On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 03:12:34 GMT, Tim Roberts <spamtrap@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>Noob <root@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>Tim Roberts wrote:
>>
>>> Dave Feustel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is the new Intel Silverstone chip 64-bit instruction capable, or only
32-bit?
>>>
>>> It took me a while to figure out that you really meant
"Silverthorne"...
>>>
>>> The official marketing name is "Intel Atom". Details are still
sketchy,
>>> but everything I read seems to show that is will do x86 32-bit, but
not
>>> 64-bit. Since it is targetted at things like cell phones and iPods,
the
>>> lack of 64-bit wouldn't be an issue.
>>
>>I would tend to agree with you.
>>
>>But ArsTechnica's Hannibal seems to think it will be 64-bit.
>>
>>http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080205-small-wonder-inside-intels-silverthorne-ultramobile-cpu.html
>>
>>Anand's article is interesting too.
>>
>>http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3230
>
>You are correct; I've now seen 3 articles that mention x86-64 (although
>only briefly in each case), so I will back down from my initial
conclusion.
>
>It is fascinating that none of the Intel literature mentions this. All
>I've seen in the official docs is "x86 front end".
>--
>Tim Roberts, timr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
>
The latest EE Times (Mar 10, 2008, pg 8) has an article
entitled "Intel's Atom: no buzz, just facts" with sections
on "What the media got wrong", What they got right", and
"What they missed". There is a lot of comparison to the
ARM, especially on power issues, but nothing on 32 vs 64
bits... which seems strange if the Atom can actually do 64,
or even if it can't but others were claiming that. (Should have been
mentioned in "What they got wrong".)
The author is Kenton Williston, site editor of "DSP Design Line".
Best regards,
Bob Masta
DAQARTA v3.50
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, FREE Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!
|
