Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Vincent Lefevre]

On 2010-02-17 22:23:17 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre put forth on 2/17/2010 6:21 AM:
> > On 2010-02-16 09:52:06 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >> As a bonus, due to various architectural reasons I won't delve into,
> >> 32bit binaries will usually run slightly faster than the 64 bit
> >> cousins, and they'll take up a little bit less disk space.
> > 
> > No, this depends on the application (and "usually" doesn't mean very
> > much because applications will depend on what the machine is used
> > for). And some people would completely disagree with you, e.g.:
> 
> Vincent, you're quoting me out of context. Apparently you haven't
> read the entire thread. Or you're misquoting me intentionally. I
> clearly stated that my comments pertained to a certain application
> class on this platform.

AFAIK nothing has been said about such a certain application class.

> > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_32_pae&num=1
> 
> These benchmarks are irrelevant to the current discussion. They are
> on a capable dual core Intel Core Processor,

I know that the processor is different, but what you said could
be interpreted as a general remark on the amd64 architecture.
Unfortunately you didn't provide any benchmarks yourself. So,
what you said is purely gratuitous.

> and the application mix is not the same as that of an average Atom
> user.

The OP isn't necessarily an "average Atom user".

> > There's another point is favor of amd64: floating-point arithmetic.
> > As SSE is used by default on amd64, FP arithmetic is much cleaner
> > there in practice.
> 
> We all know this already (or at least should). However, again, it's
> irrelevant to _this_ thread.

Why?

> This thread, and my comments, deal with Atom based systems with less
> than 2GB of RAM. This thread is not about 32bit vs 64bit binary
> performance in general.

No, this thread is about answering the OP's question, which is:

  Which architecture should I use for an Intel Atom Processor?

Also, the FP behavior is *not* binary performance.

> It's about 32bit vs 64bit binary performance on the Atom processor
> and the bulk of applications that users will run on such a platform
> daily, which basically includes only these two apps:
> 
> 1.  Web brower
> 2.  Email client

The OP did *not* say that he would use only these two applications.
Anyway, even a web browser is affected by the x86 FP behavior (at
least under Debian), and any user can be affected by it since users
don't control scripts from remote web sites.

> x86-64 optimizations and performance enhancements will rarely be
> taken advantage of for this class of machine. FP (SSE/SSE2) isn't
> going to make a lick of difference.

Wrong! See

  http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=309797

for instance (this is for Mozilla, but Iceweasel on Debian/stable
is affected too -- I could test it).

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre  - Web: 
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: 
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100218140533.gi23...@prunille.vinc17.org

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Stan Hoeppner]

Vincent Lefevre put forth on 2/17/2010 6:21 AM:
> On 2010-02-16 09:52:06 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> As a bonus, due to various architectural reasons I won't delve into,
>> 32bit binaries will usually run slightly faster than the 64 bit
>> cousins, and they'll take up a little bit less disk space.
> 
> No, this depends on the application (and "usually" doesn't mean very
> much because applications will depend on what the machine is used
> for). And some people would completely disagree with you, e.g.:

Vincent, you're quoting me out of context.  Apparently you haven't read the
entire thread.  Or you're misquoting me intentionally.  I clearly stated that my
comments pertained to a certain application class on this platform.

> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_32_pae&num=1

These benchmarks are irrelevant to the current discussion.  They are on a
capable dual core Intel Core Processor, and the application mix is not the same
as that of an average Atom user.

> There's another point is favor of amd64: floating-point arithmetic.
> As SSE is used by default on amd64, FP arithmetic is much cleaner
> there in practice.

We all know this already (or at least should).  However, again, it's irrelevant
to _this_ thread.  This thread, and my comments, deal with Atom based systems
with less than 2GB of RAM.  This thread is not about 32bit vs 64bit binary
performance in general.  It's about 32bit vs 64bit binary performance on the
Atom processor and the bulk of applications that users will run on such a
platform daily, which basically includes only these two apps:

1.  Web brower
2.  Email client

x86-64 optimizations and performance enhancements will rarely be taken advantage
of for this class of machine.  FP (SSE/SSE2) isn't going to make a lick of
difference.  I didn't state 32bit software is better across the board on x64-64
CPUs.  I said in _this_ case, for the vast majority of users, 32bit software
will have a slight performance advantage, and I'm correct.

The vast majority of Atom chips shipped reside in netbooks.  The vast majority
of netbook owners will never have over 2GB ram and will never run FP heavy
applications, or any application mix where a 64bit binary pay additional 
dividends.

Take another stab at misquoting me and listing an irrelevant test case for
irrelevant comparison.

-- 
Stan






-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4b7cc0b5.1070...@hardwarefreak.com

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Stan Hoeppner]

Tixy put forth on 2/17/2010 11:11 AM:
> On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 08:56 -0800, Mark wrote:
> 
>> for some reason Lenny reports dual Atom processors even though the
>> specs for the machine only list one (??).
>  
> 
> I've noticed that as well. The Atom has Hyper-Threading, so it can run
> two threads simultaneously on one core; that could explain it.

Two Atom processors are dual core processors with HT capability, the 330 and the
D510:

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=35641&processor=330&spec-codes=SLG9Y
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=43098&processor=D510&spec-codes=SLBLA

With HT disabled you'll see two CPUs in /proc/cpuinfo
With HT enabled you'll see four CPUs in /proc/cpuinfo

The rest of the Atom CPUs, but the Z510, all support HT, so all of those will
show 2 CPUs in /proc/cpuinfo with HT enabled.

-- 
Stan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4b7c9f47.8050...@hardwarefreak.com

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Tom H]

 Running Debian Lenny:
 l...@tux:~$ uname -a
 Linux Tux 2.6.26-2-686 #1 SMP Wed Feb 10 08:59:21 UTC 2010 i686
 GNU/Linux l...@tux:~$

>>> Debian uses "i386" for naming the whole 32 bits architecture:

>> I understand what you are saying, and would not argue with it. - but why then
>> does my system announce itself as i686??

> You asked which architecture your kernel was compiled for. Camaleón was
> talking about distribution specific names for architectures. These two
> aren't necessarily the same. (Even to the extent that you can run Debian
> "i386" on an AMD64 kernel…)

To further the (just) above point, here are the latest i386/amd64 deb files:

linux-image-2.6.26-2-486_2.6.26-21lenny3_i386.deb
linux-image-2.6.26-2-686-bigmem_2.6.26-21lenny3_i386.deb
linux-image-2.6.26-2-686_2.6.26-21lenny3_i386.deb
linux-image-2.6.26-2-amd64_2.6.26-21lenny3_amd64.deb
linux-image-2.6.26-2-amd64_2.6.26-21lenny3_i386.deb


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/6d4219cc1002171059p4f3d643cvba2b8857d0f27...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Tixy]

On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 08:56 -0800, Mark wrote:

> for some reason Lenny reports dual Atom processors even though the
> specs for the machine only list one (??).
 

I've noticed that as well. The Atom has Hyper-Threading, so it can run
two threads simultaneously on one core; that could explain it.

-- 
Tixy   ()  The ASCII Ribbon Campaign (www.asciiribbon.org)
   /\  Against HTML e-mail and proprietary attachments


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1266426689.2780.15.ca...@computer2.home

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Mark]

>
> >On Tue,16.Feb.10, 10:34:09, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > > Which architecture should I use for an Intel Atom Processor?
>

[snip]

My gf has a Dell Mini with Intel Atom 1.6 GHz processor.  I installed Lenny
32 bit i386 and it works; for some reason Lenny reports dual Atom processors
even though the specs for the machine only list one (??).  Regardless, 32
bit i386 worked.

HTH.

Mark

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Camaleón]

On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:07:50 +, Lisi wrote:

> On Wednesday 17 February 2010 11:59:05 Camaleón wrote:

>> Debian uses "i386" for naming the whole 32 bits architecture:
>>
>> http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch02s01.html.en#id3060035
>>
>> Other distros use "x86" for i386/i486/i586/i686 packages and "x86_64"
>> for 64 bits. Don't ask me why, I didn't decide those names :-)
> 
> I understand what you are saying, and would not argue with it. - but why
> then does my system announce itself as i686??

As Jochen already explained, what you are seeing when issuing "uname -a" 
is the version of the compiled kernel you have installed on your system.

So here in Debian, users wanting to use a "32-bits system" (despite the 
capabilities of their processor) have several choices:

***
linux-image-2.6-486 
→ a 32-bits kernel optimized for i486 processors (quite old micros dated 
from 1989-1994)

linux-image-2.6-686 
→ a 32-bits kernel optimized for i686 processors (suitable for AMD, 
Pentium Pro+)

linux-image-2.6-686-bigmem
→ a 32-bits kernel optimized for i686 processors adding support for +4 
GiB RAM( PAE)

linux-image-2.6-openvz-686
→ a 32-bits kernel optimized for i686 processors adding support for 
openvz virtualization

linux-image-2.6-vserver-686
→ a 32-bits kernel optimized for i686 processors adding support for 
vserver virtualization

linux-image-2.6-vserver-686-bigmem
→ a 32-bits kernel optimized for i686 processors adding support for 
vserver virtualization plus +4 GiB RAM (PAE)
***

:-)

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.02.17.15.05...@gmail.com

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Jochen Schulz]

Lisi:
> On Wednesday 17 February 2010 11:59:05 Camaleón wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:47:44 +, Lisi wrote:
>>> 
>>> Running Debian Lenny:
>>> l...@tux:~$ uname -a
>>> Linux Tux 2.6.26-2-686 #1 SMP Wed Feb 10 08:59:21 UTC 2010 i686
>>> GNU/Linux l...@tux:~$
>> 
>> Debian uses "i386" for naming the whole 32 bits architecture:
>> …
> 
> I understand what you are saying, and would not argue with it. - but why then 
> does my system announce itself as i686??

You asked which architecture your kernel was compiled for. Camaleón was
talking about distribution specific names for architectures. These two
aren't necessarily the same. (Even to the extent that you can run Debian
"i386" on an AMD64 kernel…)

J.
-- 
Whenever I hear the word 'art' I reach for my visa card.
[Agree]   [Disagree]
 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Kumar Appaiah]

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 01:11:06PM +, Kelly Harding wrote:
> On 17 February 2010 13:08, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
> >
> > I'm not sure, I guess it's still called "alpha". But that's just a label,
> > it's as stable as the 32-bit version.
> >
> >
> 
> I found iwhen I last used it it caused Firefox to crash if I went to
> BBC iPlayer.
> 
> The other problem was when the 64bit version didn't work, the 32bit
> version was run a wrapper and was a resource hog from hell.
> 
> Certainly not a pleasant time with flash in that regard :/
> 
> Will give it a try another time and see if it has improved at all...

Well, in Eduardo's defense, he did say "as stable as the 32-bit
version", but nowhere did he say that it is stable! ;-)

Kumar
-- 
If loving linux is wrong, I dont wanna be right.
-- Topic for #LinuxGER


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100217132050.gm7...@146653177.ece.utexas.edu

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Kelly Harding]

On 17 February 2010 13:08, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
 wrote:
> On 02/17/2010 11:03 AM, Kelly Harding wrote:
>>
>> Was still true as of last year sometime, last I checked the 64bit
>> flash plugin was in alpha, but i suspect its probably gone past beta
>> by now?
>>
>
> I'm not sure, I guess it's still called "alpha". But that's just a label,
> it's as stable as the 32-bit version.
>
>

I found iwhen I last used it it caused Firefox to crash if I went to
BBC iPlayer.

The other problem was when the 64bit version didn't work, the 32bit
version was run a wrapper and was a resource hog from hell.

Certainly not a pleasant time with flash in that regard :/

Will give it a try another time and see if it has improved at all...

kelly


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/e4f72f791002170511p715232a2l8e68cf43a1763...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Eduardo M KALINOWSKI]

On 02/17/2010 11:03 AM, Kelly Harding wrote:

Was still true as of last year sometime, last I checked the 64bit
flash plugin was in alpha, but i suspect its probably gone past beta
by now?
   


I'm not sure, I guess it's still called "alpha". But that's just a 
label, it's as stable as the 32-bit version.



--
Life is not for everyone.

Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
edua...@kalinowski.com.br


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4b7bea4d.7080...@kalinowski.com.br

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Lisi]

On Wednesday 17 February 2010 11:59:05 Camaleón wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:47:44 +, Lisi wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 February 2010 15:48:03 Camaleón wrote:
> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:34:09 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > [snip]
>> >> > I.e. just use your regular 32bit Intel install (i386/x86/i686/IA32 or
> >> > whichever name you like to use to refer to it).
> >>
> >> In Debian is called "i386".
> >
> > Running Debian Lenny:
> > l...@tux:~$ uname -a
> > Linux Tux 2.6.26-2-686 #1 SMP Wed Feb 10 08:59:21 UTC 2010 i686
> > GNU/Linux l...@tux:~$
>
> Debian uses "i386" for naming the whole 32 bits architecture:
>
> http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch02s01.html.en#id3060035
>
> Other distros use "x86" for i386/i486/i586/i686 packages and "x86_64" for
> 64 bits. Don't ask me why, I didn't decide those names :-)

I understand what you are saying, and would not argue with it. - but why then 
does my system announce itself as i686??

Lisi


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201002171307.51123.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Kelly Harding]

>>
>
> That might have been true some time ago, but a 64-bit flash plugins exists
> since some time already, and works as good (or as bad) as the 32-bit one.
>
> Nowadays, the only reason I have a 32-bit chroot in my 64-bit system is
> because my bank's site only works with the 32-bit Java plugin from Sun. The
> Java plugin does exist for 64-bits, but that site in particular does not
> work with the 64-bit version (stupid programmers).

Was still true as of last year sometime, last I checked the 64bit
flash plugin was in alpha, but i suspect its probably gone past beta
by now?

I'll have to give it a try next time I install a distro on my machine
(when i've fixed a hardware failure) and see how I get on with the
64bit version compared with 32bit+PAE.

kelly


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/e4f72f791002170503x3bb0da67oa9f66220ef1dd...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Eduardo M KALINOWSKI]

On 02/17/2010 10:54 AM, Kelly Harding wrote:

whilst that is true, for a desktop box, 64bit causes more problems
than it is worth i've found, especially with things like Flash.
   


That might have been true some time ago, but a 64-bit flash plugins 
exists since some time already, and works as good (or as bad) as the 
32-bit one.


Nowadays, the only reason I have a 32-bit chroot in my 64-bit system is 
because my bank's site only works with the 32-bit Java plugin from Sun. 
The Java plugin does exist for 64-bits, but that site in particular does 
not work with the 64-bit version (stupid programmers).


--
Four thousand throats may be cut in one night by a running man.
-- Klingon Soldier, "Day of the Dove", stardate unknown

Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
edua...@kalinowski.com.br


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4b7be873.9050...@kalinowski.com.br

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Kelly Harding]

>
> No, this depends on the application (and "usually" doesn't mean very
> much because applications will depend on what the machine is used
> for). And some people would completely disagree with you, e.g.:
>
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_32_pae&num=1
>
> There's another point is favor of amd64: floating-point arithmetic.
> As SSE is used by default on amd64, FP arithmetic is much cleaner
> there in practice.
>
whilst that is true, for a desktop box, 64bit causes more problems
than it is worth i've found, especially with things like Flash.

kelly


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/e4f72f791002170454m1651d71w733bcfb0f73f4...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Vincent Lefevre]

On 2010-02-16 09:52:06 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> As a bonus, due to various architectural reasons I won't delve into,
> 32bit binaries will usually run slightly faster than the 64 bit
> cousins, and they'll take up a little bit less disk space.

No, this depends on the application (and "usually" doesn't mean very
much because applications will depend on what the machine is used
for). And some people would completely disagree with you, e.g.:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_32_pae&num=1

There's another point is favor of amd64: floating-point arithmetic.
As SSE is used by default on amd64, FP arithmetic is much cleaner
there in practice.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre  - Web: 
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: 
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100217122103.gb23...@prunille.vinc17.org

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Camaleón]

On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:47:44 +, Lisi wrote:

> On Tuesday 16 February 2010 15:48:03 Camaleón wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:34:09 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> [snip]
>> > I.e. just use your regular 32bit Intel install (i386/x86/i686/IA32 or
>> > whichever name you like to use to refer to it).
>>
>> In Debian is called "i386".
> 
> Running Debian Lenny:
> l...@tux:~$ uname -a
> Linux Tux 2.6.26-2-686 #1 SMP Wed Feb 10 08:59:21 UTC 2010 i686
> GNU/Linux l...@tux:~$

Debian uses "i386" for naming the whole 32 bits architecture:

http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch02s01.html.en#id3060035

Other distros use "x86" for i386/i486/i586/i686 packages and "x86_64" for 
64 bits. Don't ask me why, I didn't decide those names :-)

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.02.17.11.59...@gmail.com

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Lisi]

On Tuesday 16 February 2010 15:48:03 Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:34:09 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
[snip]
> > I.e. just use your regular 32bit Intel install (i386/x86/i686/IA32 or
> > whichever name you like to use to refer to it).
>
> In Debian is called "i386".

Running Debian Lenny:
l...@tux:~$ uname -a
Linux Tux 2.6.26-2-686 #1 SMP Wed Feb 10 08:59:21 UTC 2010 i686 GNU/Linux
l...@tux:~$



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201002171147.44653.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Stan Hoeppner]

Marc Olive put forth on 2/17/2010 1:33 AM:
> El Tuesday 16 February 2010 16:52:06 Stan Hoeppner va escriure:
>> As a bonus, due to various architectural reasons I won't delve into, 32bit
>> binaries will usually run slightly faster than the 64 bit cousins
> 
> Really? Didn't know.
> 64bit binaries should be faster than a 32bit one... where's the problem?

Instruction word size.  On average, depending on individual instruction
encoding, the word length for 64bit binaries can be close to double the word
length of 32bit binaries.  What do you think the effect of this is on L1 and L2
instruction caches?  That's right, you can fit many more of the 32bit binary
instructions in the caches than 64bit instructions.  There are plenty of rename
registers available, and when combined with the extra cache loading, the slight
performance boost allowed by the extra 8 GPRs of 64bit mode is negated and 32bit
code pulls slightly ahead.

The only real advantage of 64bit mode for the vast majority of desktop and
server applications is more efficient addressing of memory beyond 2GB.  32bit
mode has to use PAE which is very inefficient compared to direct 64bit
addressing.  For any workstation or server that has 2GB of memory or less, 32bit
OS and apps will be slightly faster than 64bit.  We're only talking 1-2% per
core here, basically not noticeable at the application level.  You have to run
timed benchies to see a 1-2% difference.

Like I said, 32bit mode will be "slightly" faster than 64bit mode.  I didn't say
it would be perceptible.  ;)

-- 
Stan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4b7bc5e5.7070...@hardwarefreak.com

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Andrei Popescu]

On Mi,17.feb.10, 08:10:36, Kelly Harding wrote:

> > Atom 330 supports 4GB AFAIK.
> 
> It depends which chipset it is put with, theres a few combinations iirc.
> 
> Some are limited to 1.5Gb/2Gb, others more.
> 
> Dunno about the ION combo.

It's the nVidia ION I had in mind ;)

Regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Kelly Harding]

>>
>> Don't bother checking: since you had to ask the question, you won't care
>> whether you run a 64bit or 32bit kernel, and since those processors
>> don't support much more than 2GB anyway, there's no point running
>> a 64bit kernel.
>
> Atom 330 supports 4GB AFAIK.
>

It depends which chipset it is put with, theres a few combinations iirc.

Some are limited to 1.5Gb/2Gb, others more.

Dunno about the ION combo.

kelly


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/e4f72f791002170010i5be0a18awb599db26485ea...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Marc Olive]

El Tuesday 16 February 2010 16:52:06 Stan Hoeppner va escriure:
> As a bonus, due to various architectural reasons I won't delve into, 32bit
> binaries will usually run slightly faster than the 64 bit cousins

Really? Didn't know.
64bit binaries should be faster than a 32bit one... where's the problem?

> --
> Stan


-- 

Marc Olivé
Grup Blau


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201002170833.07108.marc.ol...@grupblau.com

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Andrei Popescu]

On Tue,16.Feb.10, 10:34:09, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> Which architecture should I use for an Intel Atom Processor?
> > It depends on the exact model.
> > There are some Atom micros supporting 64 bits (amd64) but the vast 
> > majority don't (just 32 bits, so i386 is required), so better check first 
> > the serial number.
> 
> Don't bother checking: since you had to ask the question, you won't care
> whether you run a 64bit or 32bit kernel, and since those processors
> don't support much more than 2GB anyway, there's no point running
> a 64bit kernel.

Atom 330 supports 4GB AFAIK.

Regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Camaleón]

On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:33:14 +1100, Alex Samad wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 03:48:03PM +, Camaleón wrote:
 
>> There are still reasons to install a 64 bits kernel if the micro
>> supports it. In fact, I have an Intel Celeron with just 1 GiB of RAM
>> (max. allowed is 2 GiB) and installed a 64 bits (amd64) Debian, just
>> for compatibility issues with the rest of the machines which are also
>> running 64 bits kernels :-)
> 
> interesting, could you elaborate, I have a mix of 32/64 bit machines and
> I can understanding the advantage of keep them all 64 bit, well the only
> 1 I can think of is package space / caching of packages, but I use the
> same config files across i386/amd64

The main advantage of keeping the same architecture in this computer 
(even having no performance gain at all) is using it like a "guinea pig" 
for testing updates and packages that I can then install on production 
systems.

It is no rare to see broken packages for 64-bits but not the 32-bits 
counterparts (or viceversa) so I prefer to first perform any test in the 
closest environment I can simulate to prevent further problems when 
implementing the updates or installing new packages on working systems.

Having a 32-bit system on that computer has less benefit for me than 
installing a 64-bits one. That said, I also have a 32-bits VM, just for 
making comparisons between all of them :-)

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.02.16.23.02...@gmail.com

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Alex Samad]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 03:48:03PM +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:34:09 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> 

[snip]

> There are still reasons to install a 64 bits kernel if the micro supports 
> it. In fact, I have an Intel Celeron with just 1 GiB of RAM (max. allowed 
> is 2 GiB) and installed a 64 bits (amd64) Debian, just for compatibility 
> issues with the rest of the machines which are also running 64 bits 
> kernels :-)

interesting, could you elaborate, I have a mix of 32/64 bit machines and
I can understanding the advantage of keep them all 64 bit, well the only
1 I can think of is package space / caching of packages, but I use the
same config files across i386/amd64


> 

[snip]




signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Stan Hoeppner]

Stefan Monnier put forth on 2/16/2010 9:34 AM:
>>> Which architecture should I use for an Intel Atom Processor?
>> It depends on the exact model.
>> There are some Atom micros supporting 64 bits (amd64) but the vast 
>> majority don't (just 32 bits, so i386 is required), so better check first 
>> the serial number.
> 
> Don't bother checking: since you had to ask the question, you won't care
> whether you run a 64bit or 32bit kernel, and since those processors
> don't support much more than 2GB anyway, there's no point running
> a 64bit kernel.
> I.e. just use your regular 32bit Intel install (i386/x86/i686/IA32 or
> whichever name you like to use to refer to it).

+1

As a bonus, due to various architectural reasons I won't delve into, 32bit
binaries will usually run slightly faster than the 64 bit cousins, and they'll
take up a little bit less disk space.

-- 
Stan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4b7abf26.5080...@hardwarefreak.com

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Camaleón]

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:34:09 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:

>>> Which architecture should I use for an Intel Atom Processor?
>> It depends on the exact model.
>> There are some Atom micros supporting 64 bits (amd64) but the vast
>> majority don't (just 32 bits, so i386 is required), so better check
>> first the serial number.
> 
> Don't bother checking: since you had to ask the question, 

Not "me" :-)

> you won't care
> whether you run a 64bit or 32bit kernel, and since those processors
> don't support much more than 2GB anyway, there's no point running a
> 64bit kernel.

There are still reasons to install a 64 bits kernel if the micro supports 
it. In fact, I have an Intel Celeron with just 1 GiB of RAM (max. allowed 
is 2 GiB) and installed a 64 bits (amd64) Debian, just for compatibility 
issues with the rest of the machines which are also running 64 bits 
kernels :-)

> I.e. just use your regular 32bit Intel install (i386/x86/i686/IA32 or
> whichever name you like to use to refer to it).

In Debian is called "i386".

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.02.16.15.48...@gmail.com

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Stefan Monnier]

>> Which architecture should I use for an Intel Atom Processor?
> It depends on the exact model.
> There are some Atom micros supporting 64 bits (amd64) but the vast 
> majority don't (just 32 bits, so i386 is required), so better check first 
> the serial number.

Don't bother checking: since you had to ask the question, you won't care
whether you run a 64bit or 32bit kernel, and since those processors
don't support much more than 2GB anyway, there's no point running
a 64bit kernel.
I.e. just use your regular 32bit Intel install (i386/x86/i686/IA32 or
whichever name you like to use to refer to it).


Stefan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/jwvtyth42n8.fsf-monnier+gmane.linux.debian.u...@gnu.org

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Glenn English]

>>> Which architecture should I use for an Intel Atom Processor?

Or maybe just boot an amd64 CD and see if it works??

-- 
Glenn English
g...@slsware.com




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/f20880c1-d246-4def-98f6-9ae9e547d...@slsware.com

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Tixy]

On Tue, 2010-02-16 at 10:37 +0100, Marc Olive wrote:
> El Tuesday 16 February 2010 10:09:34 Warren King va escriure:
> > Which architecture should I use for an Intel Atom Processor?
> 
> If it's a 64 bits one you should use amd64, otherwise or in doubt use x86.

Just for clarity, the usual Debian name for the 32bit Intel CPU
architecture is 'i386', this is what your see in iso image names - not
'x86'.

-- 
Tixy


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1266315194.2726.7.ca...@computer2.home

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Camaleón]

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 01:09:34 -0800, Warren King wrote:

> Which architecture should I use for an Intel Atom Processor?

It depends on the exact model.

There are some Atom micros supporting 64 bits (amd64) but the vast 
majority don't (just 32 bits, so i386 is required), so better check first 
the serial number.

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.02.16.10.07...@gmail.com

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Sjoerd Hardeman]

Marc Olive schreef:

El Tuesday 16 February 2010 10:09:34 Warren King va escriure:

Which architecture should I use for an Intel Atom Processor?


If it's a 64 bits one you should use amd64, otherwise or in doubt use x86.
So look up your processor in the list on 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Atom_microprocessors

and see if it names "Intel 64" among its capabilities.

Sjoerd

PS. Google and Wikipedia are your friends!



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Intel Atom Processor

[Marc Olive]

El Tuesday 16 February 2010 10:09:34 Warren King va escriure:
> Which architecture should I use for an Intel Atom Processor?

If it's a 64 bits one you should use amd64, otherwise or in doubt use x86.

> Warren King
>
> wk...@meritel.com


-- 

Marc Olivé
Grup Blau


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201002161037.56978.marc.ol...@grupblau.com