Intel or AMD?
For me, I believe that Intel is more emulation-friendly than AMD. Why did I say that? Because, I know that Intel developed the x86 instruction set architectures (Yes, thanks to AMD, who helped designing the x86 instruction set architectures with Intel.) and the extensions, such as IA-32 and x86-64, and when it comes to playing the games for the emulation, Intel is my better choice.
Emulation of what?
Actually, x64 was AMD's own design, which Intel later adopted....
x86-64 - WikipediaHistorically, AMD has developed and produced processors with instruction sets patterned after Intel's original designs, but with x86-64, roles were reversed: Intel found itself in the position of adopting the ISA which AMD had created
Great times with A8N-SLI & Athlon 64 X2 & WinXP/Srv03 x64 & PlanetAMD64... are goneActually, x64 was AMD's own design
PlanetAMD64 -> Windows XP x64 (64-bit)
Otherwise, very confused question in 1st post...
I agree. The question needs to be spelt out in more detail. I'm guessing it's following on from the OP's earlier thread last month, but unless you'd read that you wouldn't have a clue what this one is about.
@Bree
Of course, more details like you just asked. Let me say this. Have you ever heard of the Nintendo systems like NES, SNES, GBA, and 3DS? There are some emulators for those Nintendo systems. Some of the emulators require the Intel redistributables like the ones that I mentioned earlier. If I use an x64 emulator in an x64 OS, it works fine. If I use an x86 emulator in an x64 OS, there is not really much of a chance to run an x86 emulator in an x64 OS, unless the further research is required.
And again, for the gaming emulation, Intel is my better choice.
@margrave55
Gaming emulation, I meant.
- - - Updated - - -
Also, I heard of AMD, even though AMD is like a clone of Intel (but different), but I have no interest in AMD.
Quote
