Re: OT: dual-core or 64 bit?

i just upgraded this weekend.

i went from an AMD 3GHZ64 to an Intel Duo Core 6300.

The difference in performence is HUGE. This is the first Intel chip I have owned since i ripped the 8088 out and replaced it with a Nec V20 (hey a jump from 4.77Mhz to 6Mhz!)

The SOLE reason i went intel is that the distro I use for my daily desktop duties is Xandros, and my mobile distro ( on a flash key) is Mandriva. BOTH those distros have reported issues with the AM2.

My Fedora box will get an upgrade in all this, but will stay AMD. But you may want to snoop around in your particular daily distro's and find out if anyone has had issues wuth either.

I know that the majority of the issues w/ Xandros and Mandriva have come from the fact that they see these CPU's as dual prcessor chipsets and keep waiting for the 2nd cpu to start up.

I'm SURE this will be addressed shortly, but I couldnt wait.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Dave Stevens  
Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 7:01 pm 
Subject: Re: OT: dual-core or 64 bit? 
To: For users of Fedora
> On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 17:33 -0600, Jonathan Berry wrote:
> > On 1/30/07, David Fletcher  wrote:
> > > On Sunday 28 January 2007 22:07, Jonathan Berry wrote:
> > > > On 1/28/07, Mick Mearns  wrote:
> > > > > Hi list; 
> > > > > this is off topic.
> > > > >
> > > > > I was wondering which is better a dual-core x86 cpu or an
>
> x64 cpu?
> > > > > Which is actually faster/better in "normal" use? 
> > > > > How about installation problems and hardware cost?
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not planning any upgrades just yet but am curios.
> > > >
> > > > Why not get a dual-core x86_64 CPU? All the AMD dual-core
>
> chips are
> > > > 64-bit and Intel's Core 2 Duo is 64-bit. Personally, I like AMD 
> > > > better. There is really no reason to get a 32-bit only CPU
>
> anymore.> > > If you don't want to run 64-bit yet, you can still 
> run 32-bit just
> > > > fine. And a 64-bit installation gives you the choice to run
>
> both.> > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > >
> > > If the List doesn't mind me staying off topic (it's closer to
>
> topic than
> > > servicing a Chevy pickup gearbox I think ;-) ):- Next time I
>
> build a new
> > > computer I'd like to be sure that I can run a Xen kernel with full 
> > > virtualisation. Then when I occasionally need to poke a little
>
> finger into
> > > the Dark Side I can do so without having to shut down and
>
> reboot, and keep
> > > the damned thing backed up so I don't ever need to do a fresh
>
> install again.
> > > As I Understand It, if I go for an AMD chip I need to be sure
>
> to buy one that
> > > incorporates technology called Pacifica. Only thing that's
>
> troubling me about
> > > this is, I can't find any mention of Pacifica in connection
>
> with AMD chips in
> > > the component shops.
> > >
> > > Also, I believe I can't do it on this P4 computer because it
>
> can only do what
> > > is called paravirtualisation, requiring hooks to be added to
>
> the guest OS.
> > > Which is probably why I could run the 98SE installation CD OK
>
> when I played
> > > with it but it wouldn't boot.
> > >
> > > So, List, is the little bit I think I know about
>
> virtualisation correct?
> > Yeah, that sounds like what I have heard about the subject.
> > > Are there chips available now that have Pacifica (such as the
>
> AMD Opterons) or
> > > are they not out yet?
> >
> > They are out. There has not been as much talk about it for some 
> > reason. I have been surprised at that. But you want any Socket AM2 
> > AMD CPU (which is the newest) or I think Socket F is the other new 
> > socket (I think for the Opteron class CPUs ?). Socket 939 and 940
>
> I think socket 940 IS AM2
> > CPUs do not have Pacifica support (not sure what its official
>
> name is
> > now). On the Intel side, I think all the Core series CPUs have 
> > whatever Intel calls its virtualization extensions. I'm not
>
> sure if
>
> -- 
> fedora-list mailing list 
> [e-mail] 
> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list