How-To Geek Biased Towards Intel

[Guest]

I was researching about ARM CPUs and seeing if they were coming to desktop anytime soon, and I found this. So it seems that they don't want to acknowledge that AMD own the x64 platform. They state the Intel x86 platform, but not the AMD x64 platform. Original Article here: http://www.howtogeek.com/180225/arm-vs.-intel-what-it-means-for-windows-chromebook-and-android-software-compatibility/

[JebKerman]

I don't think that's bias, it's just a bit ignorant. But intel is the considerably more dominant player in the X86/X64 market (for regular consumers anyway, may be different in servers or other markets). And they invented it, then licensed it to AMD.

[Enderman]

Intel invented x64 not AMD

 

I dont see why its significant who owns what, they are just talking about architectures not specific companies

You're reading too much into it

[Centurius]

Cool story bro

[soaringchicken]

1. This is not news.

2. No, they're not.

[Ekin]

The Article is from January 2014 and if you read the article they say:

 

Note that we’re including AMD chips along with Intel chips here.

 

And they don't name AMD, because AMD chips are to power hungry to compete with ARM.

[AresKrieger]

There we go, thx mods

Edited November 6, 2015 by AresKrieger

[TechGod]

Intel invented x64 not AMD

I dont see why its significant who owns what, they are just talking about architectures not specific companies

You're reading too much into it

What...

[Blake]

 

I was researching about ARM CPUs and seeing if they were coming to desktop anytime soon, and I found this. So it seems that they don't want to acknowledge that AMD own the x64 platform. They state the Intel x86 platform, but not the AMD x64 platform. Original Article here: http://www.howtogeek.com/180225/arm-vs.-intel-what-it-means-for-windows-chromebook-and-android-software-compatibility/

Your all over the place.

 

x86 is Intel's, they own it.
x64 doesn't actually exist, but is used to refer to x86_64 which is an AMD extension to the x86 Instruction set/micro-architecture.
Intel made it's own 64-bit instruction set/mircoarchitecture called IA64 (which was HP's back in the late 1980's)

 

The above are considered CISC, ARM is RISC, completely different.

 

 

 

Intel invented x64 not AMD

 

I dont see why its significant who owns what, they are just talking about architectures not specific companies
You're reading too much into it

Sorry, but that statement, is proof that you're not knowledgeable on the topic.

[Enderman]

Sorry, but that statement, is proof that you're not knowledgeable on the topic.

No, YOU cant get your facts right.

Maybe try learning about something before insulting people who know more than you.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/172254-28-processors

http://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/csep590/06au/projects/history-64-bit.pdf

[PlayStation 2]

No, YOU cant get your facts right.

Maybe try learning about something before insulting people who know more than you.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/172254-28-processors

http://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/csep590/06au/projects/history-64-bit.pdf

Intel did invent the concept of 64-bit processors.

AMD took that and added native compatibility with x86 coded programs and is a bit more efficient and much more useful, as a result.

[Enderman]

Intel did invent the concept of 64-bit processors.

AMD took that and added native compatibility with x86 coded programs and is a bit more efficient and much more useful, as a result.

exactly

AMD took intel's idea and made it better/more useful

x64 was still invented by intel

 

It seems like OP is just a self-absorbed AMD fanboy who can't use google...

[PlayStation 2]

exactly

AMD took intel's idea and made it better/more useful

x64 was still invented by intel

 

It seems like OP is just a self-absorbed AMD fanboy who can't use google...

Let's not call anyone the F-word just yet...

[Guest]

exactly

AMD took intel's idea and made it better/more useful

x64 was still invented by intel

 

It seems like OP is just a self-absorbed AMD fanboy who can't use google...

Hold up, I used google:

 

The 64-bit extension created by AMD to Intel's x86 architecture (later licensed by Intel); commonly known as "x86-64", "AMD64", or "x64": AMD's AMD64 extensions (used in Athlon 64, Opteron, Sempron, Turion 64, Phenom, Athlon II, Phenom II, FX processors)

[PlayStation 2]

Hold up, I used google:

 

The 64-bit extension created by AMD to Intel's x86 architecture (later licensed by Intel); commonly known as "x86-64", "AMD64", or "x64": AMD's AMD64 extensions (used in Athlon 64, Opteron, Sempron, Turion 64, Phenom, Athlon II, Phenom II, FX processors)

Lemme sit you down really quick. Intel created the first commercial 64-bit processors, in the form of Itanium. AMD then took that concept, added x86 compatibility to it, called it AMD64, and was able to get Intel onto it since it was much better than Itanium.

[Guest]

Lemme sit you down really quick. Intel created the first commercial 64-bit processors, in the form of Itanium. AMD then took that concept, added x86 compatibility to it, called it AMD64, and was able to get Intel onto it since it was much better than Itanium.

So basically AMD own the better and more used AMD64

[PlayStation 2]

So basically AMD own the better and more used AMD64

....I guess. It's a bit more complicated than it should be.

See, AMD has the license to x86. They also were allowed to create extensions for it. They took what Intel learned, applied it to x86, and yeah. So while they technically own it, it's some really confusing legal mumbo jumbo.

[TechGod]

Lemme sit you down really quick. Intel created the first commercial 64-bit processors, in the form of Itanium. AMD then took that concept, added x86 compatibility to it, called it AMD64, and was able to get Intel onto it since it was much better than Itanium.

So fricking what? AMD still made the first x86-64 bit processors. What Intel did is irrelevant. 

[Guest]

So fricking what? AMD still made the first x86-64 bit processors. What Intel did is irrelevant. 

 

 

....I guess. It's a bit more complicated than it should be.

See, AMD has the license to x86. They also were allowed to create extensions for it. They took what Intel learned, applied it to x86, and yeah. So while they technically own it, it's some really confusing legal mumbo jumbo.

Come on, we are trying to have a simple discussion here. Either join in the discussion.

[PlayStation 2]

So fricking what? AMD still made the first x86-64 bit processors. What Intel did is irrelevant. 

What Intel did is relevant. AMD did make the first x86-64 processors. Intel made the first commercial 64-bit processors. Which, once again, helped the development of AMD64.

[Enderman]

Hold up, I used google:

 

The 64-bit extension created by AMD to Intel's x86 architecture (later licensed by Intel); commonly known as "x86-64", "AMD64", or "x64": AMD's AMD64 extensions (used in Athlon 64, Opteron, Sempron, Turion 64, Phenom, Athlon II, Phenom II, FX processors)

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/172254-28-processors

http://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/csep590/06au/projects/history-64-bit.pdf

 

you're talking about the 64 bit extension

I said intel INVENTED x64

aka first ones to make it a thing

amd just took that and improved upon it to make it useful to consumer rather than just servers

 

Sorry, but you need to work on your google skills

[TechGod]

What Intel did is relevant. AMD did make the first x86-64 processors. Intel made the first commercial 64-bit processors. Which, once again, helped the development of AMD64.

Its the same thing as NVME and Apple. Did Apple design it first? No. Did they manage to implement it into phones? Yes. That's what counts, not that that 64 bit existed before AMD's implementation. 

[Guest]

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/172254-28-processors

http://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/csep590/06au/projects/history-64-bit.pdf

 

you're talking about the 64 bit extension

I said intel INVENTED x64

aka first ones to make it a thing

amd just took that and improved upon it to make it useful to consumer rather than just servers

 

Sorry, but you need to work on your google skills

Sorry...didn't notice that

 

Yeah, according to this, AMD made x86-64

 

x86-64 (also known as x64, x86_64 and AMD64) is the 64-bit version of the x86 instruction set. It supports vastly larger amounts (theoretically, 2⁶⁴ bytes or 16 exbibytes) of virtual memory and physical memory than is possible on its 32-bit predecessors, allowing programs to store larger amounts of data in memory. x86-64 also provides 64-bit general-purpose registers and numerous other enhancements. It is fully backward compatible with the 16-bit and 32-bit x86 code.^{[1](p13–14)} Because the full x86 16-bit and 32-bit instruction sets remain implemented in hardware without any intervening emulation, existing x86 executables run with no compatibility or performance penalties,^[2] whereas existing applications that are recoded to take advantage of new features of the processor design may achieve performance improvements.

[PlayStation 2]

Its the same thing as NVME and Apple. Did Apple design it first? No. Did they manage to implement it into phones? Yes. That's what counts, not that that 64 bit existed before AMD's implementation. 

NVMe isn't a thing really, even after Apple slapped it into the 6s and 6s+

[TechGod]

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/172254-28-processors

http://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/csep590/06au/projects/history-64-bit.pdf

 

you're talking about the 64 bit extension

I said intel INVENTED x64

aka first ones to make it a thing

amd just took that and improved upon it to make it useful to consumer rather than just servers

 

Sorry, but you need to work on your google skills

OMFG. Intel made Itanium based 64 bit processors first but THEY DID NOT IMPLEMENT 64 BIT INTO x86!!!!!