Slimy Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 Why are 32bit processors referred to as x86 and not x32 while 64bit processors are referred to as x64? Where did the random #86 come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NienorGT Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 Read about the x86 :yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaidiir Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 I've always wondered that too. Maybe something important in 32-bit development happened in 1986? :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jorge Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 Originally this code referred to Intel's x86 series of CPUs (eg. 286, 386, 486) but now refers to the underlying architecture and instruction set that handles 32-bit integer operations in a modern desktop CPU.http://www.futuremark.com/community/hardwarevocabulary/ x86 or 80x86 is the generic name of a microprocessor architecture first developed and manufactured by Intel.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86 From Google.Still though, this has always confused me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beh Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 I don't think x64 is correct, I think it's supposed to be x86_64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xirtam Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 From Google. Still though, this has always confused me. Does it still confuse you? if so what exactly do you find confusing! Maby some can help explane it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NienorGT Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 Well put it simple. x86 is the name of the Architecture, the most common actually is the 32Bits version. To put a difference the 32Bits still called x86 when the 64Bits is called x64 short of x86-64... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digitalx Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 (edited) Originally this code referred to Intel's x86 series of CPUs (eg. 286, 386, 486) but now refers to the underlying architecture and instruction set that handles 32-bit integer operations in a modern desktop CPU. http://www.futuremark.com/community/hardwarevocabulary/ is exactly the point when people say for example windows vista build 54xx the x being a replacement for any number... because theres mutiple 32 bit architectures 286 386 486 etc people just say x86 thats why its x86 x64 is correct because again its a shorted differential to x86_64 architecture so its simple to differentiate the x86 from x64 and its just a coincidental factor that x64 is 64 bit but... bottom line the xXX type way of reffering to cpu architecture is soley on the name of the architecture its giving thats why x86_64 is basicly a shortend name for x86 with 64 bit exstension. its simple when you understand what i have just written. Edited September 5, 2006 by Digix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANova Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 I don't think x64 is correct, I think it's supposed to be x86_64 You're right, as has been posted the x86 was the first consumer cpu developed by Intel and by which is the foundation for all modern day Intel and AMD processors. x86-64 is an instruction set built on top of the x86 architecture, the industry simply shortened it to x64 since it's easier to say and type and less confusing for the masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strekship Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 x86_64 and x64 are very different things. x64 refers to the IA-64 arctitecture used by the itanium processors. x86_64 refers to AMD64 and EM64T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackcomb- Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 i still remember my old 486...mmmmmm... what a piece of crap anyway, believe it or not, x64 was originally going to be called x86-64 (since it still is an x86 architecture) They just shortened it to x64 and confused everybody... and no..... IA64 is not the same as x64. IA64 (Itanium CPUs) involves native 64bit processing. x64 is still 32bit with 64bit extensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NextGen_Gamer Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 x86_64 and x64 are very different things. x64 refers to the IA-64 arctitecture used by the itanium processors. x86_64 refers to AMD64 and EM64T. Sorry, but I think you are wrong. That's why Windows XP Professional x64 Edition (made for AMD64 and EM64T) is called, well, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition. IA-64, the architecture of the Itanium series, is always referred to as IA-64. Both x86-64 and just x64 refer to the same thing: the AMD64 or EM64T instruction set. Everything I have read points to this. I have never encounted any company or website using x64 as a reference to IA-64. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strekship Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 i still remember my old 486...mmmmmm... what a piece of crap anyway, believe it or not, x64 was originally going to be called x86-64 (since it still is an x86 architecture) They just shortened it to x64 and confused everybody... and no..... IA64 is not the same as x64. IA64 (Itanium CPUs) involves native 64bit processing. x64 is still 32bit with 64bit extensions. IA-64 is not IA-32 with 64bit extensions. It is only bakcwards compatable with IA-32 though a slow emulation layer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA-64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted October 9, 2006 Veteran Share Posted October 9, 2006 x64 was originally called x86-64 (by AMD, its creators) or AMD64 by Microsoft / Cutler and later on the AMD64 nomenclature was adopted by most Linux developers to basically "give AMD their due." Pressure from Intel forced many companies to start calling it "x64" or "64-bit extended" so as not to make AMD look smarter/better/more advanced, and because they felt that the "extended" naming would let them claim that AMD64 wasn't "real" 64-bit, and that only their slow over-priced oft-ridiculed Itanium brand with IA-64 were "true" 64-bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts