[Pc_Support] Re: Are "Core Duo" and "Dual Core" synonymous terms? <EOM>

[Bryan J. Smith]

On 9/20/06, Bryan J. Smith <thebs413 at gmail.com> wrote:
> P.S.  I've found the Celeron D are _not_ dual-core (nice marketing
> Intel!).  Anyone else seen otherwise?

Answering my own question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celeron#Celeron_D_.28Prescott-256.29

> Er, it represents Intel's new "Core" IA-32 (x86) design.
> And then "Core 2" adds IA-32e (aka EM64T).
> Thanx for pointing out that I should have _not_ added "-64" there for all Cores.
> I really don't know why I did -- I meant to say "IA-32" (not x86-anything).

Just FYI, I've purpose _avoided_ using x86-64 in reference to _any_
Intel product in the past (have _no_ idea why I did here) because
Intel has yet to support the full x86-64 instruction set from AMD.  I
typically use Intel's official designation, IA-32e (aka EM64T), and
only use x86-64 (aka AMD64) in reference to appropriate AMD products.

The Wikipedia pages confirm that Yonah (Core) designs are IA-32, and
not IA-32e (aka EM64T):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core

But Core 2 does:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2

Again, I even broke my own terminology/consistency on stating x86-64,
and utterly forgot about the Pentium D and NetBurst-based Xeon
dual-cores.  Don't know what is wrong with me today other than my IB
supply is running low from the 60 hour headache I've had.