Which Intel CPUs are 64 bit?

[jsimms243]

So I have some mixed info. Some people tell me intel has no 64 bit processor. Some tell otherwise.

On desktops, I am pretty sure no P4s are 64 bit, yes (correct me if wrong!)? What about those new Vivo Dual Core Intel's? I have been told these are a 64 bit "emulation". How would you guys define the Vivo desktops? 64 bit at all, emulation, will it run a 64 bit version of Vista?

One person told me if the Intel chip was above a certain number (such as 930 and above, as an exmaple) then it is 64 bit. Thoughts?

As for laptops, are the dual core Intel's 64 bit, or again, 64 bit emulation, or not 64 at all?

As for AMD chips, all of those are 64 bit, correct? Including Sempron?

Thanks for the help in advance. Just a little quick help to understand everything.

 

[morningreis]

5xx are not 64 bit.
6xx are.
9xx and 8xx are also.

I'm 99% sure I'm right, even though I haven't been keeping up witht he Intel scene.

AMD is going all out 64 bit from now on. Intel I think will be going 64 bit from now on, but the reason they have a lot more non-64 bit variety is because they never saw the need for 64 bit computing ATM, and were slow to pick up on it.

So yes Intel DOES have 64 bit processors.

For AMD, everything socket 939, 940 and beyond is 64 bit. For socket 754, there are Athlon 64s and also Sempron 64s, but ter are also older, 32 bit Semprons and Athlons for s754.

 

[meatycheesyboy]

5xx are not 64 bit.

500 series CPUs that end with a 1 or a 6 are 64 bit, such as the 506 and the 511.

Also, you forgot the Celerons; they are the same as the 500 series, if it ends in a 1 or 6 then its 64 bit; such as the Celeron 326, 331, 336, 346, and 351.

 

[wee96]

5xx are not 64 bit.
6xx are.
9xx and 8xx are also.

I'm 99% sure I'm right, even though I haven't been keeping up witht he Intel scene.

AMD is going all out 64 bit from now on. Intel I think will be going 64 bit from now on, but the reason they have a lot more non-64 bit variety is because they never saw the need for 64 bit computing ATM, and were slow to pick up on it.

So yes Intel DOES have 64 bit processors.

For AMD, everything socket 939, 940 and beyond is 64 bit. For socket 754, there are Athlon 64s and also Sempron 64s, but ter are also older, 32 bit Semprons and Athlons for s754.

There are no strictly 32bit Athlon's in S754, they are all A64's. There are 32bit Semprons though.

 

[morningreis]

Yeah you're right my bad.

 

[jsimms243]

Thanks for the feedback guys. Anyone else object to these facts/opinions? I need to make sure these statements are factual.

So:

All 5xx are 32 bit, unless they end in 1 or 6, then they are 64 bit.

All 6xx are 64 bit.

What about Centrino processors? Any 64 bit?

Also, I did not see anyone respond to the dual core Vivo chips. I have been told by some that they are 64 bit. Others tell me they are not, while others tell me they are 64 bit emulation. If these are 64 bit emulation, can someone give me an explanation of exactly what this is? Will it run Vista? If so, are the benefits the same as having a dual core X2 Athlon?

If Intel has 64 bit why do so many people look for AMD when purchasing a 64 bit CPU? If some Intel CPUs are true 64 bit why do so few people get them?

To many questions. I know. Any help appreciated.

 

[mike_6289]

I do not think that the intel pentium 4 m "centrino" is 64 bit capable. I am 95% sure.

 

[jsimms243]

anyone else? thanks.

 

[KarateBob]

none of intel's mobile CPU's are 64-bit.

 

[Alvein]

Everybody point their Acrobat's to http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/proc_info_table.pdf

Stupid numbering system

 

[JackPack]

All 5xx are 32 bit, unless they end in 1 or 6, then they are 64 bit.

All 6xx are 64 bit.

No objections here. The 800 and 900 series (Pentium D) also features 64-bit.

What about Centrino processors? Any 64 bit?

No to 64-bit. In order of increasing performance, the current Intel mobile offerings include Celeron M, Pentium M, and Core Duo/Solo. Notebooks that use the Pentium M or Core Solo/Duo and come with an approved Intel wi-fi solution and Intel chipset can be labeled as Centrino. Centrino is not a processor.

Also, I did not see anyone respond to the dual core Vivo chips. I have been told by some that they are 64 bit. Others tell me they are not, while others tell me they are 64 bit emulation. If these are 64 bit emulation, can someone give me an explanation of exactly what this is? Will it run Vista? If so, are the benefits the same as having a dual core X2 Athlon?

*Cringes*
There's so much misinformation here, but I know that's not your fault.

Similar to Centrino, Viiv is a platform, not a processor. Essentially, Viiv means you're getting a dual-core system with HD audio, Quick Resume, and Windows MCE.
http://www.intel.com/products/viiv/prodbrief.pdf

Again, 64-bit is determined by the processor. Since a Viiv system must use a dual-core processor, it will be either Pentium D or Core Duo (notebook). If you see Pentium D, then it supports 64-bit. There's no such thing as 64-bit emulation. The 64-bit enabled products from Intel fully support the x86-64 extensions. It will run Vista. It's important to note that Vista supports 32/64.

If Intel has 64 bit why do so many people look for AMD when purchasing a 64 bit CPU? If some Intel CPUs are true 64 bit why do so few people get them?

The vast majority of consumers purchase Intel processors. At the moment, the AMD desktop offerings perform better than the Intel counterparts which is why you see enthusiasts on these forums prefer AMD products. Performance is a game of leapfrogging for AMD and Intel. The current Athlon 64 products are considered better than Pentium D, but the upcoming Intel Conroe (working name) processors should outperform the Athlons significantly. This kind of cyclic nature has been observed since the original Athlon classic came out to compete with the PIII.

 

[coldpower27]

Herei s a list of all currently available 64Bit x86-64 Consumer Level processors from Intel.

Celeron D 326, 331, 336, 341, 346, 351, 355 (2.53GHZ - 3.33GHZ)
Pentium 4 506, 516, 517, 524 (2.66GHZ - 3.06GHZ)
Pentium 4 521, 531, 541, 551, 561, 571 (2.8GHZ - 3.8GHZ)
Pentium 4 630, 631, 640, 641, 650, 651, 660, 661, 662, 670, 672 (3.0GHZ - 3.8GHZ)
Pentium 4 805 (2.66GHZ) (Dual Core)
Pentium 4 820, 830, 840 (2.8GHZ- 3.2GHZ) (Dual Cores)
Pentium 4 920, 930, 940, 950 (2.8GHZ - 3.4GHZ) (Dual Cores)
Pentium 4 EE 3.73GHZ
Penitium EE 840, 955 (Dual Cores)

 

[CoW]8(0)]

I think the 64-bit you guys are referring to is Intel's EM64T. It's not a form of 64-bit emulation. It's adapted (copied) from AMD's AMD64 and is as 64-bit as AMD64's are. IMO, Intel has always been stubborn about borrowing technology and this is basically the same as when AMD borrowed the x86 architecture. Unfortunately, Intel's EM64T isn't implemented very well and this means that the performance gains (if any) while running EM64T will be nowhere as high as AMD64's.

But basically anything 64-bit which Intel has right now isn't good.

 

[Dillusion]

I think the 64-bit you guys are referring to is Intel's EM64T. It's not a form of 64-bit emulation. It's adapted (copied) from AMD's AMD64 and is as 64-bit as AMD64's are. IMO, Intel has always been stubborn about borrowing technology and this is basically the same as when AMD borrowed the x86 architecture. Unfortunately, Intel's EM64T isn't implemented very well and this means that the performance gains (if any) while running EM64T will be nowhere as high as AMD64's.

But basically anything 64-bit which Intel has right now isn't good.

So what if intel stole AMD's microcode- its fair game. Intel's EM64T is just as good as AMD's given its the same thing, and implemented the same. How can you say intel copied AMD, and then say intel's isnt as good when its the same thing?

 

[CoW]8(0)]

Take it easy....Is the term AMD a profanity here?

I wasn't implying anything about the politics behind Intel's EM64T. EM64T isn't an exact copy of AMD64, but it is based off it. The instruction set is taken from AMD mainly because AMD was able to strike first in the 64bit world and Intel's main goal with EM64T was compatibility. The problem that many say is that EM64T isn't implemented as well as AMD64. These issues can probably be described by someone with a better knowledge of assembly and CPU architecture. But they have been pointed out...

Here's a review:
http://www.linuxhardware.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/24/1747228&mode=nocomment

 

[Scali]

So what if intel stole AMD's microcode- its fair game. Intel's EM64T is just as good as AMD's given its the same thing, and implemented the same. How can you say intel copied AMD, and then say intel's isnt as good when its the same thing?

It's the same instructionset, not the same implementation/microcode/etc.
So indeed, there can be a performance difference, just like with 'regular' x86 code, where AMD 'stole' (the correct term is 'licensed' ofcourse) Intel's instructionset, and runs the same code, but not with the same performance.

By the way, the Intel Xeons were the first to support EM64T, so there are also a lot of Xeon CPUs out there that are 64-bit. I don't know the exact models, but every new Xeon has had it for a while now.

 

[centvalny]

anyone else? thanks.

Heres 571ES with EM64T....

 

[PGHammer]

Heres 571ES with EM64T....

And you have effectively shocked me.

A 64-bit *Prescott*? Didn't think there was such an animal.

I knew about the 5xx-series EM64T processors, but I thought they were based on a later core than Prescott.

 

[jon67]

I knew about the 5xx-series EM64T processors, but I thought they were based on a later core than Prescott.

All 5xx and 6xx CPUs are prescotts.

 

[Scali]

Yes, all Prescotts are 64-bit. But it's like HT... not all CPUs have it enabled. It's there in the core though, there's only one core.

 

[JetUsafMech]

I think the 64-bit you guys are referring to is Intel's EM64T. It's not a form of 64-bit emulation. It's adapted (copied) from AMD's AMD64 and is as 64-bit as AMD64's are. IMO, Intel has always been stubborn about borrowing technology and this is basically the same as when AMD borrowed the x86 architecture. Unfortunately, Intel's EM64T isn't implemented very well and this means that the performance gains (if any) while running EM64T will be nowhere as high as AMD64's.

But basically anything 64-bit which Intel has right now isn't good.

Copied?

The companies have signed four patent cross-license agreements since 1976, said John Greenagel, an AMD spokesman. "Anything that we patent they can use, and anything they patent we can use," he said.

From: http://www.itworld.com/Comp/1057/IDG010504amd_intel/