Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems
2021-03-14 7:19 GMT-04:00, The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm>:
> On 2021-03-14 at 06:49, Susmita/Rajib wrote:
>
>> While Intel PCs are also 64bit processors?
>
> Because of the history of the processor microarchitectures involved.
>
> The x86 processor line (32-bit and older) was, to the best of my
> knowledge, originally an Intel thing. Before i386 (where the 'i' may
> stand for Intel, I'm not sure), there was 286, and other things earlier
> than that; if my memory just offhand is accurate, the oldest one was
> probably called 8086. After i386, you have 486, 586, and 686; current
> Debian 32-bit packages are actually compiled against the 686 baseline,
> not 386 as such.
>
> Intel owns the patents for the 32-bit x86 CPU architecture, and licenses
> them to other companies for a price. AMD is one of those other
> companies; that's how AMD is allowed to create 32-bit x86 CPUs.
>
> When 64-bit came along, rather than extending the x86 line, Intel
> started from scratch and designed an entire new CPU architecture. That
> got called ia64, and it never caught on; it eventually failed in the
> marketplace, except possibly in very limited market segments.
> when Intel created a 64-bit architecture (called ia64), it turned out to
> be a developmental dead end and failed in the marketplace.
>
> At around the same time, AMD created a 64-bit CPU architecture which
> extended the x86 line, and was backwards compatible with existing
> software. That got called amd64, and is also sometimes called x86_64, or
> other names in addition. It caught on, and became so successful that
> Intel abandoned its ia64 approach and started making amd64 CPUs itself.
>
> AMD owns the patents for the 64-bit amd64 CPU architecture, and licenses
> them to other companies for a price. Intel is one of those other
> companies; that's how Intel is allowed to create 64-bit amd64 CPUs.
>
>
> Or, put briefly: because AMD created the underlying design for how that
> type of CPU works, even if Intel is the one making the specific CPU
> model in question.
>
> Does that make sense?
Perfect explanation. Also very good all those additional
contributions from the others.
Reply to: