![dolphin emulator 5.0-2510 dolphin emulator 5.0-2510](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/2TVAUf521yU/hqdefault.jpg)
In theory, EPIC allows faster execution than CPUs which have to recognise and exploit implicit parallelism to get the best use of their out-of-order and/or multiple-issue execution.
Dolphin emulator 5.0 2510 code#
The distinctive feature of the Itanium architecture is Explicitly Parallel Instruction Computing (EPIC) which expects the compiler to generate and annotate code for predicated execution and other fancy things. Posted 14:45 UTC (Sun) by CChittleborough (subscriber, #60775) so you tell me who's treating marketing BS as a gospel of truth. So after several years(!) of effort there're almost as many exceptions as 'unified' files, or in other words, it wasn't done because i386/amd64 are the same arch (which is, ironically, something you'd know yourself if you *actually* worked with these archs). if anything, it reflects on some wise engineerig design decisions of AMD that kept the two archs close enough that some linux devs managed to drive through the x86 'unification'.
![dolphin emulator 5.0-2510 dolphin emulator 5.0-2510](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FgXi8mZkT4E/maxresdefault.jpg)
The directory structure of a source code tree has no bearing on what is a separate architecture (e.g., the BSDs have kept i386/amd64 separate). It's called 'developer manual', not 'marketing BS' but then it's not the first time you've had reading comprehension problems, is it ). It's still the same old Duomo di Milano x86, just with some modern tweaks. Even more ridiculous look the claim that x86-64 superceded an x86: it's continuation of the very same thing! How could one supercede itself? The fact that for once AMD invented something which Intel also adopted (it tried many times: 3DNow!, XOP and so on, but was ignored both by Intel and programmers for the most part) is commendable, but it does not suddenly make an x86-64 a new architecture which could superceded x86.
![dolphin emulator 5.0-2510 dolphin emulator 5.0-2510](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/IkjMn7WcgvE/maxresdefault.jpg)
All the important decisions were made centuries before. Sure, he did some work on it, but his additions were relatively minor and not really all that significant. The claim that AMD “invented” “new” x86-64 architecture is as ridiculous as claim that Benigno Castiglione built Duomo di Milano at the end of last century. No amount of handwaving will change that fact. The modern x86-64 is a minor tweak on top of the existing Intel-produced architecture. Posted 9:50 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) It's still good old x86-both internally and externally. But to say that it introduced the whole new architecture… nope, didn't happen. Thus yes, AMD introduced valuable extension for the x86 architecture, obviously, no one says it's not true. SSE2 registers and the appropriate instructions were introduced in Pentium4, not in Opteron. But significant difference between -march=i386 to -march=x86-64 is the use of FPU in -march=i386 mode and SSE2 in -march=x86-64 mode. end of and your comments about Pentium4 seem to involve re-writing history, as it was the Opteron which introduced x86-64.Sure, Operon (not Athlong64, my bad) introduced x86-64 architecture, I never said otherwise. This was quite nice change, but of course it was not a new architecture. Which instead of two base registers ( BX and BP) and two index registers ( SI and DI) gave us eight (with some limitations for ESP). Sorry, but it's very similar to the introduction of SIB byte in 80386. Heck, AVX-512 doubled number of SIMD registers and made them larger as well-yet it's still considered an x86, not something new! Now we are on 64bit AMD, with a whole load more registers, Or else we'll be forced to treat Pentium!!! with it's new SSE a new architecture which makes no sense whatsoever since it's basically a minor alteration of Pentium II. If switch from 16bit CPU to 32bit CPU is not considered a new architecture then switch from 32bit CPU to 64bit CPU should not treated as such.
![dolphin emulator 5.0-2510 dolphin emulator 5.0-2510](https://i.imgur.com/vCPagyj.png)
But 802 were 16bit while 80386 was 32bit so why 80386 is considered an x86 and Opteron is suddenly not an x86? Yes, it's similiar for compatability reasons to i386. Posted 23:38 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252)