Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 13th Nov 2012 22:24 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 542594
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: What about 64-bit only?
by Neolander on Thu 15th Nov 2012 07:26
in reply to "RE[2]: What about 64-bit only?"
Plus, isn't amd64 effectively a superset of x86? Meaning you can't really implement the former without major parts of the latter?
Yeah, AMD64 also follows a logic that's very similar to that of x68, but I don't know if Intel's license/patents/whatever prevents people from doing what they want with x86 go this far.
Edited 2012-11-15 07:30 UTC
RE[3]: What about 64-bit only?
by twitterfire on Thu 15th Nov 2012 12:36
in reply to "RE[2]: What about 64-bit only?"
Data is 64 bit, instructions can use 16, 32 or 64 bits.
For example:
mov ah, bh //16 bit
mov ax, bx //32 bit
mov rax, rbx // 64 bit
Intel patents cover instruction set so you can't have x64 only cpus without infringing Intel's patents.
So that's why hardware patents are as bad as software patents because they hinder competition.




Member since:
2005-07-06
Plus, isn't amd64 effectively a superset of x86? Meaning you can't really implement the former without major parts of the latter?