flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Main > Going crazy using AMD64 or INTEL64

Goto page 1, 2  Next

Going crazy using AMD64 or INTEL64
AMD64 great processor
35%
 35%  [ 6 ]
INTEL64 great processor
52%
 52%  [ 9 ]
Other great processor ( RISK64, MOTOROLA64, ROCKWELL64 ) ...
11%
 11%  [ 2 ]
Total Votes : 17

Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Remy Vincent



Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 155
Location: France
Remy Vincent
I'm going crazy [ but i'm able to write small ASM programs ], you Dudes would be able to help me between AMD64 or INTEL64 or other ( RISK64, MOTOROLA64, ROCKWELL64 ) ...
Post 13 Oct 2009, 02:08
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17475
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
What help are you asking for?

If you have specific questions then feel free to ask them.
Post 13 Oct 2009, 03:22
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
Note that currently the term Intel64 refers to the same architecture AMD64 does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64
Post 13 Oct 2009, 03:55
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Remy Vincent



Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 155
Location: France
Remy Vincent
revolution wrote:
If you have specific questions then feel free to ask them.


It is about working more slowy than expected because of more effcient instruction cache, and also how could one be sure that his using a 64 then 128 then 256 procesor, because you could only work with one 64 128 256 DOCUMENTATION ( for example )

_________________
Groups lower your IQ
Post 13 Oct 2009, 06:51
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Remy Vincent



Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 155
Location: France
Remy Vincent
LocoDelAssembly wrote:
... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64


that is c r a z y ! MENUETOS64 is mentioned, between OPENBSD64 and SOLARIS64, so an """very small""" operating system is trying some kind of competition with operating system more used. I Hope Menuet OS could reach the top of the list at wikipedia X86-64 topic!

_________________
Groups lower your IQ
Post 13 Oct 2009, 07:02
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17475
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Remy Vincent: I don't know what you are asking. We are not likely to see 128bit processors any time soon, if at all. And 256bit processors are not ever likely to be useful in any practical sense. Unless you are thinking of SSE/AVX?

What do you mean when you say "more eff[i]cient instruction cache"? Which is more efficient than what? How are you testing the instruction cache efficiency?
Post 13 Oct 2009, 07:35
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
pal



Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Posts: 227
pal
revolution wrote:
We are not likely to see 128bit processors any time soon, if at all. And 256bit processors are not ever likely to be useful in any practical sense. Unless you are thinking of SSE/AVX?


You sure about that? Check this out:

Code:
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/enterprise/352270/microsoft-leaks-details-of-windows-8-and-windows-9    


I guess they mean native 128 bit, otherwise it would be a bugger to program, let alone if it is even possible. 2012 at the earliest, so we have a wait, but we could have native 128-bit GPRs, unless I misinterpreted the article.
Post 13 Oct 2009, 10:09
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Madis731



Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 2140
Location: Estonia
Madis731
@pal:
That amazes me quite a bit. I thought 128-bit was as far away from 64 as 64 was to 32!?!?
Why don't WE hear anything about future CPUs? Intel has many CPUs coming out, but none with 128-bit GPRs. Maybe they still mean the SSE-compatibility. Don't you think?
Post 13 Oct 2009, 11:54
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
r22



Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 805
r22
pal wrote:
revolution wrote:
We are not likely to see 128bit processors any time soon, if at all. And 256bit processors are not ever likely to be useful in any practical sense. Unless you are thinking of SSE/AVX?


You sure about that? Check this out:

Code:
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/enterprise/352270/microsoft-leaks-details-of-windows-8-and-windows-9    


I guess they mean native 128 bit, otherwise it would be a bugger to program, let alone if it is even possible. 2012 at the earliest, so we have a wait, but we could have native 128-bit GPRs, unless I misinterpreted the article.


The 128-bit reference in the Windows 8/9 info leak is presumed to refer to their 128-bit file system (The one that was supposed to be released with Vista). But who knows what'll happen a decade from now.

I predict 128-bit architecture by 2019 !!!
Post 13 Oct 2009, 13:35
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17475
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
I predict not before 2069. 60 years for 30 doublings means ~2^64 bytes in the bigger systems. But even then I would be very sceptical that there are still 30 more doublings remaining in the future, most likely far less than 30 before the "wall" is reached and things level off.
Post 13 Oct 2009, 13:49
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
pal



Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Posts: 227
pal
I didn't think they meant native 128-bit CPUs. It is interesting though as, according to the article, they are talking with the major hardware production companies - Intel, AMD, IBM etc. I don't see why they would have to talk to them if they were just using SSE or the upcoming AVX or something alike it.

The reason that I don't think they mean 128-bit GPRs is because, as Madis said, there was a huge gap between 32 and 64 bit. Most people are still using 32-bit OSs, even though all major CPUs being produced now are capable of supporting 64-bit. Another thing is many people don't have enough memory to make 64-bit useful (4GB). I only have 3GB of RAM but I like 64-bit programming when I can as it is much better with all of the registers, sizes etc. Since this is true, how many people will have enough memory to take advantage of 128-bit hardware. I don't know how many GB that would be though (16 exabytes right?), bit I doubt many have that much (apart from super computers...).

Interesting that Microsoft are creating a 128-bit file system. That must be a bitch to code right? Although it must offer quite a few advantages.
Post 13 Oct 2009, 13:55
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17475
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Maybe MS just wanted to beat UFS and claim bragging rights for the largest capable FS.

Don't forget about the death of NTFS. Wink
Post 13 Oct 2009, 14:03
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Remy Vincent



Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 155
Location: France
Remy Vincent
revolution wrote:
I predict not before 2069 ...


My own problem is that I need the whole 256 OpCodes ( with small examples ) , and also I need the whole 128 bit OpCodes ( with small examples too ) just before I start coding in 64 bit, more longer programs. You Dudes would be appreciated to CHECK my own anticipation of the whole 256&128 bit OpCodes ...
Post 13 Oct 2009, 15:37
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Remy Vincent



Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 155
Location: France
Remy Vincent
Remy Vincent wrote:
... 256&128 bit OpCodes ...


My main question was about AMD ability to achieve AMD64+AMD128+AMD256 projects,

or INTEL64+INTEL128+INTEL256 projects are much more dynamic ?
Post 13 Oct 2009, 15:40
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17475
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
AFAIK neither AMD or Intel have any such plans for 128bit (forget about 256bit, that's not going to happen). Indeed I don't know of any chip maker considering 128bit GPR's yet. I think your anticipation is very premature. Wait 60 or so years then start getting excited about 128bits. Razz
Post 13 Oct 2009, 15:47
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
asmfan



Joined: 11 Aug 2006
Posts: 392
Location: Russian
asmfan
Yup, with AVX and future Windows 8 & 9 already claimed "lot-of-bits" (more than 64:)) OS we'll see the bright "lot-of-bits" future and the death of assembly coding because on new complexity and absence of jobs.
btw. have you seen anywhere asm jobs worldwide? that's it. Gone w/ lack of professionals. If you'll find one point me on pls. interesting to now who use all its (asm) powers /SSEs, AVXs/ now. However saw some volunteer proj. like x264 codec that use tons of asm x32 & x64 (nasm IIRC). Do U participate?
Post 13 Oct 2009, 18:28
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Remy Vincent



Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 155
Location: France
Remy Vincent
asmfan wrote:
... tons of asm x32 & x64 (nasm IIRC). Do U participate?
Saying since u been gone with "x32 & x64" talking it's harder and harder to walkaway with asm coding is irrelevant!

May be i'm already gone asking "tons" of 64 128 256 DOCUMENTATION, but it's true that I don't hook up from 64 bit OpCodes to 256 bit OpCodes or more ... Where is the documentation ?

Well, replying to "the" where is your heart question, I just say that I'm addicted to 16/32 bit 80x86 coding, so it's difficult to accept a what you did was low arguing, because I'm trying to code searching for 64 128 256 DOCUMENTATION!
Post 13 Oct 2009, 19:03
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
mattst88



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 260
Location: South Carolina
mattst88
pal wrote:
I didn't think they meant native 128-bit CPUs.


Uhh...

pal wrote:
I guess they mean native 128 bit.


And what the fuck is Remy Vincent going on about? I can't make any sense out of anything he's said in this entire thread. Also the first time I've ever seen anyone put quotes around the word "the". See what I did there?

_________________
My x86 Instruction Reference -- includes SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4 instructions.
Assembly Programmer's Journal
Post 15 Oct 2009, 04:15
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
pal



Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Posts: 227
pal
Yeah, the two quotes should be the other way around. I have, since the first one, changed my mind. As there is a lack of information concerning the article, there are mixed opinions to what it means. I now think that they will be using a 128-bit file system on 64-bit hardware.

I also have no idea what he is on about.

P.S. mattst88: nice instruction reference website. I have been looking for yours for a while but couldn't find the website. Bookmarked Smile
Post 15 Oct 2009, 07:50
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
mattst88



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 260
Location: South Carolina
mattst88
pal wrote:
P.S. mattst88: nice instruction reference website. I have been looking for yours for a while but couldn't find the website. Bookmarked Smile


Ahh, I'm only two weeks late to respond, but thanks a lot! I really appreciate it.

Maybe that'll provide me with a bit of encouragement to continue adding instructions. It's just that once I made it work, adding instructions was so monotonous. Also, if you've got any suggestions for improvements, I'd like to hear them.

I think what I really should do is write a Perl script to parse the binutils source and generate the list of instructions from it, minus the descriptions. Maybe parse the intel manuals for the descriptions. Smile

Ah, so many projects, so little time (and such a short attention span).

_________________
My x86 Instruction Reference -- includes SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4 instructions.
Assembly Programmer's Journal
Post 28 Oct 2009, 04:59
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.