered, since i686 era, AMD has licensed the architecture from Intel. There was recently talk of a lawsuit against them due to a breach of license, but Intel backed down when AMD threatened to counter-sue about the amd64 license.

While AMD need the x86 license to continue, Intel need the amd64 license to continue making their popular x86 based 64bit chips. (Itanium is not x86, FWIW)

[falconindy]

AMD were the ones who invented the 64-bit extensions.

Intel have their own IA-64 (now called Itanium) which is used on servers and such.
Itanium is solely 64-bit. It is not the same as x86_64 and has no provisions to handle 32-bit programming.

[Incendia]

I hope this won't become a flamewar between AMD and Intel :]

[running_rabbit07]

I have never used an Intel product that made me happy.

[Frak]

I hope this won't become a flamewar between AMD and Intel :]
Inb4flamewar

[fela]

Actually, neither invented 64 bit CPUs.

AMD had the first mainstream 64 bit CPUs, quite a while before intel, with its Athlon 64.

I believe around the same time IBM also had 64 bit PowerPC chips which were used in the Apple PowerMac G5s.

I think the first electronic processor with 64 bit functionality was invented around 1969.

[gletob]

No, because intel made the worse instruction set. So, AMD is better.

First doesn't always mean worst.


AMD totally reverse-engineered the x86 instruction set. They don't license it from anybody. Intel was lazy, and they had money, so they licensed it through AMD.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Intel+x86+licensing


I hope this won't become a flamewar between AMD and Intel :]

Me too.

[Bachstelze]

Me too.

ORLY? Why contribute to it then?

[steeleyuk]

Itanium is solely 64-bit. It is not the same as x86_64 and has no provisions to handle 32-bit programming.

I never said there was a 32-bit Itanium or that IA-64 had anything to do with x86.

[Frak]

orly? Why contribute to it then?
+1

[misfitpierce]

AMD imo is far superior... but then again I like ATI over Nvidia also :P

[Exodist]

This. The 64-bit extensions you will find on Core 2s, Xeons, etc. are just the AMD ones rebranded (Intel actually paid AMD a license to use them), which is why the same OS can run on both.

Ditto

[ikt]

AMD is definitely the best, unless you prefer Intel then Intel is definitely the best.

[gletob]

ORLY? Why contribute to it then?

Umh because the first time I said Intel was better I was joking and the "First doesn't always mean worst" applies to many things.

Yeah RLY.

[RiceMonster]

Actually, neither invented 64 bit CPUs.

AMD had the first mainstream 64 bit CPUs, quite a while before intel, with its Athlon 64.

I believe around the same time IBM also had 64 bit PowerPC chips which were used in the Apple PowerMac G5s.

I think the first electronic processor with 64 bit functionality was invented around 1969.

You missed the point. It was that AMD created the instruction set used by both Intel and AMD 64 bit CPUs. No-one was really saying they created the absolute first 64 bit CPU.

[Frak]

You missed the point. It was that AMD created the instruction set used by both Intel and AMD 64 bit CPUs. No-one was really saying they created the absolute first 64 bit CPU.
No, you missed the point. 64-bit came out in the 60's, ya know.

[running_rabbit07]

No, you missed the point. 64-bit came out in the 60's, ya know.
Nope, you missed it. The question was asking why distros were still being titled for AMD 64 when Intel now has 64 bit also.

[Frak]

Nope, you missed it. The question was asking why distros were still being titled for AMD 64 when Intel now has 64 bit also.
No, you missed it. The subject was about how Intel's chips are burning toast, you see.

[running_rabbit07]

No, you missed it. The subject was about how Intel's chips are burning toast, you see.

No, you missed it. We were talking about how 4.5 billions of years ago, a rock the size of Mars slammed into Earth therefore, creating the Moon (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/top_10_cool_moon_facts-10.html).

[Sef]

Since the original question has been answered, and this thread is now getting off-topic, I am locking it.