Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-18 Thread Vincent Lefevre
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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-17 Thread 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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-17 Thread 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 --

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-17 Thread 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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-17 Thread 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:

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-17 Thread 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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-17 Thread 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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-17 Thread 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=articleitem=ubuntu_32_paenum=1 There's another point is

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-17 Thread 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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-17 Thread 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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-17 Thread 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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-17 Thread 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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-17 Thread Kelly Harding
On 17 February 2010 13:08, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI edua...@kalinowski.com.br 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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-17 Thread 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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-17 Thread 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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-17 Thread 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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-17 Thread 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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-17 Thread 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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-17 Thread 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.

Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-16 Thread Warren King
Which architecture should I use for an Intel Atom Processor? Warren King wk...@meritel.com

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-16 Thread 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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-16 Thread 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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-16 Thread 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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-16 Thread 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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-16 Thread 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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-16 Thread 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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-16 Thread 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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-16 Thread 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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-16 Thread 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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-16 Thread 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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-16 Thread 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

Re: Intel Atom Processor

2010-02-16 Thread 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