From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 7 03:25:42 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D44116A4CE; Sat, 7 Aug 2004 03:25:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from c3po.servilla.com (c3po.servilla.com [69.44.59.71]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD0BF43D48; Sat, 7 Aug 2004 03:25:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sean@rackoperations.com) Received: from 67-42-28-34.slkc.qwest.net ([67.42.28.34] helo=[192.168.0.26]) by c3po.servilla.com with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BtHpy-0003sG-Qk; Fri, 06 Aug 2004 22:25:39 -0500 Message-ID: <41144C06.8030208@rackoperations.com> Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 21:27:02 -0600 From: Sean Countryman User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.2 (Windows/20040707) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6.1.1.1.2.20040805205738.08e15630@localhost> <200408061022.11150.jorn@wcborstel.nl> <003401c47c2b$8434d770$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca> In-Reply-To: <003401c47c2b$8434d770$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - c3po.servilla.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - freebsd.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - rackoperations.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: cc: questions@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Does the AMD64 version of FreeBSD run on this? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 03:25:42 -0000 That, however, is where the similarities end. The Nocona chip is only 64bit on the outside, the internals are essentially built on a 32 bit legacy system. The end result is that AMD is pure 64 bit and intel's chip just won't keep up when full 64 bit code hits the market. The new code will sing on AMD, but won't run a bit faster on intel's chip. Even Intel has acknowledged their flaws. The current issue of infoworld (http://www.infoworld.com) has the full story on it. Matt Emmerton wrote: > > >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>Hash: SHA1 >> >>On Friday 06 August 2004 04:58, Brett Glass wrote: >> >> >>>http://eetimes.com/semi/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=26805631 >>> >>> >>Probably not. Intel isn't going to keep exactly the same architecture as >> >> >AMD > > >>has now. They'll make a few minor ajustments to fine-tune their CPU. >> >> > >According to the Intel people that I've talked to where I work (a big blue >company that isn't Dell), AMD64 and EM64T are the same on the opcode level. >Thus, code built for AMD64 will work unmodified on EM64T and vice versa. >(It would be silly for Intel to do otherwise, as they don't want to risk >losing any support from the community and market share that AMD has worked >hard to establish.) > >While Intel (or AMD) may make changes to the underlying silicon to make >things better than their competitors (ie, larger caches, different pipeline >architecture, etc), they are committed to maintain compatibility between >AMD64 and EM64T. > >-- >Matt > >_______________________________________________ >freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >