wmbz, highjack? No. Effective agreements and court cases established a long time ago that Intel and AMD both have rights to x86 and certain derivatives.
A better answer is FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) that Intel wants to introduce into the market. By calling AMD64 by a degrading name, IA-32e, Intel is claiming that AMD64 isn't a true 64-bit architecture like IA-64 (Itanium). It is their way of saying sure, we can give you an extended 32-bit processor until you are ready for the real thing.
I don't think it is working for several reasons:
1. The impressive results from Opteron tests have shown that it plays in the same league as other 64-bit architectures, and overlaps with Itanium.
2. Intel is stoking an internal war between the x86 and IPF proponents, on all levels. Xeon and Itanium development teams are competing to see who can ultimately win the server market (which can be a positive competition for Intel as long as it doesn't become too nasty), marketing groups are competing with each other in some server markets (like databases), sales quotes will directly clash in the market (do we go with the IPF quote from vendor X or the Xeon quote from vendor Y, or how about that Opteron quote from Z?).
Intel can't artificially limit Xeon-64 because that will drive business to AMD. That inevitably leads to a wide overlap between the capabilities of Xeon-64 and Itanium - that overlap already exists between Opteron and Itanium, so if Xeon-64 is to match Opteron then it conflicts with Itanium.
Papering this over with a degrading name like IA-32e is pathetic. It is confusing for the customer. AMD's message is much clearer: If you want clear 64-bit capabilities with backwards compatibility then AMD64 is for you.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
