OT: dual-core or 64 bit?

[Mick M.]

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.

Mick M.

Death before Decaf!!!

____________________________________________________________________________________
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. 
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html

[Jonathan Berry]

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

[David Fletcher]

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?

Are there chips available now that have Pacifica (such as the AMD Opterons) or 
are they not out yet?

Dave

[Jonathan Berry]

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
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
they migrated that back to any of the P4/PD based chips or not.

I too would like to play around with this.  But doing so would require
a new CPU, motherboard, and memory (as the AM2 socket moves to DDR2
RAM) at least.  I'll probably wait at least for the 65 nm AMD chips to
come out before I head down that route.  But has anyone tried this?
Running Windows (or really any unmodified guest) with Xen using the
hardware virtualization extensions?  If so, how did it go?

Jonathan

[Dave Stevens]

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

[Jonathan Berry]

On 1/30/07, Dave Stevens  wrote:
> > 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

Nope.  They both have 940 pins, but they are different sockets.  Hence
the AM2 name, rather than a pin count.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_AM2

Jonathan

[Rick Stevens]

On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 23:03 +0000, 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?
>
> Are there chips available now that have Pacifica (such as the AMD Opterons) or 
> are they not out yet?

Yes, they're out.  The "official" name for Pacifica is "AMD-V".  The
Athlon64/X2 series has AMD-V, as does the Opteron 1xxx,2xxx and 4xxx
series (e.g. Opteron 1210).

If you "cat /proc/cpuinfo", look at the flags string.  AMD chips with
AMD-V will have the "svm" flag.  Intel chips will have the "vmx" flag.

I have an AMD Athlon64/X2 and an Opteron 1210.  Here's the procinfo
for each.  First, the Athlon64/X2:

[root@labrat1 ~]# cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor       : 0
vendor_id       : AuthenticAMD
cpu family      : 15
model           : 75
model name      : AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4600+
stepping        : 2
cpu MHz         : 2405.042
cache size      : 512 KB
physical id     : 0
siblings        : 1
core id         : 0
cpu cores       : 1
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 1
wp              : yes
flags           : fpu tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic mtrr mca cmov pat pse36
clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt rdtscp lm
3dnowext 3dnow pni cx16 lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm cr8_legacy
bogomips        : 6014.10
TLB size        : 1024 4K pages
clflush size    : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes   : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management: ts fid vid ttp tm stc

And now the Opteron 1210:

[root@bigdog ~]# cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor       : 0
vendor_id       : AuthenticAMD
cpu family      : 15
model           : 67
model name      : Dual-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 1210
stepping        : 2
cpu MHz         : 1808.283
cache size      : 1024 KB
physical id     : 0
siblings        : 1
core id         : 0
cpu cores       : 1
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 1
wp              : yes
flags           : fpu tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic mtrr mca cmov pat pse36
clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt rdtscp lm
3dnowext 3dnow pni cx16 lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm cr8_legacy
bogomips        : 4521.67
TLB size        : 1024 4K pages
clflush size    : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes   : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management: ts fid vid ttp tm stc

Note the "svm" flags on both machines.  Both chips are AM2 sockets and
they're both dual-core.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Senior Systems Engineer     [e-mail] -
- VitalStream, Inc.                       http://www.vitalstream.com -
-                                                                    -
-            The gene pool could use a little chlorine.              -
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[David Fletcher]

On Wednesday 31 January 2007 00:43, Rick Stevens wrote:
> Yes, they're out.  The "official" name for Pacifica is "AMD-V".  The
> Athlon64/X2 series has AMD-V, as does the Opteron 1xxx,2xxx and 4xxx
> series (e.g. Opteron 1210).
>
> If you "cat /proc/cpuinfo", look at the flags string.  AMD chips with
> AMD-V will have the "svm" flag.  Intel chips will have the "vmx" flag.
>
> I have an AMD Athlon64/X2 and an Opteron 1210.  Here's the procinfo
> for each.  First, the Athlon64/X2:
>
> [root@labrat1 ~]# cat /proc/cpuinfo
> flags           : fpu tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic mtrr mca cmov pat pse36
> clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt rdtscp lm
> 3dnowext 3dnow pni cx16 lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm cr8_legacy
>
> And now the Opteron 1210:
>
> flags           : fpu tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic mtrr mca cmov pat pse36
> clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt rdtscp lm
> 3dnowext 3dnow pni cx16 lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm cr8_legacy

Thanks for that, Rick. Very interesting. I'll keep this thread when it's done 
for future reference. Sure enough I just did "cat /proc/cpuinfo" on this P4 
machine and there is no vmx flag.

But the question from both myself and Jonathan remains:- If I/he/we were to 
build new systems using these processor chips, would we be able to get a Xen 
kernel then install and run 98SE/XP/Vista as virtual machines?

Dave

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

[Anthony Joseph Seward]

On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 23:03 +0000, David Fletcher wrote:
<snip>
> Are there chips available now that have Pacifica (such as the AMD Opterons) or 
> are they not out yet?

I went to http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/HVM_Compatible_Processors
before choosing which processor to get.
> Dave
>
> -- 
> Registered Linux user number 393408
>
> I use and recommend the email service at 1 & 1
> For domain registration, email and web hosting please visit:
> http://oneandone.co.uk/xml/init?k_id=6389763

[Rick Stevens]

On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:02 +0000, David Fletcher wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 00:43, Rick Stevens wrote:
> > Yes, they're out.  The "official" name for Pacifica is "AMD-V".  The
> > Athlon64/X2 series has AMD-V, as does the Opteron 1xxx,2xxx and 4xxx
> > series (e.g. Opteron 1210).
> >
> > If you "cat /proc/cpuinfo", look at the flags string.  AMD chips with
> > AMD-V will have the "svm" flag.  Intel chips will have the "vmx" flag.
> >
> > I have an AMD Athlon64/X2 and an Opteron 1210.  Here's the procinfo
> > for each.  First, the Athlon64/X2:
> >
> > [root@labrat1 ~]# cat /proc/cpuinfo
> > flags           : fpu tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic mtrr mca cmov pat pse36
> > clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt rdtscp lm
> > 3dnowext 3dnow pni cx16 lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm cr8_legacy
> >
> > And now the Opteron 1210:
> >
> > flags           : fpu tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic mtrr mca cmov pat pse36
> > clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt rdtscp lm
> > 3dnowext 3dnow pni cx16 lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm cr8_legacy
>
> Thanks for that, Rick. Very interesting. I'll keep this thread when it's done 
> for future reference. Sure enough I just did "cat /proc/cpuinfo" on this P4 
> machine and there is no vmx flag.
>
> But the question from both myself and Jonathan remains:- If I/he/we were to 
> build new systems using these processor chips, would we be able to get a Xen 
> kernel then install and run 98SE/XP/Vista as virtual machines?

I can't speak to Vista, but I've run 98, 98SE, XP, W2K server, W2K3SP2
server (that's Windows 2003 service pack 2) on both the 64/X2 and the
Opteron under Xen.  Works fine.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Senior Systems Engineer     [e-mail] -
- VitalStream, Inc.                       http://www.vitalstream.com -
-                                                                    -
-  BASIC is the Computer Science version of `Scientific Creationism' -
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[thomas cameron]

On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 08:56 -0700, Anthony Joseph Seward wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 23:03 +0000, David Fletcher wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Are there chips available now that have Pacifica (such as the AMD Opterons) or 
> > are they not out yet?
> >
>
> I went to http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/HVM_Compatible_Processors
> before choosing which processor to get.

I have a KN8 SLI(NF-CK804) motherboard with an AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual
Core Processor 4600+ according to dmidecode, but it is an older one with
no svm processor flag.

Does anyone know if this board supports the new AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2
Dual Core Processors with svm?  Are they different pinouts?

In other words, do I have to rip out the board and the CPU, or just the
CPU?

Thomas

[Jonathan Berry]

On 2/3/07, Thomas Cameron  wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 08:56 -0700, Anthony Joseph Seward wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 23:03 +0000, David Fletcher wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > Are there chips available now that have Pacifica (such as the AMD Opterons) or
> > > are they not out yet?
> > >
> >
> > I went to http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/HVM_Compatible_Processors
> > before choosing which processor to get.
>
> I have a KN8 SLI(NF-CK804) motherboard with an AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual
> Core Processor 4600+ according to dmidecode, but it is an older one with
> no svm processor flag.
>
> Does anyone know if this board supports the new AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2
> Dual Core Processors with svm?  Are they different pinouts?
>
> In other words, do I have to rip out the board and the CPU, or just the
> CPU?

You have to change out the CPU, motherboard, and RAM.  Only the Socket
AM2 processors have the svm extension, which is a new socket and only
supports DDR2 memory (no DDR support).  So, yeah, it's not an simple,
cheap upgrade, unfortunately.

Jonathan