On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 11:51:49PM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> AFAIK SSE is also available in 32-bit mode so that is no reason why
> x86_64 should be faster.
Available yes, but not default. You would have to recompile all
libraries and applications that use floating point and tell them all to
us
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 09:46:57AM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> They also deprecated MMX and x87 (hence reducing the old crap to carry
> around on centext switches), and switched to sse match (which is much
> faster and not stack based), and add some new instructions that can help
> code in ge
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 03:36:27PM -0600, Jaime Ochoa Malag?n wrote:
> In my opinion certainly all the applications wrote in the past has no
> designed to use 64 bits operations and many algorithms could have
> beneffits of this, if in the same bus (64 bits) are you only use 32>=
> bits operands th
On 11/12/07, Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 09:31:31AM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
>
> > I don't consider it a real issue either, but it is still something. I
> > am not sure why sparc tends to run 32bit for most programs and only
> > 64bit for select cases wh
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 09:40:40AM -0700, Rob Sims wrote:
> I have and use 6GB in a 32 bit machine, and have for years. Sure, no
> one process can use > 3GB, (3/1 user/kernel split) but the machine
> handles two 3G processes just fine. I believe the limit for machines
> like this is 64G.
Sure, b
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 09:46:57AM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> Given the amount of ram in your average desktop is getting close to
> requiring a 64bit OS, there is really no point designing anything new
> with 32bit operation in mind. People have to switch to 64bit OSs if
> they want to be
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 02:46:00PM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> Taking the same code, going from 32-bit to 64-bit will cause a slowdown,
> period. The only way to overcome that is if you can write better code in
> 64-bit mode than you could in 32-bit mode. There are apps that indeed
> benefit from
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 09:31:31AM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> I don't consider it a real issue either, but it is still something. I
> am not sure why sparc tends to run 32bit for most programs and only
> 64bit for select cases where it helps. Certainly x86_64 seems to be
> better than i386
On Nov 07 2007, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 13:35 -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > A few programs still don't compile or work on 64bit systems (not
> > amd64
>
> Any real-world examples?
Yes, one package that I maintain does not work with 64 bit systems
(hfsprogs). This is
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 03:36:15PM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> Well, since the mainboard does not even try to load the boot loader, I
> consider that above a pretty OS-independent problem/bug.
> I would think they also put the max load of RAMs (at least for the
> recommended ones) into their
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 10:01:20AM +, Jo Shields wrote:
> Blackford/Greencreek (Xeon): 21.3GBs mem b/w per motherboard
> G35, DDR2 Mode (Core 2): 12.8GBs mem b/w per motherboard
> G35, DDR3 Mode (Core 2): 17.0GBs mem b/w per motherboard
> Socket F Opteron : 10.6GBs mem b/w per
On Don, 2007-11-08 at 09:31 -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 10:31:56AM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
[...]
> > That reminds me of a TYAN mainboard (Toledo i3100/S5207, Intel E6600 CPU
> > on it IIRC[0], Ubuntu + self-compiled kernel on it IIRC[0]) bought in
> > March 2007
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 10:31:56AM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> ACK - in theory.
> ACK - and since that software (also) needs to be fixed. Therefor I'm
> counting this in practice as an non-issue.
I don't consider it a real issue either, but it is still something. I
am not sure why sparc ten
On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 10:31 +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> > trying to be thorough on any disadvantages too. Probably irrelevant on
> > an AMD, but might hurt on a multi cpu intel since they still have much
> > more limited memory bandwidth available.
>
> Hmm, any better numbers on it (or lin
On Mit, 2007-11-07 at 14:19 -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 12:05:26AM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> > Any real-world examples?
> > Even OpenOffice runs as 64bit since months.
> > The only which I remember rumors are "grub". But being a bootloader,
> > that probably doe
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 11:54:48AM -0700, Rob Sims wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:54:17PM -0500, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> >
> > Grub on Etch amd64 works just fine.
>
> Not just fine. In particular,
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=423235
> is quite annoying.
I never noti
On 11/07/2007 02:30 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
Well here is a randomly picked example:
rceng02:~# ls -l /data/.chroot/debian-pure64/bin/ls
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 85536 Jan 30 2007 /data/.chroot/debian-pure64/bin/ls
rceng02:~# ls -l /bin/ls
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 77352 Jan 30 2007 /bin/ls
So
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 02:38:27PM +0100, Jonas Meurer wrote:
> Ok, the fact that pointers and long/double variables on 64bit systems do
> take twice as much RAM as on ia32 systems sounds reasonable. Thanks for
> information.
Pointers do. long's happen to be defined as 64bit on x86_64 while they
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 09:41:23AM +0100, fred wrote:
> povray 3.6 ?
Isn't there a 3.7 beta that is supposed to be 64bit safe?
--
Len Sorensen
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 02:34:20PM +0100, Jonas Meurer wrote:
> Can you point me to some documentation which explains EFI64? I searched
> for it with google, but the only real information I got, was that for
> booting a EFI64 kernel, the bootloader needs to support it.
>
> What is an EFI64 kernel?
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 12:05:26AM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> Any real-world examples?
> Even OpenOffice runs as 64bit since months.
> The only which I remember rumors are "grub". But being a bootloader,
> that probably doesn't hurt much.
> Fact is that I run pure 64bit Linux since months on
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:54:17PM -0500, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 12:05:26AM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 13:35 -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 06:58:15PM +0100, Jonas Meurer wrote:
> > > > Do you have any reasons f
On 07/11/2007 Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 12:05:26AM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 13:35 -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 06:58:15PM +0100, Jonas Meurer wrote:
> Do you have any reasons for that
On 06/11/2007 Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> Jonas Meurer wrote:
>> On 06/11/2007 Hartmut Manz wrote:
>>> The correct debian port for INTEL Core2Duo is amd64 or i386.
>>> If your system has not more than 2 GB of memory installed I would recommend
>>> to still use the 32bit Linux (i386), If you have
Jonas Meurer wrote:
On 07/11/2007 Jerome BENOIT wrote:
the issue with grub is that it does not yet support EFI64
Can you point me to some documentation which explains EFI64? I searched
for it with google, but the only real information I got, was that for
booting a EFI64 kernel, the bootloa
On 06/11/2007 Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 06:58:15PM +0100, Jonas Meurer wrote:
> > Do you have any reasons for that suggestion? Which disadvantages does
> > the amd64 port have on system with up to 2GB of RAM?
>
> A few programs still don't compile or work on 64bit systems (
On Die, 2007-11-06 at 20:54 -0500, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 12:05:26AM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
[...]
> > that probably doesn't hurt much.
> > Fact is that I run pure 64bit Linux since months on my home desktop
> > (though I'm not the typical desktop user;-).
> >
>
On Tuesday, 6. November 2007 18:58, Jonas Meurer wrote:
> On 06/11/2007 Hartmut Manz wrote:
> > The correct debian port for INTEL Core2Duo is amd64 or i386.
> > If your system has not more than 2 GB of memory installed I would recommend
> > to still use the 32bit Linux (i386), If you have more memo
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 12:05:26AM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 13:35 -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 06:58:15PM +0100, Jonas Meurer wrote:
Do you have any reasons for that suggestion? Which disadvantages does
the amd64
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 12:05:26AM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 13:35 -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 06:58:15PM +0100, Jonas Meurer wrote:
> > > Do you have any reasons for that suggestion? Which disadvantages does
> > > the amd64 port have on
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 13:35 -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 06:58:15PM +0100, Jonas Meurer wrote:
> > Do you have any reasons for that suggestion? Which disadvantages does
> > the amd64 port have on system with up to 2GB of RAM?
>
> A few programs still don't compile or wo
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 06:58:15PM +0100, Jonas Meurer wrote:
> Do you have any reasons for that suggestion? Which disadvantages does
> the amd64 port have on system with up to 2GB of RAM?
A few programs still don't compile or work on 64bit systems (not amd64
specific, just 64bit system specific),
Jonas Meurer wrote:
On 06/11/2007 Hartmut Manz wrote:
The correct debian port for INTEL Core2Duo is amd64 or i386.
If your system has not more than 2 GB of memory installed I would recommend
to still use the 32bit Linux (i386), If you have more memory installed use
the 64-bit Linux (amd64)
Do
On 06/11/2007 Hartmut Manz wrote:
> The correct debian port for INTEL Core2Duo is amd64 or i386.
> If your system has not more than 2 GB of memory installed I would recommend
> to still use the 32bit Linux (i386), If you have more memory installed use
> the 64-bit Linux (amd64)
Do you have any re
Thanks for this REALLY fast replies!
You have helped me a lot!
Am Dienstag 06 November 2007 08:26:16 schrieb Wolfgang Mader:
> Hello list,
>
> I want to by a MacBook which ist powered by an Inter Core2Duo (T7400). I
> was not able to figure out which debian port is the right. Is ist IA64 (the
> I
On Tuesday, 6. November 2007 08:26, Wolfgang Mader wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> I want to by a MacBook which ist powered by an Inter Core2Duo (T7400). I was
> not able to figure out which debian port is the right. Is ist IA64 (the Intel
> 64-bit port) or amd64.
>
The correct debian port for INTEL C
On 11/6/07, Wolfgang Mader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I want to by a MacBook which ist powered by an Inter Core2Duo (T7400). I was
> not able to figure out which debian port is the right. Is ist IA64 (the Intel
> 64-bit port) or amd64.
The Intel Core2 Duo implements EM64T, which is basically Int
It's a amd64
2007/11/6, Wolfgang Mader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hello list,
>
> I want to by a MacBook which ist powered by an Inter Core2Duo (T7400). I was
> not able to figure out which debian port is the right. Is ist IA64 (the Intel
> 64-bit port) or amd64.
>
> Can you please help me out?
>
> Th
Hello list,
I want to by a MacBook which ist powered by an Inter Core2Duo (T7400). I was
not able to figure out which debian port is the right. Is ist IA64 (the Intel
64-bit port) or amd64.
Can you please help me out?
Thank you in advance. W. Mader
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECT
39 matches
Mail list logo
