On Monday 22 January 2007 01:40, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >Glxgears is as good a "quick measure" as anything else.
>
> The problem lies therein that graphics drivers may take shortcuts.
> Such as writing only changed frames (as in "bitmap you see onscreen")
> to the hw, leading to an artificially hi
On Jan 21 2007 15:37, John Andersen wrote:
>On Sunday 21 January 2007 14:40, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> >2. On my main workstation, glxgears got 10,000 frames/sec with the x86_64
>> >install, and 7,000 frames/sec with the i386 install, a noticeable
>> > difference.
>>
>> I repeat it again: glxgears
On Sunday 21 January 2007 15:41, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [01-21-07 19:29]:
> [...]
>
> > He doesn't know. He hasn't tried it. He hasn't even looked into the
> > intel documentation on instruction clock speeds. He speaks from
> > supposition, and a high level
On Sunday 21 January 2007 15:41, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [01-21-07 19:29]:
> [...]
>
> > He doesn't know. He hasn't tried it. He hasn't even looked into the
> > intel documentation on instruction clock speeds. He speaks from
> > supposition, and a high level
* John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [01-21-07 19:29]:
[...]
> He doesn't know. He hasn't tried it. He hasn't even looked into the
> intel documentation on instruction clock speeds. He speaks from
> supposition, and a high level language programmers misunderstanding
> about the basic operation o
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> I repeat it again: glxgears is *NOT* an appropriate benchmark.
All information is useful.
We see a repeatable 30% difference, and you say it's meaningless. Pardon me if
I'm skeptical, but you seem too quick to dismiss a result that is clearly
telling us something. I've
On Sunday 21 January 2007 14:40, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >2. On my main workstation, glxgears got 10,000 frames/sec with the x86_64
> >install, and 7,000 frames/sec with the i386 install, a noticeable
> > difference.
>
> I repeat it again: glxgears is *NOT* an appropriate benchmark.
> And I doubt 3
On Sunday 21 January 2007 10:37, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> Remember, too, that every single virtual address synthesized and emitted
> by the processor is 64-bits wide in a 64-bit mode, and for the large
> majority of applications, that's a whole lot bits that are always zero
> being shipped around.
On Jan 21 2007 11:03, J Sloan wrote:
>Randall R Schulz wrote:
>> On Sunday 21 January 2007 09:44, J Sloan wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> 32-bit suse can run on x86_64, but not ia64. It's unlikely that you
>>> have ia64 hardware, so the answer is most likely yes.
>>>
>>> Just curious why you'd want to do t
Thanks for your reply
To answer your question I'm upgrading my machines to 64 bit CPU's.
On Sunday January 21, 2007 12:44 pm, J Sloan wrote:
> Stephen P. Molnar, Ph.D. wrote:
> > Although not new to linux I am not a hardware person. I have a rather
> > simplist (perhaps) question. The question
On Sunday 21 January 2007 11:03, J Sloan wrote:
> Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > On Sunday 21 January 2007 09:44, J Sloan wrote:
> >> ...
> >>
> >> 32-bit suse can run on x86_64, but not ia64. It's unlikely that
> >> you have ia64 hardware, so the answer is most likely yes.
> >>
> >> Just curious why
On Sunday 21 January 2007 09:44, J Sloan wrote:
> ...
>
> 32-bit suse can run on x86_64, but not ia64. It's unlikely that you
> have ia64 hardware, so the answer is most likely yes.
>
> Just curious why you'd want to do that though.
Possible reasons:
1) Fewer problems with plug-ins.
2) Better per
Randall R Schulz wrote:
> On Sunday 21 January 2007 09:44, J Sloan wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> 32-bit suse can run on x86_64, but not ia64. It's unlikely that you
>> have ia64 hardware, so the answer is most likely yes.
>>
>> Just curious why you'd want to do that though.
>
> Possible reasons:
>
> 1) F
Stephen P. Molnar, Ph.D. wrote:
> Although not new to linux I am not a hardware person. I have a rather
> simplist (perhaps) question. The question is whether 32 bit SuSE will work
> on a 64 bit CPU?
>
> I am planning on upgrading by linux machine to 64 bits and would like to use
> the prim
Stephen P. Molnar, Ph.D. wrote:
> Although not new to linux I am not a hardware person. I have a rather
> simplist (perhaps) question. The question is whether 32 bit SuSE will work
> on a 64 bit CPU?
>
> I am planning on upgrading by linux machine to 64 bits and would like to use
> the primary
Thanks very much for your answer.
I really appreciate it.
On Sunday January 21, 2007 9:05 am, Jan Karjalainen wrote:
> Stephen P. Molnar, Ph.D. wrote:
> > Although not new to linux I am not a hardware person. I have a rather
> > simplist (perhaps) question. The question is whether 32 bit SuSE
Stephen P. Molnar, Ph.D. wrote:
Although not new to linux I am not a hardware person. I have a rather
simplist (perhaps) question. The question is whether 32 bit SuSE will work
on a 64 bit CPU?
I am planning on upgrading by linux machine to 64 bits and would like to use
the primary master (
Although not new to linux I am not a hardware person. I have a rather
simplist (perhaps) question. The question is whether 32 bit SuSE will work
on a 64 bit CPU?
I am planning on upgrading by linux machine to 64 bits and would like to use
the primary master (linux installation only) on the ne
18 matches
Mail list logo
