On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Josh Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I always thought AMD was Intel compatible.
>
> In this case, it's the reverse. Intel's EM64T extensions are compatible
> with AMD's X86-64.
Also don't forget that SSE5 instruction set for x86 was entirely
designed by AMD.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Chris Maness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another thought. Would a Quad Core chip help with compiling applications --
> or would it be the same as a dual core or single core chip running at the
> same clock speed because the compiler is running single thread? Wou
> I always thought AMD was Intel compatible.
In this case, it's the reverse. Intel's EM64T extensions are compatible
with AMD's X86-64.
Josh
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To un
On Nov 24, 2008, at 2:01 PM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Since a Xeon Quad Core is a 64bit processor, would it work ok with
FreeBSD? Or would the adm64 release be better for that chip?
don't be suggested by "amd" in port name. it's for AMD64-compatible
processor, for example your xeon
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 12:49:37PM -0800, Chris Maness wrote:
> >> Would there be a major performance gain with amd64 over that of the i386
> >> build on a Xeon Quad Core?
> >>
> >
> > It will depend on your workload. If your machines were strapped fo
> > address space on i386, switching to a
Roland Smith wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 11:37:25AM -0800, Chris Maness wrote:
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Since a Xeon Quad Core is a 64bit processor, would it work ok with
FreeBSD? Or would the adm64 release be better for that chip?
don't be suggested by "amd" in port name. it'
Roland Smith wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 11:37:25AM -0800, Chris Maness wrote:
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Since a Xeon Quad Core is a 64bit processor, would it work ok with
FreeBSD? Or would the adm64 release be better for that chip?
don't be suggested by "amd" in port name. it'
> Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I am currently running FreeBSD 7.0 the regular
> i386 release. I would prefer to keep it that way if migration to the 64bit
> release would mean rebuilding from scratch (there is probably an easier way
> to convert an i386 release to a amd64 release). Another poster
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 11:37:25AM -0800, Chris Maness wrote:
> Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >> Since a Xeon Quad Core is a 64bit processor, would it work ok with
> >> FreeBSD? Or would the adm64 release be better for that chip?
> >
> > don't be suggested by "amd" in port name. it's for AMD64-compatib
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Since a Xeon Quad Core is a 64bit processor, would it work ok with
FreeBSD? Or would the adm64 release be better for that chip?
don't be suggested by "amd" in port name. it's for AMD64-compatible
processor, for example your xeon
Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I am currentl
Since a Xeon Quad Core is a 64bit processor, would it work ok with FreeBSD?
Or would the adm64 release be better for that chip?
don't be suggested by "amd" in port name. it's for AMD64-compatible
processor, for example your xeon
___
freebsd-questions
Chris Maness wrote:
Since a Xeon Quad Core is a 64bit processor, would it work ok with
FreeBSD? Or would the adm64 release be better for that chip?
I would recommend using amd64 FreeBSD port in this case. Some
applications are significantly faster in 64 bit mode than in 32 bit mode.
Personally,
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Chris Maness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since a Xeon Quad Core is a 64bit processor, would it work ok with FreeBSD?
> Or would the adm64 release be better for that chip?
Hello Chris,
I had a server with an Intel Xeon Quad Core CPU that was running FBSD 7.0
since
Since a Xeon Quad Core is a 64bit processor, would it work ok with
FreeBSD? Or would the adm64 release be better for that chip?
Thanks,
Chris Maness
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questi
14 matches
Mail list logo
