Core 2's physical address is 40-bit?

[AJana1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:X86# Core_2.27s_physical_address_is_40bit Talk:x86 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, I have to say I could not change the world, but I've gotten in touch with Core 2 platform for around a decade. Core 2 series of processors use the traditional Front Side Bus, in other words, only 36-bit physical addressing as its upper limit. I have no ideas why people would tend to confuse Core 2 processors and Xeon processors which use the same/similar microarchitecture/implementations. I wish someone from Intel would say some about it, explain the differences between Core 2 and Xeon! Thank you in advance! I love Intel, love her processors badly.

[idata]

Hello Janagewen:

I just wanted to let you know that there are different families for Intel® Xeon processors, so, in order for us to be able to provide the details you are looking for, we need the specific model of the processor. Same thing with the core 2 processor, do you mean 2nd generation processor? On the following link you will be able see all the different processor families: http://ark.intel.com/ http://ark.intel.com/ Any questions, please let me know. Alberto

[idata]

Hello Janagewen:

First of all let me apologize for any kind of inconvenience I might have caused you, I did not mean to cause you any disturbance. With all due respect, what I was trying to do was to narrow down the search details in order to provide the most accurate information for you. Now, I found a document that provides information about the Physical Address Space you can find it at page 101, but also you will find some other useful information in there. http://www.intel.com/Assets/en_US/PDF/manual/253668.pdf http://www.intel.com/Assets/en_US/PDF/manual/253668.pdf Now, if what you need is to confirm the physical address of the Core 2 Duo compare with the Xeon processors, we will need to do some research about that, because since there are different Xeon's families, that value might differ from one family to the other, and since the Core 2 Duo is not supported anymore, the information about them is not that much right now, we will need to review our archives. Additionally I found a data sheet for the Core 2 duo processor, I did not see the information that you specifically are requesting, but I will still provide the link so you can verify it, maybe there is something in there that might be useful for you, that is all I found for the moment: http://download.intel.com/design/processor/datashts/31327807.pdf http://download.intel.com/design/processor/datashts/31327807.pdf Once we do the investigation, I will post all the details on this thread as soon as possible. And in regard to your comment, we are actually really glad that you belong to our Intel® communities, and we hope you keep being part of them for a really long time. Any questions, please let me know. Alberto

[idata]

Hello Janagewen:

Thank you very much for all that information, we appreciate the fact you took the time to shared that. No problem at all, I understand that sometimes when you do not get the information you are requesting could be frustrating. At this point, we are still doing an investigation in order to find out if we can add further information in regard to the inquiry you have. Any questions, please let me know. Alberto

[idata]

Hello Janagewen:

I just wanted to let you know that I received some information regarding the physical addressing for the core 2 duo processors, let me give you the link so you can check it, page 66: http://download.intel.com/design/processor/datashts/318732.pdf http://download.intel.com/design/processor/datashts/318732.pdf Please let me know if that information works for you. Any questions, please let me know. Alberto

[AJana1]

Hello Alberto,

If you meant the information on the above table, ok, that is great! In fact of all, this title of mine, did not ask a question, just want to correct something misleading information on wikipedia.org. But anyway, that is alright.

Core 2 is the last generation processor taking advantage of Front Side Bus, and this Front Side Bus is only the updated version of that in P6 processors (Pentium Pro), so 36-bit physical addressing, 64GB spacing maximum without any doubt for all the desktop processors. I do not talk about the Xeon counterpart of Core 2.

The first generation Core i3 processors are very similar with Core 2, only differentiated themselves for its underlying core, but the QPI bus on the same die linking two chipsets are very similar with the Front Side Bus, only serialised and package it onto a comparably few lines, still 36-bit physical addressing. It is impossible to implement a memory controller onto the PCH, and its inseparable north bridge (uncore) support memory module only up to 16/32GB, so none such platform would possibly support physical memory up to 64GB. If someone crazy enough design a new north bridge to support Core 2 with physical memory support up to 64GB, then Core 2 processors would fire its entire potential power. If someone over crazy, who remove the uncore on the same die, and design another one with support up to 64GB, then the 1156 platform would also act like its predecessor, Core 2. As to Sandy Bridge and later, nothing is possible to go such crazy...

[idata]

Hello Janagewen:

Thank you very much for all the information posted on this thread. Yes, we actually though that you needed the information in regard to the physical address of the core 2 processors, but as you mentioned above, we can tell that your knowledge on this matter is quite extensive. Thank you very much for explaining all those details, they are very helpful for us and for all the peers on this thread. And yes, it is very unlikely for Intel® to design a new north bridge or to create some modifications on the processors to make it work under that structure. Any other comment or feedback you might want to add, you are more than welcome to do that. Best Regards Alberto