Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > EM64T xp64 question ?

Reply
Thread Tools

EM64T xp64 question ?

 
 
Simo Sentissi
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2005
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 ?



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Carey Frisch [MVP]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2005
Please repost your inquiry in the new Windows 64-bit newsgroup:
news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsof....64bit.general

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

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

"Simo Sentissi" wrote:

| 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 ?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
NoNoBadDog!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2005

"Simo Sentissi" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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






 
Reply With Quote
 
DevilsPGD
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2005
In message <(E-Mail Removed)> "NoNoBadDog!"
<no_@spam_verizon.net> wrote:

>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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Colin Barnhorst
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2005
Switching newsgroups a lot, Carey? (This is the 64-bit general group)

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Please repost your inquiry in the new Windows 64-bit newsgroup:
> news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsof....64bit.general
>
> --
> Carey Frisch
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows - Shell/User
> Microsoft Community Newsgroups
> news://msnews.microsoft.com/
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Simo Sentissi" wrote:
>
> | 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 ?
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
DevilsPGD
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2005
In message <(E-Mail Removed)> "Colin Barnhorst"
<colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote:

>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...

--
You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me.
 
Reply With Quote
 
NoNoBadDog!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2005

"DevilsPGD" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In message <(E-Mail Removed)> "NoNoBadDog!"
> <no_@spam_verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>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


 
Reply With Quote
 
Colin Barnhorst
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2005
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)
"NoNoBadDog!" <no_@spam_verizon.net> wrote in message
news:eLI$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "DevilsPGD" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> In message <(E-Mail Removed)> "NoNoBadDog!"
>> <no_@spam_verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>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
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2005
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

"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Olc$$(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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)
> "NoNoBadDog!" <no_@spam_verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:eLI$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> "DevilsPGD" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> In message <(E-Mail Removed)> "NoNoBadDog!"
>>> <no_@spam_verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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
>>
>>

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Sperling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-04-2005
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. . .



"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:Olc$$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> 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)
>> "NoNoBadDog!" <no_@spam_verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:eLI$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>
>>> "DevilsPGD" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> In message <(E-Mail Removed)> "NoNoBadDog!"
>>>> <no_@spam_verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AMD64 vs EM64T =?Utf-8?B?Tmljaw==?= Windows 64bit 16 02-12-2009 07:55 AM
xp64 trial version & xp64 beta version install =?Utf-8?B?TWF0dGhldyBXZWJzdGVy?= Windows 64bit 7 01-08-2006 01:29 AM
Intel em64T with xp64 ? Simo Sentissi Windows 64bit 2 10-31-2005 03:46 AM
OEM xp64 v. Trial xp64 ? Soma11 Windows 64bit 4 05-22-2005 08:00 PM
Intel P4 506 EM64T Ready Andre Da Costa Windows 64bit 2 05-20-2005 05:20 PM



Advertisments