Talk:X86/Archives/2012

Disambiguation of binary prefix
I just added a couple of footnotes to explain the binary meaning of MB, GB etc. I then noticed that the binary forms GiB, TiB are used explicitly later on in the article. I think it would be better to choose between the two disambiguation styles and then apply it consistently. Are there any views on which of the two styles is preferred? Thunderbird2 (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There isn't a lot of guidance in WP:MOSNUM, but consistency is definitely preferred. My personal preference is for GiB, etc., on the basis that a) given the article content, we can reasonably assume a fairly technical readership; and b) if we find that we need footnotes to clarify a term, that's a good indication that we ought to use a more clear term. Jakew (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey that was quick :) It's true there's not much guidance from MOSNUM, but that's not for lack of trying.  There's been a huge amount of debate there recently, but little consensus (yet).  If the x86 readers will understand GiB (or at least take the trouble to read gibibyte) it would certainly read better without the footnotes. Thunderbird2 (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh my, I had no idea that this subject was so sensitive! Can I propose waiting for a few days, to see what other editors think? Jakew (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sensitive? Some people have it has their religion. Soon they'll be demanding tax deduction.--Anss123 (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It depends on what the sources use. At the moment it looks like the sources mostly use GB, so using GiB in the article would make it inconsistent with those sources. Fnagaton 14:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I reckon the professional and academic literature is tending more and more to use IEC prefixes, which I feel should be preferred for this article. Here are some examples


 * Buntinas et al
 * Eeckhout et al
 * Ganssle & Barr
 * Georges et al
 * Kuszmaul
 * Rauch
 * Thunderbird2 (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Which of those sources are used by this article though? This source, cited by the article, uses GB. Fnagaton 21:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What if some sources use GB and others use GiB? It seems to me that the result would be rather confusing. To my mind, except for direct quotes, it makes sense to standardise on one or the other. Jakew (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Which sources used by the article use GiB? Fnagaton 21:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What matters is the reliable literature aimed at this level of readership. Just one or two more ... Thunderbird2 (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Chanet et al
 * Coutinho et al
 * Desnoyers & Dagenais
 * Engel & Mertens
 * Ericsson
 * Gara et al
 * Gleixner et al
 * Heimpold & Baumgartl
 * Heirman et al
 * Heander & Malmborn
 * Moreira et al
 * Parthey & Baumgartl


 * All: One’s sources is only part of the equation. Often the source you are quoting helps to discern who your target readership is. I would suggest that the true test of the wise thing to do here is to decide whether this article is truly directed primarily to an expert audience, such as professional software developers, or is really directed to a general-interest readership. Who is the audience? Does this article seem like it would most likely belong to part of a registered-membership Web site for software developers (?) or does this article look more like the sort of thing you would read in an in-depth article in PC World? If the latter, what unit symbols would PC World use and how would they disambiguate (if at all)? Wikipedia’s mission is to communicate with minimal confusion so that readers can learn about a subject and are primed as well as possible to learn even more in their studies elsewhere. I don’t profess to know the answer to who the readership truly is in this case; it seems, however, to be a general-interest readership to me though. Greg L (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a good point. Looking through the article I think anyone capable of reading and understanding it would probably already be familiar with MiB, and if not, he (I hope that's not considered sexist - it's unlikely to be a she) could easily lap up the concept in between bites of shreddies for breakfast. Thunderbird2 (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * T-bird, I agree that this article quite arguably enjoys a relatively pro audience that can swallow and digest “GiB”. Accordingly, I see no reason to take a stand of any sort on this one as it is quite fairly a judgment call. Having stipulated that a pro audience can “swallow and digest” the unit, is a separate issue from whether it is most wise to feed it to them; clearly, a pro audience would also have reciprocal-infinity trouble with “A 32-bit address space would allow the processor to directly address only 4 GB of data.” The advantage of this wording, of course, is it is all the more accessible to a less knowledgeable readership. In the final analysis, I would argue the real test here is a tradeoff on Wikipedia’s fundamental mission, which is: A) so that readers can learn about a subject and B) are primed as well as possible to learn even more in their studies elsewhere. In other words, will a reader who has learned a great deal in this article, later encounter “GiB” most often in his studies elsewhere on this subject? If so, use of GiB is good. Quite good. But the second, “B” consideration must be weighed against the possible confusion with the “A”-side of the equation: looking out for relatively novice readers trying to make heads or tails of this complex topic. I don’t know the answers to any of this as the true answer relies entirely upon fact: what sort of articles for further reading are really likely to be encountered and what units do they use? I do however, believe this is the proper way to frame and evaluate the problem. Greg L (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. I’ve withdrawn my vote in the survey. Thunderbird2 is using the proper process in evaluating the issue: who is the audience? Upon further looking at the article, it appears that a good case can be made that it is directed to a professional audience. Fnagaton: this is a poor choice of an article to make war on the IEC prefixes. As long as the authors here are properly considering who the audience is, that’s all we can fairly ask. I suggest you let them do as they see fit in this case and direct your energies on an egregious example that needs fixing. I do wish you’d chill a bit until MOSNUM#Follow current literature has better taken root. Greg L (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's have a quick survey. Thunderbird2 (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this article should use MiB, GiB, TiB ... to disambiguate

 * 1) While I recognise the desire to follow the current literature, Thunderbird2 has shown numerous examples of current literature that uses GiB, etc. While we could examine the sources currently cited in this article, it therefore seems likely that (even if we don't already do so) we will sooner or later cite a source using the IEC units. Unless we wish to use inconsistent units (which would be very confusing), we therefore have to choose. I see our role as to clearly and precisely express the subject matter. While I recognise that an explanatory footnote helps, I think that use of ambiguous units (eg., GB) does not help the reader. Also, I think that we can assume a reasonably technical audience, who will likely be familiar with GiB, etc. (and if not, will likely follow a link as an opportunity to learn). Apologies for the not-very-brief explanation. Jakew (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Clarity. I'm a strong supporter of IEC 60027-2. --217.87.99.52 (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Reasoning per Jakew. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) 
 * 5) When trying to write consistent engineering documents that use both physical units and computer terminology, the inconsistency between say MW and MB is glaring and the IEC standards begin to make much sense. That this is primarily a computer oriented article insulates it from the need to disambiguate metric from base 2. However this is not a sound plan for the consistent use of units on Wikipedia. The sooner we use K consistently for Kilo and Ki consistently for 1024, the better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David in oregon (talk • contribs) 06:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this article should use MB, GB, TB ..., and disambiguate with an explanatory footnote

 * 1) Fnagaton 21:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Anss123 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC) (It's rear to see GiB used anywhere but here)
 * 3) A footnote is much more clearer than GiB.DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, well then. After reading Jakew’s vote above, I see that no one has yet identified a cited source that uses the IEC prefixes. That changes things: facts I didn’t have before. Besides, the test isn’t where any source uses them, but what most of the sources cited in this article are using. Anywhere else, that would normally quickly settle the issue of what is the proper terminology and units of measure we should be using here to most easily communicate to this readership. Greg L (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Common usage is MB, not MiB, and until the IEC terminology is standardized I believe this should revert to MB/GB/TB with footnotes. Resuna (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, do not let this slip in through the back door again, after years of fighting this bad bad bad idea. Common use is NOT to use GiB KiB etc, never seen it used in common computer magazines, never expect it to see it either, if it was bound to happen it should have happened by now. except perhaps in an article that explains the discrepancy in hard-disk capacities, and then only in a theoretical setting, as in "some experts use the term MiB". its NOT used in common conversation. P.S. I see, I reacted to an old thread, no use starting it up again. Mahjongg (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 

I think this article should use MB, GB, TB ..., with some other form of disambiguation (please specify)

 * 1) 

Where do we go from here?
That seems fairly evenly balanced. May I gauge the strength of your views?

The act of disambiguation is more important than the manner in which it is achieved

 * 1) Ambiguity is the root of all evil.Thunderbird2 (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) 

IEC prefixes should never be used

 * 1) DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC) If you must disambiguate it serves the reader to use the more familiar method. IEC is not familiar so do not use it.
 * 2) The use of the non IEC prefixes is so ingrained, and with it the knowledge that it means binary, that using a different unit will only confuse. IEC prefixes are only for purely academic (rocket science) purposes, not for common conversation. Mahjongg (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) 

Ambiguous prefixes should never be used

 * 1) 

I cannot identify with any of the above (please clarify)

 * 1) This is a muddy grey area. I believe that arguments over the inherently ambiguous nature of the standard prefixes, while true, have become way overblown; their shortcomings largely an issue of our own making (the rest of the general-interest publishing world manages well enough with “GB”). The most important objective is to not confuse the readers. Who are the readers in this case? What can cause confusion in this case? Some would argue that “a 32-bit address space is 4 GB” causes confusion for an expert readership and this overrides concerns that “a 32-bit address space is 4 GiB” will be unfamiliar to less knowledgeable readers. I’m not sold on that reasoning yet; the whole article is clearly dealing only with binary address space. Still, given that this article is clearly directed to an advanced readership, the scales are not wildly imbalanced here. I have my idea as to the better solution but I have no problem with GiB for this article. Greg L (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I wouldn't go so far as to say that ambiguous prefixes should never be used. Having said that, I'm not convinced that using "GiB" will really cause confusion, for two reasons. First, we can't be sure that readers will even be familiar with "GB", and the prospect of avoiding prefixes altogether seems unrealistic. Second, this is an encyclopaedia, and surely as a general rule readers of an encyclopaedia want and expect to learn something, and aren't frightened of doing so (I suspect, but can't prove, that this is especially true of more technical audiences). As a general principle, we don't avoid unfamiliar units, but we do wikilink them. So to my mind to "harms" of using ambiguous prefixes are greater than the "harms" of using potentially unfamiliar prefixes, at least in this article. I do agree with Thunderbird2, though, that some form of disambiguation is essential, and I would also say that lack of consistency within the article is probably more confusing than one prefix or the other. Jakew (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We do avoid using unfamiliar terms for disambiguation though. The sources do mostly use GB.DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jakew, I don’t think your position conforms to the basic principals of technical writing. Your position stated above: “as a general rule, readers of an encyclopaedia want and expect to learn something” says, in effect “let’s go ahead and teach readers about ‘GiB’ because they are good units and it’s so good for readers to know about them, we should use them in an in-your-face, routine fashion like ‘oh, didn’t you know(?), this is the way one communicates on this subject’.” But no encyclopedia—not even Wikipedia with the power of wikilinking to easily explain stuff—should try to teach terminology that even computer aficionados haven’t seen before and which no one will likely ever again encounter out in the real world after leaving Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the only animal around that would pull such a stunt. I would argue that Wikipedia’s use is not because there is a broad consensus of support to do so (far from it), but is because the proponents of using them strongly believe they are so good, our use here on Wikipedia might somehow bootstrap their adoption. It hasn’t worked so far. Since the proponents started using the IEC prefixes en-mass two years ago, there have been seven archives (B1–B7) dedicated to arguments over their use and at least two regular archives (97 & 98) also dedicated exclusively to the issue. Their use has been highly controversial on Wikipedia and we’re pretty much alone on this; no other encyclopedia uses them—and for good reason. Greg L (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Greg L, I'm afraid you've misunderstood my argument. I'm not saying that we ought to use these units because it is good for readers to learn about them. I'm saying that we shouldn't avoid using them just because they might be unfamiliar (as with, say, zettajoules, we should use the units when appropriate, but should make every effort to make it easy for readers to become familiar with them). Nor am I saying that we should bootstrap their usage; as Thunderbird2 has shown, these units are used in the technical literature, and there is every possibility that readers will come across them as they learn about the subject. What I am saying is that the harms of using these units seem somewhat overstated, particularly given the likely audience of this article. Jakew (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Greg L, where can one read about these "basic principals of technical writing"? I don't see how it's possible to interpret Jakew's statement in the way you do. Aren't you just once more ridiculing a statement that you disagree with? You summarization of the previous discussion isn't only extremely single-sided, it's plain wrong. I don't even see why you're arguing that much about this case at all. Let's look at your very own proposed "guideline": Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29. This article is about as close as it gets to x86 assembly language. So why are you opposing something that is perfectly in-line with your own proposal? --217.87.102.163 (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) "a 32-bit address space is 232B = 4,294,967,296 bytes = 4 gigabytes". HAHAHAA --212.149.216.233 (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) I believe that common usage should be followed. Neither format is ambiguous as used on this page with appropriate footnotes, so ambiguity is not an issue. In any case, GiB and MiB is still ambiguous because it doesn't specify the size of the bytes. There are still computers operating with non-power-of-two words and bytes, after all. But, you say, the x86 family isn't one of them, and common usage is for 8 bit bytes... why then, the x86 CPU is not a disk drive either, and common usage is for MB and GB to refer to power-of-two prefixes. Resuna (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

x87
Apparently the x87 instruction set was integrated into the x86 chips; this is not explained in the article. -- Beland 14:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

amd k10 is the first 9th generation x86 processor to reach the market in the form of opteron barcelona core. since no desktop product have yet reach the market and intel have not introduced equivalents as of now we shouldn't add it to the chart. however amd k10 is definitely not an 8th generation cpu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.27.159 (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Still ,its not clear at all now whether a CPU that claims to be "x86 compatible" should per-definition support a floating point instruction set extension. Can a CPU claim to be "x86 compatible" while NOT incorporating a floating point processor? Mahjongg (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the x97 architecture a follow on or posterior processor family? It seems to be aun unofficial x87 succesor Dabenavidesd (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Dabenavidesd

Register Names
There is a reference to the control register CR8 (for 64-bit), but the page it links to on the subject has not mention of such a register. However it does have one called EFER. Are these the same thing (one by acronym, the other by index)? If so, can they be named consistently and/or the alias be included (e.g. "CR8/EFER" or "CR8 (aka EFER)") in both pages. If not, then can reference to both names be added as not to cause potential confusion that they may be the same thing, and act as a placeholder for details to be added in the future (if such a style is allowed).

Chad3f (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)