From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 2 15:53:26 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 079BF1065672 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2009 15:53:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from aryeh.friedman@gmail.com) Received: from mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net [167.206.4.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDD9D8FC17 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2009 15:53:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from aryeh.friedman@gmail.com) Received: from flosoft.no-ip.biz (ool-435559b8.dyn.optonline.net [67.85.89.184]) by mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTP id <0KEG006PP44UW460@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2009 10:53:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from flosoft.no-ip.biz (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by flosoft.no-ip.biz (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n12FrClC062754; Mon, 02 Feb 2009 10:53:12 -0500 Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 10:53:12 -0500 From: "Aryeh M. Friedman" In-reply-to: <11167f520902020748h21a11684n137ae139b367b82f@mail.gmail.com> To: "Sam Fourman Jr." Message-id: <498716E8.7060209@gmail.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <769541.13800.qm@web52112.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <"20090202154016.5fd0a5a3.cyb."@gmx.net> <498709C8.1090106@gmail.com> <11167f520902020748h21a11684n137ae139b367b82f@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090201) Cc: ipfreak@yahoo.com, Andreas Rudisch <"cyb."@gmx.net>, freebsd general questions Subject: Re: intel 64-bit version? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:53:26 -0000 Sam Fourman Jr. wrote: >> It is a little more complicated... i386 also supports >4GB with the PAE >> kernel option... it is frequently better to use this then to use amd64 >> because (a decreasing I hope) number of ports do not compile and/or work >> properly on amd64... for example if your using the machine as a GUI desktop >> *AND* you have a nvidia video card you get almost 10 times better >> performence with i386 because amd64 has a hard time reconizing PCI cards >> installed "above" the 4gb limit (the phsycial addr is above RAM) >> > > > I could be wrong, but I thought that the nvidia binary driver did not > work on a i386 PAE kernel. > > Sam Fourman Jr. > Fourman Networks > > If I implied it I did not mean it I am sorry... (bad example) there are other ports that do work with PAE and not with AMD64 (forget what they are right now since I switched from amd64 to i386 almost 6 months ago)... also I do not know of any ports that do work with amd64 that do not work with PAE... I have not checked this but I think the primary difference is how large gcc reports void * (and other ptr's) to be as well the size of int's