Question: why are 64-bit distros called "x86-64" instead of just x64?
Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Question: why are 64-bit distros called "x86-64" instead of just x64?
Hi.
I am wondering about something. Why are 64-bit Linux distros called "x86-64" instead of just "x64"?
x86-64 sounds a little odd, so I prefer just x64.
Thanks.
That is more or less historical, Actually x86 is the intel platform (series of x86 processors) and 64 means 64bit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64
Distribution: Mainly Devuan, antiX, & Void, with Tiny Core, Fatdog, & BSD thrown in.
Posts: 5,493
Rep:
Intel were the instigators of the 'PC' computer, they started by using the 8088 processor, but really took off when they introduced the 8086 processor, which were 16 bit, then came more processors, 80286, then the 80386, which was 32 bit, & they were called 'x86' by the industry, so when the processor went 64 bit, they just tacked on the '64', hence 'x86_64', also commonly known as 'amd64', I believe because AMD pipped Intel to bringing a 64 bit processor to market first.
I tend to just use 32bit or 64bit when referring to them or the O/S & software.
EDIT: Seems we were all replying at the same time.
Intel were the instigators of the 'PC' computer, they started by using the 8088 processor, but really took off when they introduced the 8086 processor,
Just the opposite way: the 8086 came first, as successor to the 8080/8085 8-bit processors.
But as a lot of existing hardware (support chips) still were 8-bits, to take advantage of THOSE Intel developed the 8088 which is hybrid 8/16 bits (and the 8087 floating point CO-processor, which can be added to either). As IBM chose the 8088 for their first PC, the whole PC evolution started with that cpu. The full step to 16-bit came with the PC/AT, which used the 80286 (2nd successor to the 8086).
And to the OP: the x86_64 platform started (by AMD) as a 64-bit addition/extension of/to the x86 line from Intel, which themselves had already developed the IA64 architecture (which is quite different, although microcode-compatible with the x86, which from that moment on they called IA32).
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.