Xeon 64-bit?

[Jarod Wilson]

On Monday 09 July 2007 14:46:22 klussier at comcast.net wrote:
>  -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: Jarod Wilson <jarod at wilsonet.com>
>
> > > The jist is, it used to be x86-64, then it was amd64, but x86_64 is
> > > still used. Now doesn't that just clear everything up? :-)
> >
> > ...only that seems in correct, from my recollection. I seem to recall
> > amd64 being called x86_64 originally. Intel's implementation was then
> > announced as x86-64. (note the _ vs. the - ). After that, AMD went with
> > amd64 to differentiate more. But in any case, I still think x86_64 makes
> > a lot more sense than amd64 for the arch tag on stuff that runs on both
> > Intel and AMD 64-bit x86-compatible architectures.
>
> It only seems incorrect if you *AREN'T* AMD :-) They can't license
> something called x86-64 because it's too generic, and, oh yeah, Intel owns
> "x86".... The official explaination from AMD is here:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2003/08/msg00031.html

Hey now, just because its from an @amd.com email address doesn't necessarily 
make it official or correct. :) Granted, this guy's title appears to be "Open 
Source Relations Manager", but I still recall things differently -- that 
AMD64 was originally dubbed x86_64, not x86-64, then Intel came to market 
with their version, which they dubbed x86-64. I swear I'm not crazy, but of 
course, I'm having trouble finding data to back up this claim... May have 
just been that in the kernel that it was decided to call it x86_64 first...

http://kerneltrap.org/node/2466

I give up. But I still like x86_64 better.

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod at wilsonet.com