• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Is the Core 2 64 bit?

G

gman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 24, 2001
Messages
1,887
I haven't seen that listed any where, so was wondering. I assume they'll run VISTA ok.
 
Simple answer: Yes

Advanced answer: With the calculations of the processor occuring in 64bit mode, and the emulation of 32bit mode within the CPU, one could assume that the core 2 duo processor, and it's future core 2 solo variant can indeed run software encoded in 64bits.
 
I thought they were, but heard on a local talk show that some 'girl' said, who supposedly knew what she was talking about, said that they were not true 64 bit, not sure what she meant by that though.
 
gman said:
I thought they were, but heard on a local talk show that some 'girl' said, who supposedly knew what she was talking about, said that they were not true 64 bit, not sure what she meant by that though.
Click to expand...

What she meant was "I am an AMD !!!!!! and never want you to buy an intel product so i will spread lies about Intel"

Scary people like her get on a talk show.
 
Yes. 64-bit linux runs as well as you would expect it too. Except that the LAN ports don't seem to work well on the P5W DH in linux. :mad:
 
MrGuvernment said:
What she meant was "I am an AMD !!!!!! and never want you to buy an intel product so i will spread lies about Intel"

Scary people like her get on a talk show.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true Intel FanBot. :rolleyes:

I personally have no alliance, I will buy what gives me the best bang for the buck.
Brand loyalty just shows a sheep-like mind.
 
JRT said:
Spoken like a true Intel FanBot. :rolleyes:

I personally have no alliance, I will buy what gives me the best bang for the buck.
Brand loyalty just shows a sheep-like mind.
Click to expand...
It depends on what you've had good luck with and what your needs are. I've stuck with Intel CPUs for most of my system builds, but I've gone back and forth between ATI and NVIDIA for video cards. If you look at motherboards, I think you'll find most people tend to stick with what brand has worked well for them over the years. For me it's not really loyalty but using something I'm familiar with and will have very few (if any) problems with. It's always a gamble when you go REAL cheap with memory, motherboards, etc. I'd rather spend a little more in those areas.
 
Is it 64 bit? - This question is soooooooo open to interpretation. The Athlon 64 chips are true 64 bit - they include ALL 64 bit extensions. I could be wrong here - but I believe that Intel is using their 32 bit architecture and including something called EMT64 (64 bit emulation) Regardless - you see no performance decrease when using a 64 bit application - and I dont believe that as of current there are any 64 bit applications that the core 2 duo chips will not run (as well as any chip from P4 630 and above, they all include the EMT64 set of instructions).

So to answer your question - Is the Core 2 64 bit?

Your silly, snakes dont have eyebrows.
 
EM64T is not an emulation but an implementation of AMD64 on Intel cpus.


The training material that I'm using for 64bit instructions is from AMD :D
And yes....I do work for Intel.
 
Endrithius said:
Is it 64 bit? - This question is soooooooo open to interpretation. The Athlon 64 chips are true 64 bit - they include ALL 64 bit extensions. I could be wrong here - but I believe that Intel is using their 32 bit architecture and including something called EMT64 (64 bit emulation)
Click to expand...
EM64T is Intel's implementation of 64-bit x86, not emulation, as mentioned above. The G0 stepping single core P4s also "include ALL 64 bit extensions." What was missing before were a pair of task switching instructions that AMD had removed from the spec and later reenabled. It has nothing to do with running 64-bit apps and was only a minor concern for OS writers.

There's an older thread that goes into the detail of why EM64T is not emulation if you care to search for it (summary: Prescott's registers and ALU execution units were widened and instruction set expanded to accommodate 64-bit). Whether or not Prescott had a *good* 64-bit implementation is "open to interpretation." I've had very mixed results in my software. Core2 is generally better and didn't have 64-bit bolted on as an after-thought, but Intel seems to have a conflict of interest over 64-bit desktop and small server CPUs not competing with Itanium.
 
JRT said:
Spoken like a true Intel FanBot. :rolleyes:

I personally have no alliance, I will buy what gives me the best bang for the buck.
Brand loyalty just shows a sheep-like mind.
Click to expand...

Wanna bet? So what if he's right?

I
schapman43 said:
need a low end Intel chip (Help a AMD buyer)

I've been using AMD chips on Asus boards for the past 8 years. But I need a low end system to stick Linux on and would like to give a Intel chip and try. I need something low end and would like to stick it on a Asus board. Integrated video is preferred. I've been kind of thinking one of the Pentium D's would be nice. Can anyone recommend a chip/motherboard combo?
Click to expand...

Does that make you an AMD Fanbot? 8 years ago in 1998 the Mighty 440 BX ruled all and everything on the market. They were light years better than the buggy Super 7's of those days. You had to be real loyal to stick the POS VIA boards and AMD K6's of those days. Hell, I had two of them.
 
Donnie27 said:
Wanna bet? So what if he's right?

I

Does that make you an AMD Fanbot? 8 years ago in 1998 the Might 440 BX ruled all and everything on the market. The were light years better than the buggy Super &'s of those days. You had to be real loyal to stick the POS VIA board and AMD K6's of those days. Hell, I had two of them.
Click to expand...
And don't forget about those dog-slow Cyrix wannabe CPUs. ;) I remember reading an article in Boot from the CEO of Cyrix who said they were going to beat Intel at their own game. Where are they now?
 
Endrithius said:
Is it 64 bit? - This question is soooooooo open to interpretation. The Athlon 64 chips are true 64 bit - they include ALL 64 bit extensions. I could be wrong here - but I believe that Intel is using their 32 bit architecture and including something called EMT64 (64 bit emulation) Regardless - you see no performance decrease when using a 64 bit application - and I dont believe that as of current there are any 64 bit applications that the core 2 duo chips will not run (as well as any chip from P4 630 and above, they all include the EMT64 set of instructions).

So to answer your question - Is the Core 2 64 bit?

Your silly, snakes dont have eyebrows.
Click to expand...

Yup, you're wrong and nothing is open about it. All x86 based processors that support 64bit are extended to 64bit. AMD is no more native 64bit than Core 2 or P4=P
 
dark_reign said:
And don't forget about those dog-slow Cyrix wannabe CPUs. ;) I remember reading an article in Boot from the CEO of Cyrix who said they were going to beat Intel at their own game. Where are they now?
Click to expand...

You got that right.

According to most AMD folks, Opteron should have about 85% of the market right now.
 
Wow, I have never seen a group of people who can argue over a simple yes/no questions when the maker of the product themselves said YES. What's so hard about this?

Some AMD guys are saying "no" based on the assumtion that Conroe is a spawn of Yonah, which did not have 64-bit. As hard as this is to believe, Intel actually improved Yonah instead of just porting it to the desktop! They added 64-bit? *gasp* Imagine that!!!
 
JRT said:
Spoken like a true Intel FanBot. :rolleyes:

I personally have no alliance, I will buy what gives me the best bang for the buck.
Brand loyalty just shows a sheep-like mind.
Click to expand...

How am i an intelfanbot for pointing out someone else's completle lack of knowledge and missleading people into thinking something is true that is not making people think the other company has an inferior product?

People will take any chance they can at calling someone a fannyboi cant they, is like it makes them cool or something ?


Oh, by the way, i am typing this on an AMD XP barton :)
OH, and my dual core intel is sitting beside me, but i am using this system instead for some reason....

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
EM64T (NOT EMT64) stands for Extended Memory 64 Technology, not "Emulation 64 Technology". Nothing about it is emulated, it's a shame that they (Intel) are not more clear on this. It confuses a lot of people.
 
Well - I was most definately wrong. I have to say that at first glance, I took the normal - Im smarter than you - action and went and researched. I was in fact - WRONG. The Intel chips - are in fact - in full support of 64 bit - which no matter what way you look at it - makes them a 64 bit chip. There are no instruction sets missing. No longer can AMD claim that they are the only 64 bit consumer chip on the market. Way to go intel.

I hear arguments that AMD is a better chip maker because they are constantly pushing the market forward with their 64 bit chips, and that they are the only ones trying. Well AMD !!!!!!S BE WARNED!!!! Intel has the best chip - and it has all the same abilities of their chips. Even AMD themselves have yet to make the arguement that their new K8L chips will be better than the Core 2 series. Their words were, the new set of chips will be "on par" with the latest Intels.

Yes I am a !!!!!! - but when AMD comes out with a better chip - that is this big in a leap of performance - I will then be an AMD fan boy.

I am a !!!!!! of performance.

Thanks guys for setting me straight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top