[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Promoting i386 version over x86_64?



On 11/19/2009 04:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 13:34 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 19:47 -0600, King InuYasha wrote:
>>> Netbooks are entirely 32-bit currently, and a majority of low end
>>> desktops are still 32-bit only. 
>>
>> I don't think your second assertion is true. I'm not aware of any
>> currently-sold desktop processor, no matter how low end, which is not
>> x86-64 capable. The very cheapest processor you can buy from my friendly
>> local dealer is a 'Celeron 430', which is x86-64 capable. The last
>> processor Intel released which was not x86-64 capable, so far as I can
>> figure out, was the Celeron D 310, released December 2005. The last
>> non-x86-64-capable chip AMD released was the 'Paris' Sempron family,
>> which came in July 2004. The subsequent 'Palermo' Sempron family,
>> released February 2005, had x86-64 support.
>>
>> If you're talking about already-existing systems rather than newly sold
>> ones, there's more of a case there, but even so we've been in a
>> 64-bit-capable world aside from netbook Atom CPUs for over four years
>> now.
> 
> oh, damn. Forgot the first Intel Core mobile families. Core Solo and
> Core Duo are 32-bit only. The last of those showed up in January 2007,
> so quite a bit more recent.
> 

The netbook-grade Atoms mentioned a few times in this thread are certainly newer than that.

--CJD


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]