Talk:AMD64

message: I think having native 64-bit integer arithmetic should also be mentioned in the "Some of the changes" list, because it's really one of the most fundamental changes (right?). intgr
: You're right. Done. Jeh 18:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 64-bit integer arithmetic

message: (Doradus) Can anyone explain why the article was gutted and rewritten?  I think the version before the rewrite was much better.
: It seems like the user "Bad Byte" is the one who did this (and I later joined in, refining the separation of content). It was in an attempt to separate the earlier article into information about hardware implementing AMD64 and the AMD64 architecture itself. I think that the AMD64 article should be primarily about the AMD64 architecture, and articles like Athlon 64 and Opteron and Intel Xeon should be about the hardware implementing AMD64. However, as the hardware implementing AMD64 is relevant, I support the current list of products implementing AMD64, with links to the articles.
: I think that the "supported operating systems" information from previous reincarnations of this article really needs to be brought back. That's important information this article shouldn't be without, and I think I'm going to get started writing this list.
: Samrolken 17:23, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The rewrite

message: AMD64 is centered around AMD. On the other hand, EM64T is centered around Intel. Why not just call it x64 and make AMD64 and EM64T redirects? - Sikon 15:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, "X64" is a Microsoft coinage.  Some would say there are more than enough Microsoft-centric references in the article already. ;) Jeh 06:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not call it x86-64, this way it doesn't show bias toward Microsoft, Intel or AMD. Coldpower27 23:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current organisation makes sense to me - AMD64 is the particular architecture designed and named as such by AMD, and thus this page is the primary source of information, while the EM64T article just talks about Intel's implementation of the architecture. -- intgr 01:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: This article is confused on this point.  For example, it says "256 terabytes", when the actual number is about 281 terabytes -- 256 tibibytes. In my edits this evening I tried to clarify things by adding the powers of two.  Is that suitable? Jeh 17:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binary vs. Decimal prefixes 

message: Does this article seem rather MS Biased? There are 12 references in this short article to "Windows", and 3 references to "Microsoft".
Compared to a single reference to the alternative operating systems that support the AMD64 instruction set. Seeing how MS was the last OS vendor to even support the architecture.....
: This is a valid point.   I'm certainly not the person to do it; I'm a Windows kernel guy (and, in the past, a VMS kernel guy).  If someone wants to provide authoritative information on the details of how, for example, Linux, for example, uses AMD64's features, the "edit" button is up there for you to use. ;) 
: In that case I'd think the right thing would be to create a new section, "Operating system support", and gather all of the present refs to Windows support under there along with the new material.  Hm.... Perhaps I'll do this anyway with the Windows material as it will clean up the existing text where it is now, and provide a good place for Linux (or other OS!) folks to add their stuff. Jeh 22:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ... done, as far as Windows is concerned.  Contributors other than me are needed to fill in the others.   Jeh 04:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh... Considering the number of OSes out there, and the number of "OS vendors" in existence, I think it's more reasonable to say that Microsoft was one of the first to support x86-64.  WinNT just came behind the major open-source *nixes, which is, I think, what you meant. -- uberpenguin 19:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MS Biased article? 

message: It should be noted that a similar feature has been available on 32-bit x86 processors since the 80286 as an attribute of segment descriptors.
The 80286 was 16-bit, not 32-bit.  Do only 32-bit 80386 and up have segment descriptor attributes, or was it also in the 16-bit 80286?
:MSTCrow 06:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ever since the 80286, x86 processors have always had two separate categories of segment registers - one for code and one for data.  You can only ever execute from a "code" segment, meaning that "data" segments are never executable.  In fact, you cannot mark a "code" segment as writable, either.  In this way, Win16 is more protected against buffer overflows than Win32.  In Win32 and most other 32-bit operating systems, there is a separate code segment, but it maps to the same address as the data segment used in DS, ES, and SS, and segment registers aren't used for, well, segmenting memory anymore. -- Myria 23:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No-Execute bit 

message: Can somebody do a compare page of AMD64 versus EM64T?
I would really appreciate that, thanks! :)
:See the EM64T page - in particular, see the Differences between AMD64 and EM64T section. Guy Harris 01:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compare page 

message: I've added links to other wikipedia resources, please finish the work I started if i can't do it
(update) Opps, o forgot my sign
--Ciro07 11:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've added links to pages that already contain links in this article. There's really no need for such duplication - only the first occurrence of an article should be linked, and only if its relevant to the topic. I'm reverting all but one of these additions. Mindmatrix 16:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: I have heard about the AMD 64 processers that they have problems in computing float numbers.If any one have any idea,I'll be be happy to know.Tanx.
   Saham Hendinejad--Hendinejad 10:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of problems, exactly? References? A quick google search turned up nothing relevant. If it's about errors, it's a problem with the specific CPU design and not the AMD64 architecture. Single- and double-precision floating point calculation of AMD64 and x86 is specified in the IEEE 754 standard. As for x86 full-precision (80-bit) FP arithmetic, the corner cases are pretty much unspecified and all programmers using these ought to be aware of potential issues. -- intgr 14:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is a reference to this news item, which affects certain "AMD Opteron 152, 154, 252, 254, 852 and 854 processors manufactured in late 2005 or early 2006", which are generally only used as server CPUs. -- Bovineone 22:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AMD 64 problems in float computing 

message: I am looking at the "Architectural features" section and thinking that it would be much easier to edit if bolded items were subheadings. Would that upset anybody? It might (as in maybe, I don't really know) make merging easier. --Charles Gaudette 21:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Architectural features to tertiary headings?