What architecture you are using?

[Platyna]

I would like to get some statistics which can help me to make sort of priority list. So, everyone please vote. It only applies for the people who uses Linux/UNIX of course.


Regards.

[neme5i5]

EM64T is buggy in 64bit, and AMD64 runs like dogs. I\'m not sure how Intel screwed it up.

[fken]

I choose 64bits even if Im using both because ill only play ps with my amd64

[A?garion]

i think 32 bits achitecture still have long time to live, because of the high cost of 64bits CPU

[neme5i5]

Originally posted by A?garion
i think 32 bits achitecture still have long time to live, because of the high cost of 64bits CPU

Keep telling yourself that!

[Leeloo]

\"other\" would be the ones using 8, 16 or 128-bit architechtures?

In that case I\'ll select 8 and 32, although I don\'t play on the C64 very often anymore

[fken]

Originally posted by A?garion
i think 32 bits achitecture still have long time to live, because of the high cost of 64bits CPU

roh...

http://www.fcc-informatique.com/indexvente.php?fam=3&sfam=11&prod=131&tri=Code

I dont think it\'s too much... maybe it\'s what can explain what I pay twice this price... I am mad !!! I am mad !!!

[A?garion]

of course you are

i apolgyze for what i wrote (\'bout the high cost, i was manifestly wrong...), but i guess it\'s too late to comme back on it,
as student i don\'t earn enough money to change my cpu once a year...
i\'m using a barton 2600+ since last year and i just can\'t spend money i earn during my summer job in computing stuff...

[Xordan]

Originally posted by neme5i5
EM64T is buggy in 64bit, and AMD64 runs like dogs. I\'m not sure how Intel screwed it up.

1) EMT64 and AMD64 are the same thing.
2) Your performance problems aren\'t the hardware\'s fault. Most likely PEBCAK 64-bit runs very fast for me.
3) And it isn\'t really Intel\'s fault if there is a design flaw, which there isn\'t, because AMD designed it and Intel copied it.

[neme5i5]

Originally posted by Xordan

Originally posted by neme5i5
EM64T is buggy in 64bit, and AMD64 runs like dogs. I\'m not sure how Intel screwed it up.

1) EMT64 and AMD64 are the same thing.
2) Your performance problems aren\'t the hardware\'s fault. Most likely PEBCAK 64-bit runs very fast for me.
3) And it isn\'t really Intel\'s fault if there is a design flaw, which there isn\'t, because AMD designed it and Intel copied it.

Don\'t speak unless you know what is being said. It just makes you look ignorant.

(1) AMD64 is AMD\'s implimentaion of their own amd64 (x86_64) architechture. EM64T is Inte\'s implimentaion of amd64. They are NOT the same thing.

AMD\'s runs like a stalion, and Intel\'s is crashy as hell. I own both, so I know. I\'m not a windows user, so I have no clue from that angle. I use 2.6 64bit on both, and I can show the differences.

(2) So yes, it is the EM64T\'s fault. I have a POWER4 too, and Linux also runs 64bit on it great too. We have a POWER5 on campus, and Linux runs great 64bit there too.

(3) Intel didn\'t copy crap! If they did it would run like an Opteron. Do you even have an EM64T to base your _opinion_? Yeah, I thought not. I have four 64bit machines home in my office.

[Xordan]

(1) AMD64 is AMD\'s implimentaion of their own amd64 (x86_64) architechture. EM64T is Inte\'s implimentaion of amd64. They are NOT the same thing.

Obviously you don\'t know of the AMD-Intel Technology Exchange Agreement, allowing both AMD and Intel access to each others schematics and to use each others technology in a different implimentation under a different or same name. EMT64 is AMD64. The only difference is that AMD64 is designed from scratch around a whole new architecture, where as EMT64 is just the AMD64 technology stuck onto an existing Pentium4 chip. Basically this means that AMD64 will beat EMT64 on a benchmark due to far better design. This agreement is how every time one company brings out a new technology, the other brings out something identical or similar in the few months following.

AMD\'s runs like a stalion, and Intel\'s is crashy as hell. I own both, so I know. I\'m not a windows user, so I have no clue from that angle. I use 2.6 64bit on both, and I can show the differences.

Yes, I have both as well, and either your chip is faulty or you\'ve configured it badly. Both work great for me, although AMD64 does perform better due to hypertransport and the onboard memory controller.

As for 2 and 3, read above. I\'m using gentoo linux on both systems and I see little difference in day to day performance, only under load. Oh, and assuming things makes you look very stupid

I have four 64bit machines home in my office.

Which of course obviously makes you know what you\'re talking about. Far more than someone who only has 2.

[neme5i5]

I still know, you don\'t know what you\'re talking about. I study pipelines for scientific computing. I know EM64T, and AMD64 are not the same. That is why it\'s called an \"implimentaion.\" (go look it up) Now who\'s assuming things. \"Obviously you don\'t\" I got a message for you on line 1, it\'s Mr. Pot and he says you\'re black Mr. Kettle.

You said it perfectly \"stuck on.\" Intel running heavy 64bit code is buggy. Oh wait, you just said as much. \"under load\" So which is it? Either my systems are setup wrong, or you just argeed with me?

1.) in your words, \"EMT64 is just the AMD64 technology stuck onto an existing Pentium4 chip.\" (BTW it\'s EM64T, and go look it up if you don\'t believe me \"Extended Memory 64-bit Technology\")

2.) in your words, \"I\'m using gentoo linux on both systems and I see little difference...only under load.\"

Now who looks very stupid? ...or arguing just to be arguing. Nothing I have said in any technical detail is wrong. Only the opposite can be said for you. The obvious conclusion here is that you need 4 64bit machines too, and then you\'ll know also what you\'re talking about?

[Xordan]

Ah, I see that it is actually EM64T. A lot of people and sites call it EMT64.

And I\'m not saying that the processors are the same. I\'m saying that the technology is the same. The way that technology is implimented doesn\'t matter that much to how that technology performs. Sure, it might be the rest of the processor itself which is crap, but I wouldn\'t blame the technology, especially as I\'ve seen EM64T based processors beat AMD64 based over several benchmarks, both first and third hand. If you\'ve got equivilant processors, with Intels compiled with EM64T specific CFLAGS (Like -march=nocona) and AMD\'s compiled with amd64 specific CFLAGS (-march=K8), with the other hardware in the systems being the same, then you can compare. If EM64T really ran such buggy code, then I blame either the compiler, or the person compiling the code, because otherwise there would be widespread reports of the processors not working properly and they would have to be withdrawn.

[neme5i5]

in case you forgot: \"1) EMT64 and AMD64 are the same thing.\"

You\'re reaching. I said nothing about the technology. Which in this case is amd64 (x86_64 as gcc calls it), I did say that Intel\'s version doesn\'t perform as it should. You said as much too. Why are you still arguing?

\"The way that technology is implimented doesn\'t matter that much to how that technology performs.\"

That is so wrong, I don\'t know where to begin. Stick to writing code, and repeat after me. There is no place like home...

[neme5i5]

\"They are not implementations of x86-64. There is amd64 and em64t/ia32e (Intel uses two names for unknown reasons). The arch formerly introduced as x86-64 in 1999 was renamed to amd64 in 2003. amd64 is not a superset of x86-64, it is the same arch. So it would be correct to state that em64t/ia32e is an implementation of amd64.\"

A quote from the Debian threads on amd64 arch.