discussion forum


message

Name: Johnny
Date: February 13, 2001 at 19:23:36
Subject: Re: FOSTER CPUID
In Reply To: Re: FOSTER CPUID by
Christian Ludloff on February 13, 2001 at 17:45:23
Text:
| Geez. So people once again have to check cache sizes, brand ID values,
| and/or processor name strings? What a pain. Thank you Intel. :-(

Remember, my cpus are only pre-release samples. Things may change when
the processor is oficially released.

|| Do you know why NetBurst family processors return family 0fh?
|| Does anyone out there know it? It's a rather funny little story.
|
| Tell us!
|
| Since 0Fh is the highest possible value -- maybe Intel really believed
| that the Pentium 4 would be their last x86 processor? :-)
|
| Seriously. They should have used family=7, and stuck to their brand ID
| scheme, eg. 08h=P4, 09h=P4 Xeon, etc.

The problem is with Microsoft Windows NT as this OS masks out the most
significant bit of the nibble specifying the cpu family.
I think that everything makes sense now. Funny, isn't it?

Johnny


post a followup message
(Be nice... or be blocked. Be technical... or be erased.)

Name: optional link title:
eMail: optional link URL:
Subject: optional image URL:
  Insert line breaks by hand when only about one inch remains at the right side. Otherwise your message will be unreadable.
Text:
 

  Note: The above eMail form fields may look unaligned if you are using a browser other than Netscape Navigator version 3.0.


currently posted followup messages
(You may have to press the RELOAD button of your browser.)



main page