EM64T xp64 question ?

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Simo Sentissi, Oct 31, 2005.

  1. 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 ?
    Simo Sentissi, Oct 31, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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/

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

    "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 ?
    Carey Frisch [MVP], Oct 31, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Simo Sentissi

    NoNoBadDog! Guest

    "Simo Sentissi" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    NoNoBadDog!, Oct 31, 2005
    #3
  4. Simo Sentissi

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <> "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.
    DevilsPGD, Oct 31, 2005
    #4
  5. 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]" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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/
    >
    > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > "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 ?
    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Oct 31, 2005
    #5
  6. Simo Sentissi

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <> "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.
    DevilsPGD, Oct 31, 2005
    #6
  7. Simo Sentissi

    NoNoBadDog! Guest

    "DevilsPGD" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <> "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
    NoNoBadDog!, Oct 31, 2005
    #7
  8. 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$...
    >
    > "DevilsPGD" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> In message <> "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
    >
    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Oct 31, 2005
    #8
  9. 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$$...
    > 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$...
    >>
    >> "DevilsPGD" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> In message <> "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
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Oct 31, 2005
    #9
  10. 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]" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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$$...
    >> 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$...
    >>>
    >>> "DevilsPGD" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> In message <> "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
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    Tony Sperling, Nov 4, 2005
    #10
  11. 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!" wrote:

    >
    > "Simo Sentissi" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > 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
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?RmluYWx1c2Vy?=, Nov 7, 2005
    #11
  12. Simo Sentissi

    NoNoBadDog! Guest

    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.
    "Finaluser" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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!" wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Simo Sentissi" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > 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
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    NoNoBadDog!, Nov 7, 2005
    #12
  13. Simo Sentissi

    P Ruetz Guest

    "NoNoBadDog!" <no_@spam_verizon.net> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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, Nov 7, 2005
    #13
  14. Simo Sentissi

    P Ruetz Guest

    "Finaluser" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    P Ruetz, Nov 7, 2005
    #14
  15. Simo Sentissi

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <> "NoNoBadDog!"
    <no_@spam_verizon.net> wrote:

    >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.

    --
    "Gee, Bill what do you want to do tonight?"
    "The same thing we do every night Steve. Try to take over the world!"
    DevilsPGD, Nov 7, 2005
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Andre Da Costa

    Intel P4 506 EM64T Ready

    Andre Da Costa, May 20, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    703
    Andre Da Costa
    May 20, 2005
  2. =?Utf-8?B?Tmljaw==?=

    AMD64 vs EM64T

    =?Utf-8?B?Tmljaw==?=, Sep 8, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    2,092
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    Feb 12, 2009
  3. Simo Sentissi

    Intel em64T with xp64 ?

    Simo Sentissi, Oct 31, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    340
    Colin Barnhorst
    Oct 31, 2005
  4. Rick
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    404
    Randy
    Nov 10, 2005
  5. Jex

    Intel EM64T

    Jex, Nov 8, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    774
Loading...

Share This Page