# where for 64-bit intel



## suzanne (Dec 29, 2009)

I want to install 64 bit freebsd. My computer intel core 2 duo. iso cd in which I should for intel, amd64? Does intel computer is set up? Can you give me the ftp address?


----------



## sixtydoses (Dec 29, 2009)

FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE, amd64:

ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/amd64/ISO-IMAGES/8.0/


----------



## DutchDaemon (Dec 29, 2009)

Intel Core2Duo = 64-bit. You need the amd64 ISO. Choose one:

ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/amd64/ISO-IMAGES/8.0/


----------



## phoenix (Dec 29, 2009)

amd64 was the name originally given to AMD's 64-bit extensions to the x86 architecture.  Later, Intel released their version of the extensions, which have gone under a variety of names like EM64T, IA32e, and similar.  Later on, a more generic name of x86_64 came out for the 64-bit extensions of x86.

However, since the architecture was originally named amd64, FreeBSD continues to use that name for it.

Any x86 CPU that supports "Long Mode", or LM, can run the amd64 version of FreeBSD.

There's another 64-bit CPU architecture from Intel, known as IA-64.  This is the instruction set used by the Itanium series of CPUs, and is not compatible with x86.

IOW, for 32-bit Intel or AMD CPUs, you can use the i386 version of FreeBSD.

For 64-bit Intel and AMD CPUs, you can use the amd64 version of FreeBSD.


----------



## suzanne (Dec 29, 2009)

Thank you very much. 
Intel core 2 duo, 2.66 GHz 4 gb ram for 64 bit will suggest you, I will use kde.


----------



## oliverh (Dec 29, 2009)

phoenix said:
			
		

> amd64 was the name originally given to AMD's 64-bit extensions to the x86 architecture.  Later, Intel released their version of the extensions, which have gone under a variety of names like EM64T, IA32e, and similar.  Later on, a more generic name of x86_64 came out for the 64-bit extensions of x86.
> 
> However, since the architecture was originally named amd64, FreeBSD continues to use that name for it.
> 
> ...



Intel didn't release their own version of it, it is indeed AMD64 just with different names.


----------



## SirDice (Dec 29, 2009)

oliverh said:
			
		

> Intel didn't release their own version of it, it is indeed AMD64 just with different names.



Nope, it's a slightly different implementation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#History_of_Intel_64


----------



## oliverh (Dec 29, 2009)

SirDice said:
			
		

> Nope, it's a slightly different implementation.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#History_of_Intel_64



Oh dear, I meant Intel licensed it from AMD, nothing more nothing less. Intel doesn't use some of the extensions (sometimes different use), but in the end nobody cares about those. So as quintessence it is AMD know-how. In praxis the common denominator rules, so it's the same for developers and end-users.

http://jetteroheller.wordpress.com/2007/03/09/whats-the-difference-between-amd64-and-intel-em64t/


----------

