EM64T xp64 question ?

[Simo Sentissi]

hello there

I have an intel p4 em64t processor board and I successfully installed xp64
pro. but when I go to computer properties it shows as p4 !?

is it normal ?

I am also wondering if xp64 bit can install on 32 and work as 32 ? just
incase my MB doesn't really think it's a 64 ?

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

Please repost your inquiry in the new Windows 64-bit newsgroup:
news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows - Shell/User
Microsoft Community Newsgroups
news://msnews.microsoft.com/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:

| hello there
|
| I have an intel p4 em64t processor board and I successfully installed xp64
| pro. but when I go to computer properties it shows as p4 !?
|
| is it normal ?
|
| I am also wondering if xp64 bit can install on 32 and work as 32 ? just
| incase my MB doesn't really think it's a 64 ?

 

[NoNoBadDog!]

hello there

I have an intel p4 em64t processor board and I successfully installed xp64
pro. but when I go to computer properties it shows as p4 !?

is it normal ?

I am also wondering if xp64 bit can install on 32 and work as 32 ? just
incase my MB doesn't really think it's a 64 ?

You have Pentium 4 processor that can "understand" 64 bit
instructions/addressing. It is still P4.
Had you wanted a true 64 bit processor (not a P4 with Em64T extensions), you
should have purchased and AMD Athlon64.

Intel advocates will insist it is a 64 bit processor, but it is still at
it's heart, by design and manufacture, a 32 bit P4. It does not have an
on-die memory controller, does not have direct connect architecture, and
does not have Hypertransport. Your P4 with EM64T is still hobbled to
antiquated Northbridge chip at a core frequency of 400 MHz. You have none
of the advantages of the newer architecture that was pioneered by Apple and
AMD in true 64 bit architectures.

Bobby

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> "NoNoBadDog!"

Intel advocates will insist it is a 64 bit processor, but it is still at
it's heart, by design and manufacture, a 32 bit P4. It does not have an
on-die memory controller, does not have direct connect architecture, and
does not have Hypertransport. Your P4 with EM64T is still hobbled to
antiquated Northbridge chip at a core frequency of 400 MHz. You have none
of the advantages of the newer architecture that was pioneered by Apple and
AMD in true 64 bit architectures.

It's worth noting that there is nothing uniquely 64bit about an on-die
memory controller, direct connect architecture, nor hypertransport.

All are good ideas, but none are uniquely 64bit (either in defining
"true" 64bit, or being impossible in a 64bit environment)

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Switching newsgroups a lot, Carey? (This is the 64-bit general group)

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> "Colin Barnhorst"

Switching newsgroups a lot, Carey? (This is the 64-bit general group)

Check the crosspost list, it wasn't only posted to the 64bit group...

 

[NoNoBadDog!]

In message <[email protected]> "NoNoBadDog!"


It's worth noting that there is nothing uniquely 64bit about an on-die
memory controller, direct connect architecture, nor hypertransport.

All are good ideas, but none are uniquely 64bit (either in defining
"true" 64bit, or being impossible in a 64bit environment)

The AMD Athlon 64 is a true 64 bit processor that uses 40 bit memory
addressing and handles 64 bit code natively. Intel P4 EM64T is a 32 bit
processor that has 32 bit memory addressing and handles 64 bit instructions
as thunked 32 bit (EM64T breaks the 64 bit into smaller chunks and processes
the chunks in 32 bit). Without DCA, Hypertransport and on die memory
controller, there is no sense to have 64 bit processor because it will
operate no faster than a 32 due to the system architecture.

That is why Intel does not advertise its EM64T processors as 64 bit. They
know they cannot compete against the other 64 bit processors (PowerPC,
AMD64, etc).

It is sad, because Intel used to be an innovator and a leader in the
industry. They have floundered for the last two years and are no longer
competitive.

Bobby


Bobby

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Worse, Intel decided not to join the hypertransport consortium and is doing
their own equivalent technology. That is not projected for completion until
2007 if info on the web is to believed. I puzzles me too as to how Intel
got passed by AMD. But they did.

 

[Andre Da Costa [Extended64]]

At least they are determined.
--
Andre
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

Worse, Intel decided not to join the hypertransport consortium and is
doing their own equivalent technology. That is not projected for
completion until 2007 if info on the web is to believed. I puzzles me too
as to how Intel got passed by AMD. But they did.

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)

The AMD Athlon 64 is a true 64 bit processor that uses 40 bit memory
addressing and handles 64 bit code natively. Intel P4 EM64T is a 32 bit
processor that has 32 bit memory addressing and handles 64 bit
instructions as thunked 32 bit (EM64T breaks the 64 bit into smaller
chunks and processes the chunks in 32 bit). Without DCA, Hypertransport
and on die memory controller, there is no sense to have 64 bit processor
because it will operate no faster than a 32 due to the system
architecture.

That is why Intel does not advertise its EM64T processors as 64 bit.
They know they cannot compete against the other 64 bit processors
(PowerPC, AMD64, etc).

It is sad, because Intel used to be an innovator and a leader in the
industry. They have floundered for the last two years and are no longer
competitive.

Bobby


Bobby

 

[Tony Sperling]

That's it. . .if you shoot yourself in the one foot, and then proceed to do
it again with the other - that's determination!

Tony. . .

At least they are determined.
--
Andre
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

Worse, Intel decided not to join the hypertransport consortium and is
doing their own equivalent technology. That is not projected for
completion until 2007 if info on the web is to believed. I puzzles me
too as to how Intel got passed by AMD. But they did.

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)

In message <[email protected]> "NoNoBadDog!"

Intel advocates will insist it is a 64 bit processor, but it is still
at
it's heart, by design and manufacture, a 32 bit P4. It does not have
an
on-die memory controller, does not have direct connect architecture,
and
does not have Hypertransport. Your P4 with EM64T is still hobbled to
antiquated Northbridge chip at a core frequency of 400 MHz. You have
none
of the advantages of the newer architecture that was pioneered by Apple
and
AMD in true 64 bit architectures.

It's worth noting that there is nothing uniquely 64bit about an on-die
memory controller, direct connect architecture, nor hypertransport.

All are good ideas, but none are uniquely 64bit (either in defining
"true" 64bit, or being impossible in a 64bit environment)

--
Going to war over religion is fighting to see who's got the
better imaginary friend.

The AMD Athlon 64 is a true 64 bit processor that uses 40 bit memory
addressing and handles 64 bit code natively. Intel P4 EM64T is a 32 bit
processor that has 32 bit memory addressing and handles 64 bit
instructions as thunked 32 bit (EM64T breaks the 64 bit into smaller
chunks and processes the chunks in 32 bit). Without DCA, Hypertransport
and on die memory controller, there is no sense to have 64 bit processor
because it will operate no faster than a 32 due to the system
architecture.

That is why Intel does not advertise its EM64T processors as 64 bit.
They know they cannot compete against the other 64 bit processors
(PowerPC, AMD64, etc).

It is sad, because Intel used to be an innovator and a leader in the
industry. They have floundered for the last two years and are no longer
competitive.

Bobby


Bobby

 

[Guest]

It means no Intel em64t is actually 64 bit? I just bought a pentium D
misleaded by this em64T thing and I think price is little more epensive than
AMD, so you are telling me it still wont have the peroformance of a AMD64?
That sound a very bad way to invest my money. One more thing, can Xp 32bit
recognize both cores and work as fine as it should with both of them or am I
going to get only one core to work fine with? I feel scamed!

 

[NoNoBadDog!]

Intel chips are nothing but P4 chips that understand EM64T instructions.
Nothing else has changed. Intel still uses the Northbridge chipset (FSB) to
handle data between RAM and CPU, and it is still 400 MHz (even though it may
advertise as 800 MHz, it is merely a clock/pipe doubled 400 MHz, and is
still simplex). The Intel chips have no Direct Connect Architecture, and
they do not have the Hypertransport Bus. AMD chips are connected directly
to the RAM, nominal speed is 1600 MHz. AMD has Hypertransport, which is a
high-speed low latency communications protocol that allows communication
across the buss at 2000 MHz. Intel has none of these. The architecture
supporting Intel EM64T has not changed. That is why they are *SLOWER* than
earlier non-EM64T chips. It is also why Intel does not advertise their
EM64T chips as 64 bit chips...simply put, they are just P4s that can
"understand" the extensions and memory addressing of 64 bit. That does not
make them good. In fact, because the chips are not designed any differently
than P4, it probably makes them worse.

Intel needs to swallow it's pride, realize that AMD beat them to the punch
with it's AMD64, and now has set the standard for the 64 bit consumer
market. Intel should adopt into it's chips what AMD has pioneered. But we
all know that Intel will not do it. They will continue stumbling around
until they lose everything to AMD.

Bobby




The truth is that Intel has no been innovating for quite some time,
particularly in the consumer 64 bit market. That is why AMDs market share
grows every month. Intel, at this stage in the game, cannot compete with
the technology that AMD has.

 

[P Ruetz]

Intel chips are nothing but P4 chips that understand EM64T instructions.

snipped ...

EM64T chips as 64 bit chips...simply put, they are just P4s that can
"understand" the extensions and memory addressing of 64 bit. That does
not make them good. In fact, because the chips are not designed any
differently than P4, it probably makes them worse.

They are certainly "better" if you want to run OS's with more than 4G RAM or
to run or generate 64-bit applications. Most people probably don't need
these features, though.

I don't find that my PD 3G with EM64T is "worse" than my P4 2.4G without
EM64T (after scaling by clock speed differences), with the exception of idle
power consumption (!). I was pleasantly surprised to find that I could
load 64-bit Linux and compile 64-bit applications. As you said, Intel
doesn't advertise it as 64-bits, so I didn't even think about it when
buying. Hence, I consider the chips with EM64T "better" than those without.

Of course, I suspect that if you really want to get the best 64-bit
performance, AMD would be the way to go.

Peter

 

[P Ruetz]

It means no Intel em64t is actually 64 bit?

It is 64-bit, but it is a question of performance (or efficiency) in 64-bit
operations. I don't know how it compares to AMD but I suspect not
particularly well.

That sound a very bad way to invest my money. One more thing, can Xp 32bit
recognize both cores and work as fine as it should with both of them or am
I
going to get only one core to work fine with? I feel scamed!

Yes, it should recognize both cores. I can run two jobs on my PD with WinXP
32 and both run at full speed or if you have a big job running on one core,
the other core is available for other jobs so you machine doesn't become
sluggish. I am very pleased with dual cores. I am looking forward to quad
cores!

Peter

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> "NoNoBadDog!"

Intel chips are nothing but P4 chips that understand EM64T instructions.
Nothing else has changed. Intel still uses the Northbridge chipset (FSB) to
handle data between RAM and CPU, and it is still 400 MHz (even though it may
advertise as 800 MHz, it is merely a clock/pipe doubled 400 MHz, and is
still simplex). The Intel chips have no Direct Connect Architecture, and
they do not have the Hypertransport Bus. AMD chips are connected directly
to the RAM, nominal speed is 1600 MHz. AMD has Hypertransport, which is a
high-speed low latency communications protocol that allows communication
across the buss at 2000 MHz. Intel has none of these. The architecture
supporting Intel EM64T has not changed. That is why they are *SLOWER* than
earlier non-EM64T chips. It is also why Intel does not advertise their
EM64T chips as 64 bit chips...simply put, they are just P4s that can
"understand" the extensions and memory addressing of 64 bit. That does not
make them good. In fact, because the chips are not designed any differently
than P4, it probably makes them worse.

It does make Intel's offering a true 64bit implementation though. There
isn't anything inherent to 64bit processing that requires a
hypertransport bus, direct connect architecture, or any of the other AMD
design decisions.

Intel still really does need to catch up, no doubt about it comparing
the real world performance of the chips, but it's not something unique
to 64bit.

Intel needs to swallow it's pride, realize that AMD beat them to the punch
with it's AMD64, and now has set the standard for the 64 bit consumer
market. Intel should adopt into it's chips what AMD has pioneered. But we
all know that Intel will not do it. They will continue stumbling around
until they lose everything to AMD.

True.