Template talk:Multimedia extensions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

remove SSE5?[edit]

The SSE5 instruction set was proposed by AMD, but they changed it to XOP for the sake of compatibility with AVX. SSE5 has thus never been implemented and never will. Should SSE5 be removed from the list? Afog (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Separate list for AMD-only instructions?[edit]

3DNow, XOP and CVT16 are/will be implemented only in AMD processors. The rest are/will be implemented in both Intel, AMD and possibly other processors. It is uncertain whether FMA4 will be supported by Intel. It is possible that part of XOP will be supported by Intel in the future if it becomes popular. Should the list reflect which instruction sets are for AMD only, or will that make the template too big and confusing? Afog (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think 3DNow! was also implemented by Cyrix, IDT, and VIA. I don't really mind how the x86 instruction sets are organized. Rilak (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it me or is the text for 3dNow a bit screwed up? Andrewhime (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we separate instruction set nomenclature by colour coded between Intel, AMD and both? Rjluna2 (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

delete and recreate[edit]

I would delete this article and create a new one named "Instruction set Extensions"; there I would include all available Extensions to the known Instruction sets, especially AES-NI, Transactional_Synchronization_Extensions, VT-d, VT-x, Marvell CESA, Via Padlock, EIST, etc. Semsi Paco Virchow (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

instructions in x86 versus instructions in extensions[edit]

Can anybody tell me, where I find a comparison of the existent instructions in x86 versus all the ones added by extensions? Semsi Paco Virchow (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

RISC formatting[edit]

I don't really like the PA-RISC (MAX) format; it seems like MAX (PA-RISC) would make more sense. Do any wiki formatting wizards know how to make that change? Do people agree with it? Risc64 (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


This template used to provide navigation between a strongly related set of articles about extensions to ISAs for multimedia. This was very useful because all its members were about the same specific topic. This template was later broadened in scope to include every kind of ISA extension. This is much less useful because it gives users information that isn't relevant: for any type of ISA extension a user is interested in, the user is provided with every other type of ISA extension. There's no need to have such a general scope when navigation templates for each type of ISA extension can be created so easily. This template should be restored to its original scope. The navigation for other types of ISA extensions should be handled separately. 50504F (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)