Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:47:23 -0800 From: Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: duo core question Message-ID: <46530314-08E5-42EE-B4AC-C83EBABDEB2F@u.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <20070117155822.4b12d2c2@localhost> References: <f84c38580701161711w323647c2n3e9c72b604eed49@mail.gmail.com> <20070117142404.43699e39@localhost> <f84c38580701161935y2366534ao476051f65699fa1b@mail.gmail.com> <20070117155822.4b12d2c2@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 16, 2007, at 8:58 PM, Norberto Meijome wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 22:35:45 -0500 > "Tsu-Fan Cheng" <tfcheng@gmail.com> wrote: > >> so for you guys who have experiecen with this cpu, do you really >> "feel" it?? > > np - you are assuming i have experience with them ;) > > you need to understand, it's like a dual CPU , NOT like HT (you > can , I think , > have HT as well as dual/quad core...maybe not.. ? ). > <snip> Seems like you can. See: <http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/ Hardware_Software/2005/dual_core.asp>. As for multicore support, I thought it was better with -CURRENT (ULE2 as of late sounds like it can support concurrency with multiple cores / CPUs better than the 4BSD scheduler), but running -CURRENT comes with a price, namely stability. The GNU/Linux crowd (or at least some folks in it), were raving that later versions of gcc, i.e. 4.x (coming to 7 sometime in the near future maybe) had better multi - core / CPU support as well in terms of optimizations and junk. But that's just fanboy/ricer ranting, maybe.. or maybe not.. -Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46530314-08E5-42EE-B4AC-C83EBABDEB2F>