Talk:X86: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by 139.210.137.223 - "→Pentium MMX in Chronology table: " |
|||
Line 160: | Line 160: | ||
: I do so appreciate your question here, but I have to make clear that Pentium processor was introduced by Intel in 1992, Pentium MMX in some later time. P5 (microarchitecture) is a term used by Intel to refer to this kind, abstracted from the real products before invented. So there is nothing wrong there. If you are really interested in, you can chat with me on Intel official communities there! OK, let me ignore someone else here. --- Aaron Janagewen <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/139.210.137.223|139.210.137.223]] ([[User talk:139.210.137.223#top|talk]]) 01:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
: I do so appreciate your question here, but I have to make clear that Pentium processor was introduced by Intel in 1992, Pentium MMX in some later time. P5 (microarchitecture) is a term used by Intel to refer to this kind, abstracted from the real products before invented. So there is nothing wrong there. If you are really interested in, you can chat with me on Intel official communities there! OK, let me ignore someone else here. --- Aaron Janagewen <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/139.210.137.223|139.210.137.223]] ([[User talk:139.210.137.223#top|talk]]) 01:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
: Well, you are also welcome to https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:X86, this is a revised version of the table with much more improvements by myself. You are also welcome to discuss it with me there too! --- Aaron Janagewen |
Revision as of 01:34, 21 October 2016
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the X86 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Computing C‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Core 2's physical address is 40bit
core 2 has been 40bit ever since woodcrest, even intel's officisl em64t demonstrated it can address up to 1 TB ram. Only older yamhill/ia32E have 36 bit address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:403:E1B0:A54B:6340:AF33:21E7 (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kindness badly! But please do not get me wrong, I do not want to go against with you. But I have to say that Core 2 Solo/Duo/Quad are Core 2 series processors, while Xeon processors are Xeon, even though they share the same microarchitecture (similar internal cores), but they are different things! Core 2 is a general thing, while Xeon is a special, so let not consider the exceptional, I change it back. Computerfann (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, another question lying on QPI. Frankly, QPI is not a bus, but a point-to-point link, but similar with HyperTransport, one could also call it as QPI bus. QPI was designed by Intel to take place and extend the capabilities of the traditional and long-term running Front Side Bus. For the first generation of Intel Core i7 processor, the Front Side Bus was replaced and extended by three QPI links, which could further be connected with North Bridge (lack of MCH) or QPI links of other processors. For the first generation of Core i5/i3, the QPI is used only to take place of traditional Front Side Bus, connecting processors core with un-core on the same die, it seems like to wrap the whole parallel Front Side Bus with the serialized QPI link, so there is no change for the addressing policy. Computerfann (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Jeh:, well, I am very sorry, I should never get involved into this argument. I leave this very problem to you, because I know you are a notable person in this field! Please come to take a look at it, thank you! Computerfannn (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that QPI is not a bus. And I wouldn't call it "QPI bus". It's an interconnect and that word is already in "QPI".
- Regarding 36 vs 40 bit, I don't know - I haven't looked at the Intel specs, and I don't have time for it now. Jeh (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jeh:, about three months passed! Are you free all the time to look at specs from anywhere (not limited to Intel) to answer this very question? Do please do something useful to improve the quality of the main article! Your best buddy on wiki, if you are a single lady!
- I've made that change! Readers, positive readers could find reason from https://communities.intel.com/message/408772#408772. I think this link could be as a source, an official source from definitely Intel, rather than my own! --- Aaron Janagewen 139.210.139.160 (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
AMD Liano and 64-bit Virtual Address
Well, frankly, AMD Liano has only implemented 40-bit physical addressing bus, even though its core are commonly considered as 10.5h, and sorted into the kind of 10h. No matter K8 or 10h, Hyper Transport unit is an unseparated part of the underlying architecture, but AMD Liano and further APU lack this very thing. So they are different from the real AMD 10h microarchitecture. As to the first generation of AMD APU for desktop, 40-bit physical addressing bus later was succeeded by Bulldozer based APU with fully implementation of 48-bit one.
As to the Virtual Address, shall we mentioned only 48-bit implemented to avoid the ambiguity? As to the AMD64 or x86-64 architecture, expanding 48-bit to the fully 64-bit is not an easy job for the architects, and until this moment, no practical news from AMD or Intel, imply how and when the 48-bit would be expanded or extended to the long expecting 64-bit... Rechnerfan (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- You have this backwards. It would be a very easy job "for the architects": Simply follow the model that was used in going from 32 bits to 48 bits - add another two layers of page table. But nobody is "long expecting" 64 bits v.a.s. to happen anytime soon. For now, for the vast majority of users and uses, the biggest benefit of having a 48-bit address space is simply that ASLR now has far more room to play in. Consider that to actually populate (as opposed putting only 32 or 36 bits' worth of stuff in it, but with lots of holes) a 48-bit address space you would have to have 256 TiB of actual storage - some amount of RAM, plus enough disk space to hold the rest. Just because it's paged doesn't mean it doesn't have to have someplace to be stored; paged just means it doesn't all have to be in RAM at once. Jeh (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
The "Chronology" table
I have preserved the old chronology table (with the "generations" column) in the HAT below, for ease of reference.
In changing it to its present form I:
- Removed the "generations" column, which was completely invented by Wikipedia editors. There is no reliable source for a "generation number" that applies across all of the manufacturers. It may be possible to reference manufacturer-specific "generations" but these seem to me to be more a matter of the mfrs' marketing departments' whims than aids to understanding.
- Removed all of the remaining "rowspan" attributes, because they made reordering the table difficult. These could probably be restored (for the "bits" columns) but since more reorg may happen, now would likely be premature.
- Re-ordered the table in chronological order.
- Made these minor corrections of fact. These are the only changes of factual detail I have made, so accusations that the table now has "lots of wrong data" are clearly unfounded.
Jeh (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Suggestions for future work (other than adding references for all existing claims of fact, which is really really important):
- I'm still not comfortable with the "segment bits" info. This column now indicates the number of bits in a segment index, i.e. the number of entries in the segment descriptor array. Some notes need to be added here like "segmenting does not apply in long mode" (but for those procs, segmenting does apply in legacy mode, and so the "segment bits" are still relevant)
- Should there be columns for max supported clock speed? Max cache size? Max number of cores? Feature size? ...
- It would be nice to be able to show how features introduced in one line are carried, or are not carried, through to following lines. But, a simple implementation would require a massively wide table with a check-box column for each feature. It would get messier if there were cases where not every member of a product family (i.e. one line on the chart) implemented all of the features.
Jeh (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Is this turning into List of x86 microprocessors? Guy Harris (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think it's a supposed to be a "list of significant x86 developments". We certainly don't need to include every model number described by each row. I hate "list" articles in general because they provide no information to put the list items into context, show how they relate to each other, etc. Put it this way - if an article requires no RSs beyond somebody's product or parts catalog, it's not an encyclopedia article. Jeh (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The previous major version of the "chronology" table is preserved here for reference. Please do not modify it. Jeh (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pentium MMX in Chronology table
In the "Chronology" table, it says the Pentium MMX debuted in 1993, but the P5 (microarchitecture) article says it came out on October 22, 1996 and that date has a citation. Seems like it should be changed. Bumm13 (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the catch! Let's try to find some other sources to confirm. Jeh (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- The issue there might be that all P5s are being lumped together in that entry; the original P5 came out in 1993, but the MMX processors came out later. If the MMX deserves an entry of its own - which, as it was, I think, one of the early "multimedia" instruction sets, it might - that entry would have 1996. Guy Harris (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- I do so appreciate your question here, but I have to make clear that Pentium processor was introduced by Intel in 1992, Pentium MMX in some later time. P5 (microarchitecture) is a term used by Intel to refer to this kind, abstracted from the real products before invented. So there is nothing wrong there. If you are really interested in, you can chat with me on Intel official communities there! OK, let me ignore someone else here. --- Aaron Janagewen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.210.137.223 (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, you are also welcome to https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:X86, this is a revised version of the table with much more improvements by myself. You are also welcome to discuss it with me there too! --- Aaron Janagewen