Xeon 64-bit?

Ben Scott dragonhawk at gmail.com
Mon Jul 9 18:00:57 EDT 2007


On 7/9/07, Jarod Wilson <jarod at wilsonet.com> wrote:
> 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.

  Yah, I believe AMD started out calling it x86-64.  AMD says x86-64
is the generic name, while AMD64 is AMD's "implementation" of x86-64.
Doubtless more importantly to AMD, AMD64 can be trademarked.  It's
like "tissue" vs "Kleenex"; "tissue" and "x86" are generic; "Kleenex"
and "AMD64" are trademarks.

  DEC did the same thing when they invented the "Alpha" chip.  "Alpha"
is too generic a name to be trademarked.  "AXP" could be trademarked,
so DEC renamed the "Alpha" to "AXP".  But that was such a crappy name,
and "Alpha" was uber-cool, so *nobody* used "AXP" except DEC marketing
weenies.  Eventually DEC gave in and went back to calling it "Alpha"
(preferably with a trademarkable BiCapitalization, like
"AlphaServer").  The present situation is a bit different in that
"AMD64" actually sounds cooler than "x86-64" IMO, but otherwise, I
believe it's the same idea.

  Anyway, for a long time (years), Intel kept saying that x86 was
dead, and IA-64 (Itanium) was a wonderful new set of clothes for an
emperor to wear.  They insisted AMD's x86-64 design was the Wrong
Thing.  A lot of people took Intel at their word (or at least decided
Intel deserved to be believed), and so took to calling it "AMD64".

  Nobody wanted IA-64.  Everyone wanted Yet Another extension to x86.
AMD was giving that to people, and Intel was not.  Intel was in
serious danger of loosing the entire mainstream microprocessor market
-- which would likely have gone down as the biggest corporate blunder
in human history.  This was surprising to a lot of people (myself
included), since Intel's very market dominance was built on extending
x86 over and over again.  You'd think they'd recognize a good thing
when they had it.

  Eventually Intel gave in, and added x86-64 extensions to their
chips, calling it "EM64T" ("Extended Memory 64-bit Technology" or some
such horsesh*it).  They were still hoping IA-64 would take off at that
point.  Instead, IA-64 went the other direction, and the EM64T sold
like crazy.  Intel finally stole their bandwagon back from AMD, and
started to push x86 as the future again.  They re-re-re-named the
extensions "Intel 64".  (Which everyone agrees is way too similar to
IA-64.)

  Finally, the contraction "x64" seems to be getting quite popular,
especially in enthusiast circles.

  In summary:

x86 = Generic term for anything compatible with Intel 8086 (circa 1979)
i386 = Generic term for anything compatible with Intel 80386
x86-32 = Generic term synonymous with "i386"
x86-64 = Generic term for 64-bit extensions (first by AMD) to i386
x64 = Generic term synonymous with "x86-64"
IA-32 = Intel semi-generic term, synonymous with "i386"
IA-64 = Intel semi-generic term; Itanium; dead end
AMD64 = AMD trademark for their 64-bit extensions to i386
EM64T = Old Intel trademark for their clone of AMD64
Intel 64 = New Intel trademark for their clone of AMD64

  Are we sufficiently confused yet?

-- Ben


More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list