Valhalla Legends Forums Archive | Assembly Language (any cpu) | x86

AuthorMessageTime
I_Smell_Tuna
I have an Athlon 64 CPU, is this an x86 CPU? If so will I be ok in learning assembly language for an x86 Intel CPU?
March 3, 2005, 7:32 PM
R.a.B.B.i.T
Yes.
March 3, 2005, 11:00 PM
Mangix
x86 means Intel Microproccessors(according to webopedia.com). sooooooo any Intel Processor is x86.
March 8, 2005, 11:47 PM
R.a.B.B.i.T
No it isn't.

x86 means any CPU/ALU running off of an 86x86 chipset, where the "x" represents a single digit.  Intel also has x44 boards (which are used in SAPs).
March 10, 2005, 4:34 PM
Adron
[quote author=rabbit link=topic=10786.msg103199#msg103199 date=1110472487]
No it isn't.

x86 means any CPU/ALU running off of an 86x86 chipset, where the "x" represents a single digit.  Intel also has x44 boards (which are used in SAPs).
[/quote]

80x86 actually. And Pentium is "x86", yet not 80x86. They switched so they'd be able to trademark the name. Numbers weren't trademarkable.
March 10, 2005, 7:02 PM
R.a.B.B.i.T
80x86?  Eh...I must be going crazy!  O well, my point still stands that x86 is any in a group of configurations, not just a single one.
March 12, 2005, 3:01 PM
Mangix
lookie what i just found out :P.

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/x/x86.html
April 2, 2005, 10:56 AM
Adron
[quote author=Mangix link=topic=10786.msg106941#msg106941 date=1112439408]
lookie what i just found out :P.

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/x/x86.html
[/quote]


[quote]
Intel's latest and sixth-generation chip is called the Pentium Pro.
[/quote]


Wow, that's a really up-to-date article!

April 2, 2005, 12:40 PM
JoeTheOdd
Wow, MMX. Lets all go get the pentium pro!

Anyhow, Intel is no longer calling their processors x86, but instead IA32, which means Intel Archtecture, 32 bit. Intel's 80x86_64 chips are, obviously, the IA64 line.

Also, Adron, Pentium One / Pro was the 80586, wasn't it? We dropped the 80 part, but I belive technically it should still be there.

[code]__ASM
{
    eax = 1336
    inc eax
    ret
}[/code]
April 6, 2005, 1:03 AM
Myndfyr
[quote author=Joe[x86] link=topic=10786.msg107523#msg107523 date=1112749409]
[code]__ASM
{
    eax = 1336
    inc eax
    ret
}[/code]
[/quote]

C(++) is case-sensitive, no?  Shouldn't that be "__asm"?

I guess you could have #defined it, but then again, why wouldn't you take away the leading underscores?  Seems somewhat silly.

BTW, you forgot to push/pop EAX.
April 6, 2005, 1:14 AM
Maddox
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=10786.msg107528#msg107528 date=1112750054]
[quote author=Joe[x86] link=topic=10786.msg107523#msg107523 date=1112749409]
[code]__ASM
{
    eax = 1336
    inc eax
    ret
}[/code]
[/quote]

C(++) is case-sensitive, no?  Shouldn't that be "__asm"?

I guess you could have #defined it, but then again, why wouldn't you take away the leading underscores?  Seems somewhat silly.

BTW, you forgot to push/pop EAX.
[/quote]

I think the VS compiler intrinsically knows to push/pop a register used in inline asm unless you're writing a naked function.
April 6, 2005, 2:39 AM
Adron
[quote author=Joe[x86] link=topic=10786.msg107523#msg107523 date=1112749409]
Also, Adron, Pentium One / Pro was the 80586, wasn't it? We dropped the 80 part, but I belive technically it should still be there.
[/quote]

Pro was the 686 I think..
April 6, 2005, 4:44 AM
Myndfyr
[quote author=Adron link=topic=10786.msg107574#msg107574 date=1112762685]
[quote author=Joe[x86] link=topic=10786.msg107523#msg107523 date=1112749409]
Also, Adron, Pentium One / Pro was the 80586, wasn't it? We dropped the 80 part, but I belive technically it should still be there.
[/quote]

Pro was the 686 I think..
[/quote]

That is correct.

On an aside, very impressive were the performance gains seen by running Windows NT-based OSes on the Pentium Pro vs. similarly-stocked Pentium machines.
April 6, 2005, 7:04 AM
Adron
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=10786.msg107587#msg107587 date=1112771041]
On an aside, very impressive were the performance gains seen by running Windows NT-based OSes on the Pentium Pro vs. similarly-stocked Pentium machines.
[/quote]

Oh.. I was choosing between a Pentium 200 MMX and a Pentium Pro 200 at one time. I picked the Pro. I ran NT based OS's on it for a very long time. I never did any direct comparisons though... How large was the difference?
April 6, 2005, 2:39 PM
Myndfyr
[quote author=Adron link=topic=10786.msg107630#msg107630 date=1112798366]
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=10786.msg107587#msg107587 date=1112771041]
On an aside, very impressive were the performance gains seen by running Windows NT-based OSes on the Pentium Pro vs. similarly-stocked Pentium machines.
[/quote]

Oh.. I was choosing between a Pentium 200 MMX and a Pentium Pro 200 at one time. I picked the Pro. I ran NT based OS's on it for a very long time. I never did any direct comparisons though... How large was the difference?
[/quote]

From what I've read, a Pentium Pro running at 133MHz would outperform a Pentium 200 MMX with similar memory configurations.  This was supposed to only happen on NT-bases OSes, though -- not *nix or 16-bit Windows OSes.
April 6, 2005, 7:09 PM

Search