There is some 64 bit specs available for Athlon, but these are a bit dated. The ones I generally see are side by side comparisons running standard OS's . The other thing to remember is that it's much easier for a lab to run a 32 bit since drivers are much easier to find. So it comes down to testing what is easiest. I will do some more research when I have time.
----- Original Message ---- From: James G. Sack (jim) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Main Discussion List for KPLUG <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 2:57:01 AM Subject: Re: Which Intel Processor? Randall Shimizu wrote: > One has to remember that the only reason that Intel has a slight advantage is > because most apps are 32 bit, With the exception of Intel's Itanium all it's > other processors are 32 bit cores with 64 extensions. So all the benchmarks > you see are for 32 bit processors. > > AMD is coming out with there Quad core 64 (45nm) Barcelona > (http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTE3NCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA== > ) core in late spring I believe. Currently AMD has the Quad FX which uses 2 > FX64 CPU's on a motherboard. But when AMD's Quad core Barcelona does ship the > advantage will shift in their favor. It will be much harder for Intel to > shift to 64. AMD's chips are made by IBM so they have considerable R&D > resources to draw upon. Boy it sure is hard to read text lines that long <grin>. So, to belabor a point, the benchmarks were not 64bit performance measurements but were really only 32bit? Wow, I guess I completely misread those reports, then. Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
