Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 12:10:40 +0100 From: Roland Smith <rsmith@xs4all.nl> To: Chris Hastie <lists@oak-wood.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Which version with a Xeon X3210 Message-ID: <20071104111040.GA65449@slackbox.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <472D9F85.10508@oak-wood.co.uk> References: <472D9F85.10508@oak-wood.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 10:31:33AM +0000, Chris Hastie wrote: > I've just ordered a new server based on the Intel Xeon X3210. This is a > quad core processor supporting the Intel 64 (formerly known as Intel=AE > EM64T, according to the flyer) instruction set. >=20 > I plan to install FreeBSD 6.2 on it, but I'm not clear whether I should > be using the AMD64 version or the x86 version. If you routinely run out of address space on i386 with your workload, you should use amd64. It is possible for amd64 to be faster than i386 (more registers, among other things), but it depends on the workload (an IO-bound workload will see little difference, I suspect). You'll have to test that. If you depend on binary and/or i386-only ports (e.g. nv driver, wine, flash plugin) you should probably go with i386. Roland --=20 R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725) --8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFHLaiwEnfvsMMhpyURAgTeAJ9QvSleSnVh+oaBTwnFXTSr6/VChgCeOI5+ KkoVIyGnt2By0TwsGsiKruo= =lGps -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071104111040.GA65449>