Talk:X64

"Microsoft coined the term x64" ... is this true? Seems like a pretty generic, common term that would have evolved from "x86". I find it hard to believe that Microsoft was the first to coil such an term. (If they did, I'm surprised they didn't patent the term :P)

Anyway, this is a strange page. Shouldn't this page be merged with x86-64 or other pages dealing with 64-bit architecture?

--69.139.198.89 06:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this page gives details of 64-bit x86, it should swallow up AMD64

We don't need two pages giving details of 64-bit x86; if this page is to give those details, the AMD64 and EM64T pages should be merged into it ("x86-64" already redirects to it). If people don't want AMD64 merged into this page, they need to decide which one is to be the main page for the architecture, and either leave the AMD64 page alone as the main page for the architecture, revert this page to remove the details, and have EM64T describe the differences between AMD64 and EM64T, or move the details common to AMD64 and EM64T to this page, making it the main page for the architecture, and have AMD64 just describe the AMD-specific parts of the architecture.

I don't care which solution is chosen (and have no interest in getting into some AMD vs. Intel argument); I just proposed the merge so that we don't end up with two independent pages giving the architectural details. Guy Harris 03:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that having two pages on the same architecture is a bad idea. I support making x64 a redirect to AMD64, as AMD64 is the official name for the architecture, with x64 simply being an error introduced by Microsoft. jgp ^T_C 05:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since they are both the same architecture I think this should be the main page but I'm not sure what we should do with AMD64 and EM64T. Additionally I must say that AMD64 is not the official name of the architecture, there isn't one (nor is there anyone to make the name official). x64 is the only name(that I'm aware of at least) that defines both AMD64 and EM64T.Mike92591 19:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMD64 is the official name used by the company who invented the architecture. They invented it, they get to name it. Calling the main article x64 is a strong pro-Microsoft POV, and I'll not stand for that. jgp ^T_C 19:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft doesn't define the architecture they just use it. x64 may be Microsoft's nomenclature, but it's not a POV, it doesn't advocate for anything. SchmuckyTheCat 19:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The POV is that using "x64" for the main article is saying that one OS vendor's made-up name is more correct than the official name used by the company who invented it. It's like renmaing the article on water to Dasani. jgp ^T_C 19:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it use of "define" didn't really make sense; what I meant was "A name that is commonly used for both", sorry if there was confusion. Please explain to me how this is anyone's point of view.Mike92591 19:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Water -> Dasani is from the generic to the branded.

AMD64 -> x64 is from the branded to the generic.

x64 is common and neutral (at least between Intel and AMD). SchmuckyTheCat 20:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, x64 is a Microsoft name and only a Microsoft name. This is Wikipedia, not Windowsloverpedia. jgp ^T_C 21:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually sun use it too.Mike92591 21:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts:

Guy, unless there is some massive example of something using AMD-specific features or using Intel-specific features, I think AMD64 and EM64T can be sub-topics within the main article.
We have, of course, two decisions at hand: content merge and article naming. Naming totally aside, can we all agree that the content should be merged? I think we can.
Article naming is actually tougher for me because I cannot decide. I see (at least) the AMD64 and the x64 angles. So I'd like to ponder: (1) what would Enc. Brit. do? (2) What is the popular vote via Google search? (3) Is there a really technical name we can use that says, forget the marketing departments — this is the analytical name, the dispassionate name, the name the historians will refer to it by 50 to 100 years from now?

--Charles Gaudette 03:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your second [3.2] question here are my results: link x64 [about 18,500,000 results] link x86-64 [about 3,040,000 results]

and perhaps more fair results: link x64 [-windows: about 4,840,000 results] link x86-64 [about 3,040,000 results]

To answer your third [3.3] question: I suppose the name x86-64 is logical and impartial but uncommon. Mike92591 19:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC) [and bracketed notations by Charles Gaudette 21:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)][reply]

After sleeping on the article name issue — if it was my article, (which it isn't, of course) — I would have the article under the working title "64-bit extended x86 architecture". Where "64-bit extended x86" gets all of about 338 on Google. That name would likely run afoul of something Jimbo says about following accepted (common?) use…, but it is what we are talking about.--Charles Gaudette 21:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is exactly what we are talking about but, as you said it is uncommon(even "64-bit x86" only gets about 221,000 results). x64 is the the most common non-brand specific name for this architecture I know of.Mike92591 20:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To help finish point 3.2: AMD64 about 20,000,000 results, AMD64 -site:amd.com about 18,100,000 results (uh, the diff is a bit surprising!), and I would like to note that http://www.x86-64.org/ is an AMD supported website. --Charles Gaudette 00:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And when you go to x86-64.org - it is titled as AMD64 and has a large AMD64 on the front page.71.112.1.184 10:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Charles Gaudette mostly. There is no logical reason to call the architecture x64. It is technically correct to call 'old' CPUs as 'x86', as there were chips 8086, 80286 etc. But with AMD64, the chips could be called x86 anyway. The name 'AMD64' is on the level as 'IA-32' is - it doesn't name the chip, but much more likely the architecture. There can be a section called 'EM64T differences'.

zdeneks 00:13, 3 September 2006 (CET)

AMD64 isn't the excepted name for both brands.Mike92591 02:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is true, that Intel and Intel's "fans" could feel hurt. Intel adopted the AMD64 as EM64T as some marketing step (or did AMD forbid/trademarked "AMD64"?). So to prevent any problem modifications with offensive Intel/AMD enthusiasts and followings reverts, some neutral label might me chosen. x86-64 is so, also it is not incorrect as x64 is. But time will show us if there will be any problems with label AMD64. (there will still be label EM64T pointing to AMD64, as it may be expanded, too, as EM64T differences if it gets too long)

zdeneks 11:01, 3 September 2006 (CET)

How is x64 incorrect?

Mike92591 15:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not the official name of the architecture. AMD created it, so they are the only ones who have the right to name it. Furthermore, x64 is used by only one OS vendor; NO other operating system refers to it as x64, so naming the article x64 is a strong pro-Microsoft POV. jgp ^T_C 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no official name. There's no such law. The name x64 is supported by two OS vendors(Sun and Microsoft). It's not like two companies are fighting over the naming.

Mike92591 22:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Then rename Adobe Photoshop something else, because by your logic, Adobe doesn't have the right to name the product they created. I demand it be renamed to Bing-Bong, because it's the name nade up by a third party (me), and by your logic, unofficial third party names are always preferable to the name used by the creator. The name x64 is exclusive to Microsoft and Sun. Using "x64" on Wikipedia is biased POV against any vendors other than Microsoft and Sun. jgp

^T_C 00:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's modify your argument slightly. Let's say you have a company that makes a product complementary to Photoshop, but maybe it also works well with Macromedia Fireworks, Corel Photo-Paint, Corel Paint Shop Pro and Ulead PhotoImpact, so instead of saying you have a "Photoshop compatible" product, you might want to say you have a product that "works well with bitmap-graphic editors." Not to take this to the point of absurdity, but do you think Adobe would complain if people used terms like "computers" and "operating systems" instead of "Photoshop support thingies"? Or, to be even more absurd, would Corel be wrong in not naming their product Corel Photoshop? I think that's the point that Adobe's lawyers would get involved.

The name AMD64 is AMD's official name for their architecture, which they designed. EM64T is Intel's official name for their implementation, which they copied from AMD -- an extension to the x86 architecture designed by Intel, which AMD copied from them. ("x86" being an industry standard term to refer generically to Intel, AMD and other products implementing the IA32 architecture -- but is not Intel's "official" name.)

x64 is the name officially used by Microsoft, Sun and others to refer to both. AMD, Intel, Sun, and Microsoft all seem to be happy enough about this, and it is not the place of a Wikipedia article to carry out a jihad against a name one does not like. -NapoliRoma 01:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that it's only a Microsoft/Sun name. Using x64 is a strong POV against any other vendor, implying that the name used by a pair of vendors with kReAtIv naming schemes is correct. By the way, Fireworks, PSP, etc. are not simple rebranded versions of Photoshop. If, say Paint Shop Pro was just a rebranded/rebadged version, of Photoshop, I would support making Paint Shop Pro a redirect to Adobe Photoshop. jgp ^T_C 01:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understood what he was trying to say.Mike92591 02:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth pointing out that Sun is also a systems vendor, and is in fact one of AMD's top partners. Given that, it may be of interest to visit http://sun.com/amd and see what's there, and what that URL winds up redirecting to. If you really want to go wild, visit http://amd.com/sun and see if "x64" appears there at all.

Is there any recorded instance of AMD objecting to the "x64" term, officially or unofficially? If it bothers them, they seem to be hiding it well. --NapoliRoma 23:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jgp, the architecture isn't their product. They don't own it. They don't have [the sole] naming rights to it.Mike92591 00:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is everyone in agreement?Mike92591 19:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with NapoliRoma's rebuttal of Jgp. It is something close to what I would have said. And further, as Mike92591 seems to say, AMD does not own the name to what the Wikipedia article will be about.

While I would like to call the article "64-bit extended x86 architecture", "x86-32" and "x86-64" seem to prevail in the accepted use test, and even I would break down and call it "x86-64" in repeated use in my theoretical article. Within the "x86-64" article there will be sections about AMD-specific features and the term AMD64 will be preferred there, and correspondingly the Intel-specific features and the term "EM64T", and if necessary Microsoft and Sun Microsystems' sections (not mere sentences) preferring the term x64. --Charles Gaudette 00:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. I am starting to realize that if we use x64 instead of x86-64 we would be sacrificing understanding(or rather a lack of confusion) for ordinariness.Mike92591 19:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three things seem very clear to me: 1) Having three (or more) articles is silly. 2) em64t would not be the right name for the "master" article. 3) This leaves three choices: X64, AMD64, and x86-64.

More fuzzy: I personally agree with the "they invented it, they get to name it" theory. Now, here is the surprise: AMD originally named it "x86-64". (Will those arguing for this as a vendor-neutral name now switch to... what? x64?) I'm not sure exactly when or why they changed to "AMD64" but IMNSHO (as someone who has contributed some non-trivial content to the AMD64 article) I think this means that an article title of "x86-64", with redirects from "AMD64", "X64", and "em64t", is the best thing. The morphology of the name can be something explained in the article. Jeh 10:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to me that it has already been said - the main article will be called x86-64. There will be subsections EM64T, AMD64, x64 and if they grew too much, then they would be in its article - with links to x86-64. The 'x86-64' seems as the most 'politically neutral' label. .. anyway, were I mistaked in my thoughts? zdeneks 20:21, 11 September 2006 (CET)

It's good to hear other voices even if they concur. If there are detractors with well reasoned arguments, they should jump in now, because we appear to be heading towards consensus. If others have been monitoring this discussion and don't have a problem with where this is leading, it would be good to hear from you with a simple "agree" added to this major thread. --Charles Gaudette 20:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - "x86-64" is the best solution. CWC(talk) 23:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'd be willing to accept x86-64 (tho I'd still prefer AMD64). jgp ^T_C 23:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Mike92591 00:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak disagree.

For each of the terms, consider the Principle of Least Astonishment: if I'm familiar with one of the four names and I type it in, will I be surprised at the name of the page I'm redirected to? If I didn't know a term, will I wonder about why the redirected name was chosen once I've read the page?

I think that most people typing x86-64, x64 or EM64T would be unsurprised to wind up at AMD64, while anyone typing EM64T or AMD64 would wonder why the article is called x86-64, given that it's a name no longer used by AMD itself -- heck, why not use "Hammer" ? Consider also what the bulk of the article is going to discuss and what term is most likely to be used throughout.

My vote would be for AMD64, since it's the most commonly recognized term. Wikipedia is a living document, so if convention changes in the future, the article name can change in turn. But it's only a weak disagree, given that there will presumably be redirects and a mention of all terms in the new document, so in the end this is all pretty nitpicky. --NapoliRoma 13:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To what extent does the page name matter? I.e., how many users will even notice that if they go to "AMD64", "x64", or "EM64T" they end up at a page named "x86-64", much less be surprised by that - or, for that matter, how many users will even notice that if they go to "x86-64", "x64", or "EM64T" they end up at a page named "AMD64"? I'd be content with either of those names; I just don't want to see the information about 64-bit x86 scattered over multiple pages. Guy Harris 18:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...or to put it another way, "In the end, this is all pretty nitpicky". :-) Since the bulk of the info is already on the AMD64 page, just leave it there. Merge in whatever's unique in the x64 page, add a quick paragraph on nomenclature, and you're done. --NapoliRoma 00:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name matters it will determine the term we should use in other articles.Mike92591 02:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I currently have a tendency to stop conversions.Mike92591 18:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It took me a few minutes to realize you meant "conversations". Anyway, I see no reason to hold this up, other than it will be several (10 or so) hours before I can do big editing. I have been thinking about pulling the three articles into my scratch space and doing group edits there, before pushing the result into the encyclopedia. --06:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

AMD has this issue internally... where engineering creates something and needs a name for it. The engineers cannot get AMD marketing to provide an offical name until near launch. The codename for this uArch is "Hammer", but when setting up an external website and mailing lists for GCC, Linux and BSD OS development an external name was needed. Engineering came up with "x86-64" out of lack of anything else better to name it. That's how "x86-64" was born. These developers could not use "x86-64" directly in their code as that is a formula in the C language, so it was written "x86_64" in the code. Now Microsoft was working on their OS for this platform and used "#define __AMD64__" for a platform define (where the reset of the world was using "#define __x86_64__"). AMD marketing woke up a few months prior to Opteron launch and decided they liked the name "AMD64" so that became the offical name. (That is why the Opteron logo was changed from the original"whirl" to the later one that was based around "AMD64" text.) When Microsoft was finally ready to launch their AMD64 Windows, Intel had entered with CT/IA32e/EM64T/Intel64 and so Microsoft did not want to piss off the WinTel juggernat.. so they contracted "x86-64" to "X64". (the code still has __AMD64__ in it) --Dr unix (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there is now a concatenated page — "AMD64"+"EM64T"+"x64" — at x86-64. I rejected my idea of keeping the editing process out of the main-space. And will instead point merge templates at the x86-64 space.--Charles Gaudette 21:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

x86-64 conveys the concept of architectural extensions to x86, in contrast with a full 64-bit achitectural instruction set. Given the different modes needed to implement some of the extensions, yet the x86 instruction set compatibility, it seems the x86- prefix emphasizes the origin and vocation of the extensions. It's possible that Microsoft used x64 for brevity in OS appellation (like SSE4 or MMX as opposed to x86-SSE4, etc...). As the 64-bit superset is not standardized, it is important to differentiate implementations, such as AMD64 or Intel64/EM64T, especially when it comes to deliberate choices made in Operating Systems or compilers not to support all x86-64 instructions. An example is the buffers bounce for DMA calls over 4 GiB, and whether conferring an OS "x64" or "x86-64" appellation means that the OS will dynamically adapt to what the processors and the DMA devices are capable of, or simply degrade performance to the least common denominator of all implementations.

(Two housekeeping notes: first, be sure to sign your comments. Second, this talk page is for what is now a redirect page, so is somewhat out of the mainstream -- although those of us who have been part of this thread probably still have it on our watchlists...)

I think the idea of there being a nuance of implementation conveyed whether labelling an OS "x64" or "x86-64" is interesting, but almost certainly not followed by any OS today, nor would it be likely to spring to mind to anyone seeing those labels. And, as discussed before, it's not the place of Wikipedia to set any naming policy in motion, but rather to faithfully document the names used by vendors/projects. It would, however, be entirely appropriate to explicitly document how each OS supports different implementations (dynamically vs. lowest common denominator) in the appropriate section of the article. --NapoliRoma 15:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linus Torvalds calls it x86-64

Just to complicate things even further, in the Linux world the AMD64/EMT64 "architecture" is referred to as x86-64 (or "x86_64" in file names). See http://kerneltrap.org/node/2466, which is interesting reading in its own right. (BTW, I would prefer to see this article merged into AMD64.) Cheers, CWC(talk) 02:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, x86-64 was the original working name used by AMD, before they dropped it and settled on "AMD64". x86-64 is the only name other than AMD64 that I'd consider official; however, it is important to remember that its official status is strictly in the past tense. Also note that the use of "x86-64" in Linux is disputed; I know that Gentoo uses the identifier "amd64" [1]. Debian also says "AMD64" [2]. jgp ^T_C 02:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I wrote "Linux world" but I really meant "Linux kernel world". Also, thanks for the interesting info, jgp. Cheers, CWC(talk) 08:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article all ready stated this. Mike92591 02:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C64 emulator?

Isn't there a Commodore 64 emulator for Linux called x64?