Talk:EM64T

message: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20072
Quite strange saying. Intel claimed that AMD had stolen most part of AMD64 form them :)
:The 'claim' is quite vague.  The Inquirer says:
::According to Curry, Intel's "competitor" - that's AMD of course, took advantage of the work it had done. He said that the competitor announced its move into the 64-32 arena largely based on the work Intel had done.
:Undoubtedly Intel worked on 64-bit extensions to x86 (as did AMD, and anyone interested would).  Perhaps Intel researchers published some papers on the subject.  The basic idea of 64-bit extensions is obvious; the details can differ, but are substantially constrained by compatibility.  There's no claim here that there was an Intel design that was secret and was stolen.  I wonder if this is a case of decomposing sour grapes emitting hot air. -R. S. Shaw 22:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  who was the 1st ? 

message: :Similar to CMPXCHG8B, CMPXCHG16B allows for atomic operations on 128-bit double quadword (or oword) data types. This is useful for high resolution counters that could be updated by multiple processors (or cores).
This statement is true but misleading: the double-width compare-and-swap is primarily used in Lock-free and wait-free algorithms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.19.78.190 (talk • contribs) 16:40, December 16, 2005  (UTC)
:I don't know if I'd say it's misleading; it is accurate, it just doesn't mention the other possible use you've defined above. If you want to reword it, feel free. =) —Locke Cole 16:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CMPXCHG16B 

message: I'd like a source for this latest addition (especially the part claiming it's only useful for hyperthreaded processors). Given the technical definition of these instructions from Intel's own manuals, these would seem to be useful even in multi-core processors (not just hyperthreaded/SMT processors). If there's no verifiable source (or no objection) in a few days, I'll likely remove the passage. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing burdensome about my request, it is in fact one of the core philosophies of Wikipedia: Verifiability. (Which is in turn backed up by another philosophy: No original research). I'll look into the information you've presented, but I'll say up front I'm not impressed with the age of the research you cite (all circa 2004 it seems, before dual core processors were a consideration). Thanks for responding though, I'll get back to you on my thoughts. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The chunk of code is from the linux-2.6.13.4 kernel, which is quite recent. I've only ever seen WP:V used abusively. You'd do well to forget that it exists, lest it tempt you to treat others as you surely would rather not be treated. See The Golden Rule. Alternately, you could go threaten to delete the whole Serine article for not providing references, hmmm? Most articles are like that, for reasons that should be obvious and acceptable. Have you provided references for all your wikipedia edits? Would you like people threatening to delete them? 24.110.60.225 AlbertCahalan 04:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Next time you edit, you might consider looking just above the edit summary input box, it says, and I quote, "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable. Your contributions will be licensed under the GFDL.". No, I don't source everything I ever add to Wikipedia, but then I don't add things I've made up myself (I usually have a source I'm working from that backs up what I'm writing). If I didn't have a source, it would be original research and unverifiable. That's bad for Wikipedia. Now please, be civil, as I was in my original request for some references supporting the passage, and stop acting like I've harassed you in some way by discussing this and not simply removing it out of hand (as I could have done, had I been so inclined). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: He could have simply said "Why is monitor/mwait mainly a hyperthread thing?" instead of bringing out the heavy weaponry. Once you mention WP:V, you've basically accused someone of writing a pile of bullshit. In this case, there was a findable reference. I know plenty of things that I've learned over the years, via college textbooks for example, that are possible but very difficult to verify. It's not right to needlessly ask people to dig up ISDN numbers of books that got discarded years prior, especially since the accuser is very unlikely to go buy or borrow the reference. AlbertCahalan 07:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:V is not "heavy weaponry". Until you told me the anon was you (on my WP:RFA) I had no idea if this anon was simply new (and might like to know in advance why I was asking for a source for this bit of information), or was trying to slip in POV to downplay MONITOR/MWAIT (in which case, WP:V would probably force the individual to rethink adding unverifiable POV to an article). I do not consider mentioning WP:V to be akin to accusing someone of writing a "pile of bullshit". And neither do a lot of other editors on Wikipedia. Being verifiable is important for Wikipedia, and as policy, it has been accepted by a consensus of editors. The same holds true for WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I consider asking for verification to be "right", and I do not believe my request was "needless". Please be more considerate of Wikipedia policy in the future, and don't automatically assume bad faith on the part of someone requesting verification. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a follow-up, I've done a very limited bit of research into this, and while I haven't come across anything discounting the idea that MONITOR/MWAIT are hyperthreading specific, I also haven't come up with much supporting it (beyond the LKML entry above, which may or may not be a reliable source). In any event, I came across this (pdf) which states that MONITOR/MWAIT will be implemented in AMD processors in 2007. If it's only relevant to hyperthreading implementations, I wonder why they'd announce planned support. I'll look into this more later as time allows, I just wanted to give an update on my research. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MONITOR/MWAIT