Intel x86-64 very closely resembles AMD...

[0iD]

From Newsforge:
When it looked like AMD was going to render Intel's multibillion dollar
IA64 effort (aka Itanium) irrelevant with its brassy push into 64-bit
computing using an extended x86 architecture, Intel responded with
EM64T. When it was first revealed that Intel had an x86-64 project in
the works, codenamed Yamhill, the company at first denied the project's
existence. Eventually, though, EM64T surfaced, and it proved to be a
near-clone of AMD's x86-64. There are some subtle differences in
calling conventions between the two processors, but the differences are
slight enough that compatibility isn't usually a worry.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1860533,00.asp

[sawyen]

I was under the impression Intel bought the 64 bit technology off AMD under some trade agreement thingy?

[Xaneden]

I was under the impression Intel bought the 64 bit technology off AMD under some trade agreement thingy?

How would that work? Intel/AMD have been making 64bit processors for the server market for many years now. This recent push to desktop use isn't something one would would have to buy off the other.

[oralpain]

Intel and AMD hae a cross licenceing agreement. Any x86 stuff either company makes the other can use. This way AMD can make x86 compatable CPUs, use MMX, SSE/2/3, ect, and Intel can use x86-64.

[PMM]

Intel did they not have to play ball in relation to Amd/Microsoft ?

I.e. AMD had a 64bit platform supported in full by Microsoft, and to follow the
same route Intel had to follow in AMD footsteps by adopting what AMD had started as Microsoft did not really want to add another 64bit standard into the equation.

And as said above... The tech in Intel CPUs AMD now have access to and Intel got access to the x86-64 of AMD.

I think that is why hyperthreading is going into AMD CPU's.

[Xaneden]

To be honest, I think the idea that one should license technology to the other is poposterous. Although we do have conflicting standards in the PC market (as we always have), there has to be 'some' status quos to work upon. I just don't see how development can continue at its current rate if the software takes too long to develop because it needs to support several processor standards; as we all know, it seems to be the software which pushes the hardware development through after alll; so a lack of it can only result in a lack of development. Vista for instance is going to push through a more 'substantial' push towards 64bit etc.