On Sunday 28 January 2007 22:07, Jonathan Berry wrote:
On 1/28/07, Mick Mearns off_by_1@yahoo.com 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?
Are there chips available now that have Pacifica (such as the AMD Opterons) or are they not out yet?
Dave