Author | Message | Time |
---|---|---|
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 |