From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 15 21:46:04 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5288216A420 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:46:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kgunders@teamcool.net) Received: from koyukuk.teamcool.net (koyukuk.teamcool.net [209.161.34.19]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7596843D5D for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:46:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kgunders@teamcool.net) Received: from koyukuk.teamcool.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by koyukuk.teamcool.net (TeamCool Rocks) with ESMTP id B5DF7F815 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:45:59 -0700 (MST) Received: from cochise.teamcool.net (unknown [192.168.1.57]) by koyukuk.teamcool.net (TeamCool Rocks) with ESMTP id 779A3F814 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:45:59 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:45:58 -0700 From: Ken Gunderson To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Message-Id: <20060315144558.118c584b.kgunders@teamcool.net> In-Reply-To: <200603151754.27250.joao@matik.com.br> References: <200603140740.38388.joao@matik.com.br> <200603151728.35620.joao@matik.com.br> <20060315203922.GA87806@xor.obsecurity.org> <200603151754.27250.joao@matik.com.br> Organization: Teamcool Networks X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.9.12 (GTK+ 2.6.7; i386-portbld-freebsd5.4) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Subject: Re: amd64 slower than i386 on identical AMD 64 system? X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:46:04 -0000 On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:54:27 -0300 JoaoBR wrote: > On Wednesday 15 March 2006 17:39, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > > Yes, but the problem is that you didn't stop and file a bug report > > when you learned of the problems (and then turn off the broken > > option), but instead wrote an email in which you made the broad claim > > that FreeBSD's SMP support was unstable. > > > > whats that now? absolutly not true > > read the thread again and show me where I said that but to help you out: I > said that I (I!) have problems with X2 processor with very specific memory > amount installed on certain hardware when SMP is enabled > > don't turn my words around > > > > > > > well, that was my first thought too but makes no sense if the same > > > happens on several different brands, > > > > Why not? It is well-documented that many motherboards need BIOS > > updates to work correctly with dual-core CPUs. > > > > you are more clever than that aren't you? Or do you try to get clever with me? > > means: makes no sense that the bios is broken on all MBs I tried > > overall you cut the important thing where I said that I did tried other bios > versions > > and what you say here has nothing to do with all of this because the bios > updates you're talking about are necessary on certain MBs in order to > recognize the X2 - so we are beyond this point ... The systems I referenced came w/default BIOS that supported dual core cpu's out of the gate. They were also defective. Which illustrates why MB vendors have proceedures to investigate complaints and release updated BIOS where warranted. Step 1 of any such proceedures is to confirm that you're using the latest firmware (and drivers where appropriate). If you're not they pretty much stop conversation until you update and are able to report that the problem still exists. Also, you reported you were having memory related issues but I missed any reply to my query regarding memory timings in BIOS. I've seen some MB's ship w/1T and other aggressive timings enabled. I assume so that they can get out of the box perf boost for those MS gaming site reviews where stability takes a back seat to bleeding edge performance. But these more aggressive timings can also cause stability issues. -- Best regards, Ken Gunderson Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon?