Talk:X86/Archives/2020

X86 Chronology: 2017 Ryzen/EPYC series
...Socket with over too many pins... Appreciate the humor, but... Is it really acceptable to add meme references into articles? Exactly how many is over too many? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.143.32.26 (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the catch! It is not, I'll go fix this. (Probably vandalism or other disruptive editing) MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

There is something really different between term x64 and x86-64
Commonly, term x86-64 refers to the 64-bit instruction set resides in the 64-bit mode, while term x64 is short for 64-bit eXtended system. So the meaning of x86-64 processor is not completely equivalent to x64 processor!(Who might possibly be interested in my works here, could visit my Weibo, https://weibo.com/u/6558727844, in Chinese)   119.53.106.157 (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Please don't bring this up again, Janagawen. Guy Harris (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The term x64 is referred from Microsoft products, Windows XP Professional x64, which was called Windows XP for 64-bit extended system. So many software and hardware vendors call such a computing system as x64 system, such as Microsoft, Oracle and so forth! Some other editors from all over the world also called this system as x64 system for this wiki article! Only this guy, Guy Harris, for all the time show his anger towards to it! He had no reasons at all, he did not even make clear what x86-64, x86 and x64, each really is! As this guy for all the time show his discrimination towards the region my IPs locates, I have to express that showing the respects towards the computer science is much better! I stop my contribution towards wikipedia.org! 119.53.106.157 (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As well as I remember it, x86-64 is the AMD name, then intel called theirs EM64T. I don't know anything else called x64, though. Since AMD designed it, seems to me that they should get to name it. Gah4 (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * AMD just names it as AMD64, previously, they once used the name x86-64 to refer the architecture contained in the AMD64 processor, but objections from Intel and so many others made them drop that wish! Term x86-64 in today's vocabulary only points to the 64-bit instruction set residing in the 64-bit mode! But x64 is not a shorthand for AMD64, EM64T or Intel64, but a name for a system, which is eXtended with 64-bit computing capability, or called 64-bit eXtended system! It is the consensus between AMD and Intel! AMD once said they would develop a processor for the 64-bit extended system, and that is the distinction between AMD64 and IA-64! When I was a university student, I have experienced many beta and RC versions of Windows XP for this very architecture! They, Microsoft, once named it for the Windows XP 64-bit Edition for Athlon64 and Opteron System, because it could not support Intel EM64T/Intel64 processor based computer! Later Microsoft made both work well, and name it as Windows XP for 64-bit extended system as a beta/RC release, and eventually name it as the final Windows XP Professional x64!
 * AMD just names it as AMD64, previously, they once used the name x86-64 to refer the architecture contained in the AMD64 processor, but objections from Intel and so many others made them drop that wish! Term x86-64 in today's vocabulary only points to the 64-bit instruction set residing in the 64-bit mode! But x64 is not a shorthand for AMD64, EM64T or Intel64, but a name for a system, which is eXtended with 64-bit computing capability, or called 64-bit eXtended system! It is the consensus between AMD and Intel! AMD once said they would develop a processor for the 64-bit extended system, and that is the distinction between AMD64 and IA-64! When I was a university student, I have experienced many beta and RC versions of Windows XP for this very architecture! They, Microsoft, once named it for the Windows XP 64-bit Edition for Athlon64 and Opteron System, because it could not support Intel EM64T/Intel64 processor based computer! Later Microsoft made both work well, and name it as Windows XP for 64-bit extended system as a beta/RC release, and eventually name it as the final Windows XP Professional x64!


 * x64 is not an architecture name, or a name for an architecture, but a name for a computing system! Microsoft never call this architecture as x64, but AMD64 for all the time! Operating System is not written for an architecture or abstract computing model, but a whole and physical computing system! So the x64 in Windows 10 x64 only points to the x64 system, 64-bit extended system, and that is the only consensus between AMD and Intel! One could deny my words because my IP is from China mainland, but one could never make the fact changes as they intend to! Or just telling the world a lie!  119.53.106.157 (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I am the designer of this large table, even more efforts to it! If you, Guy Harris, or something, dislike it, only because my IP comes from China, please get rid of it and design your own table from the ground! (Who might possibly be interested in my works here, could visit my Weibo, https://weibo.com/u/6558727844, in Chinese) 119.53.106.157 (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * No, I have nothing against contributions from any country; I only mentioned that your IP was from a Chinese ISP as evidence that you're just another sockpuppet of the banned editor User:Janagewen. I'm making edits because you are just adding nonsense, with no factual basis. Guy Harris (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, where is the other misleading editor, User:Jeh? Why do you always intend to mislead readers from all over the world with your selfish heart? I just wish you stop misleading or try to find the clues to make yourself understand you made a bit mistake on wikipedia.org! To tell frankly, the only reason you always want to kick me is that my IP is from China! I add nothing at all, I design the large table! Only you, what you do is just add and fix a little! What you contribute towards this article or x64 is less than a little but misleading others! 119.53.106.157 (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Janagawen Jeh died about a year ago, He was a paid editor.Onzite. (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

, I explained your question on the comments of your contribution towards this article! 119.53.106.157 (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Windows x86 & x64 naming convention differentiates CPU support. Windows x64 (or x86 with PAE/PSE enabled) won't run AMD64/x64 instructions on an IA32 because to do so requires booting in extended mode (long mode./PAE/PSE call it what you like - paging support). Paging is not supported on IA-32(x86) with 32bit address & /32 bit data bu. IA32 uses linear virtual to physical translation (so not translation). Paging is supported on IA-32e (36address/32data), but memory severally restricted as page tables take up 512Mb leaving ~3.7GB(also limit for apps compiled for i386). But EM64T was the original name for Intel64. So @Janagawen "because it could not support Intel EM64T/Intel64 processor based computer!" x64 does support EM64T/Intel64, but not IA32. In this respect the article is not misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.29.30.225 (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm the 103.xx IP user above now with an account. After checking Intel's documentation I must retract my earlier statement. It appears EM64T is the name given to IA-32 Xeon. Intel64 was introduced with C2D. EM64T supports 64bit virtual addressing but the physical limit is 4GB. That seems odd given Xeon chips supported 8GB RAM (albeit 2x 4GB banks)..... https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000005898/processors.html?productId=59213&localeCode=us_en Onzite. (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a thought....possibly flat memory doesn't permit segment switching in 64bit mode... 103.29.30.225 (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Two "overview" sections ?
Hi, I can't help but notice that there are two "Overview" sections. This appears to have been brought up in the Talk: archives but hasn't been addressed. 2A01:E35:2EBF:3970:6AC:C692:C356:DC8C (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The second one seems pointless; I just raised its two subsections up to become sections of their own. Guy Harris (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)