Which CPUTYPE in make.conf?
I have a AMD Athlon 4850e which is described as Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core processor. /usr/share/examples/etc/make.conf lists recognised CPU types, but which of athlon64, athlon-mp or athlon-xp is the most appropriate for this CPU? I've been using athlon64 so far without any problems but I don't know if it's the most appropriate choice or if there's even any significant difference between them. -- Mike Clarke ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which CPUTYPE in make.conf?
I deal with AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Windsor (AM2, L2 2048Kb) and wondering of it's CPUTYPE too. 2010/4/24 Mike Clarke jmc-freeb...@milibyte.co.uk I have a AMD Athlon 4850e which is described as Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core processor. /usr/share/examples/etc/make.conf lists recognised CPU types, but which of athlon64, athlon-mp or athlon-xp is the most appropriate for this CPU? I've been using athlon64 so far without any problems but I don't know if it's the most appropriate choice or if there's even any significant difference between them. -- Mike Clarke ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which CPUTYPE in make.conf?
Mike Clarke wrote: I have a AMD Athlon 4850e which is described as Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core processor. /usr/share/examples/etc/make.conf lists recognised CPU types, but which of athlon64, athlon-mp or athlon-xp is the most appropriate for this CPU? I've been using athlon64 so far without any problems but I don't know if it's the most appropriate choice or if there's even any significant difference between them. athlon64 is probably a good choice. I haven't looked at it in a while, and there isn't much difference. IIRC the older athlon-xp included support for 3D Now and mmx while the athlon64 adds sse and/or sse2. I think this matters more to third party ports software builds than it does the system. I thought that large pieces of the kernel were designed to not make much, if any, use the various SIMD extensions. Maybe this has changed and I'm behind the times. Your use of athlon64 seems reasonable to me. It is what I've been using. If it can be done better I'm always on the look out for better. -Mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which CPUTYPE in make.conf?
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Michael Powell nightre...@hotmail.com wrote: I think this matters more to third party ports software builds than it does the system. I thought that large pieces of the kernel were designed to not make much, if any, use the various SIMD extensions. Maybe this has changed and I'm behind the times. I wouldn't bother setting CPUTYPE at all. It's more trouble than it's worth. And you're right: for most ports and for the whole system, it doesn't really matter. If you have a very specific port that needs particular tuning, it has either already been tuned individually by the port maintainer, or you could apply more optimizations yourself (which would likely require a specially compiled tool chain, when -Osomething with the base gcc/binutils isn't enough). Unless you have a very specific need, better leave CPUTYPE alone. Your use of athlon64 seems reasonable to me. It is what I've been using. If it can be done better I'm always on the look out for better. -Mike -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which CPUTYPE in make.conf?
C. P. Ghost wrote: On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Michael Powell nightre...@hotmail.com wrote: I think this matters more to third party ports software builds than it does the system. I thought that large pieces of the kernel were designed to not make much, if any, use the various SIMD extensions. Maybe this has changed and I'm behind the times. I wouldn't bother setting CPUTYPE at all. It's more trouble than it's worth. Actually, I've been setting CPUTYPE for many years and have never had any trouble as a result. I've always used the form: CPUTYPE?= blah instead of CPUTYPE= without the question mark. And you're right: for most ports and for the whole system, it doesn't really matter. If you have a very specific port that needs particular tuning, it has either already been tuned individually by the port maintainer, or you could apply more optimizations yourself (which would likely require a specially compiled tool chain, when -Osomething with the base gcc/binutils isn't enough). I have also used CFLAGS= -O2 -pipe COPTFLAGS= -O2 -pipe. About the only place it will really make any difference is in some multimedia apps. And you're right that if needed the port maintainer has already taken care of this. Unless you have a very specific need, better leave CPUTYPE alone. Thing is, any performance increase is only going to be very small. So small the difference can probably not be seen subjectively. I'll do it as long as it creates no problem; if any problem were to arise over this I'd kill it in a heartbeat and not fuss over it. It is a point of diminishing returns. [snip] -Mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
