From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 27 18:37:46 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94D7F16A4CE for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 18:37:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp006.bizmail.sc5.yahoo.com (smtp006.bizmail.sc5.yahoo.com [66.163.175.83]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7114643D39 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 18:37:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from noackjr@alumni.rice.edu) Received: from unknown (HELO optimator.noacks.org) (noackjr@supercrime.org@70.240.249.252 with login) by smtp006.bizmail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Jun 2004 18:37:46 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimator.noacks.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E91861A2; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 13:37:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: from optimator.noacks.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (optimator.noacks.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 09350-03; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 13:37:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: from compgeek.noacks.org (compgeek [192.168.1.10]) by optimator.noacks.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31B086140; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 13:37:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by compgeek.noacks.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5RIbh5u003533; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 13:37:44 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from noackjr@alumni.rice.edu) Message-ID: <40DF13F7.2000608@alumni.rice.edu> Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 13:37:43 -0500 From: Jon Noack User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (X11/20040624) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Remi References: <36u63c$1uk902@mxip07a.cluster1.charter.net> In-Reply-To: <36u63c$1uk902@mxip07a.cluster1.charter.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at noacks.org cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: noackjr@alumni.rice.edu List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 18:37:46 -0000 On 06/27/04 03:06, Remi wrote: > See that's I'm thinking, the raw performance is very attractive to me!! So > what's this about a p4 1.7 outperforming a 2.8? You got link to benchmarks? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel O'Connor [mailto:doconnor@gsoft.com.au] > Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 8:23 PM > To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org; obrien@freebsd.org > Cc: Remi; questions@freebsd.org; current@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 08:30, David O'Brien wrote: >>> I have a choice between AMD64 3200+ and a P4 2.8GHz with HT. >>> Which one would you guys recommend to run FreeBSD. Obviously the >>> i386 would be easier to run, so I guess my question is what is >>> the state of the AMD64 FreeBSD version? >> >> You do know you can run FreeBSD/i386 on the Athlon64 3200+ laptop, >> right? :-) A 3200+ running 32-bit FreeBSD will out-perform the P4 >> 2.8GHz running the same OS. > > A Pentium-M 1.7Ghz will outperform a 2.8Ghz P4 too ;) > > If battery life is important to you I'd suggest not getting an AMD64. > > For raw performance it's "pretty nice" though :) He said "Pentium-M". It's a completely different processor than the Pentium 4-M. Designed for mobile computing, it is best described as combining the best features of the Pentium 3 (short(er) pipeline, etc.) and the Pentium 4 (better branch predictor, etc.) with high-end power saving features to form a third processor far superior to the previous two. Here's a first look at the chip: http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/20030205/ Some benchmarks where a 1.6GHz Pentium-M destroys a 2.2GHz Pentium 4-M: http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/20030205/centrino-13.html http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/20030205/centrino-14.html Battery life in the 6+ hour range is common with Pentium-M laptops. Here's the first look results (note the Pentium 4-M had a battery with over 20% greater capacity!): http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/20030205/centrino-17.html If you value battery life, go with the Pentium-M. If you *most highly* value performance, the Athlon64 is probably the way to go. Jon