[CentOS] CentOS4_64 On Dell

[Peter Farrow]

Hi There,

Unfortunately my background is hardware electronics design, so my 
definition of 64 bit tends to be a bit more "under the hood" than most.

Having worked, many years ago for <cough> Cyrix </cough> (remember them) 
as a CPU/motherboard design consultant at the time of the launch of the 
6x86 CPU,  the 6x86 at that time
was the first CPU to have speculative execution etc etc.  So I did my 
time in CPU design, on this basis I judge true 64bit or not.

Thanks for the comments,  I guess I am purist on what really should 
carry the 64bit label or not.....

P.


Ryan Sweet wrote:

> On Tue, 3 May 2005, Peter Farrow wrote:
>
>> Thanks Ryan,
>>
>> I have already posted a reply while you were typing your...
>>
>> go take a look......
>
>
> Right, and while your comments are generally correct, specifically 
> when discussing HPC applications for the processors concerned,
>     a) the original comments were not sufficiently useful to draw the 
> distinction,
>     b) even if HPC specialists (this is my day job also) may decide to 
> draw such a distinction between EM64T and opteron (and I would say 
> that certainly not all of the folks on the various beowulf lists would 
> use the term 64bit the way you were using it), the fact is that the 
> industry in general, and Intel/RedHat/Dell (the three comanies 
> featuring in this discussion) have settled upon a different definition 
> of a 64bit CPU than you have.
>
> Also, as for the speed of EM64T when runnin 32bit versus 64bit, once 
> again the HPC mantra must be "it depends upon your application", 
> because I have seen a number of cases where it can go either way.
>
> and yes, I use both EM64T and opteron, yet for much the same reasons 
> that you have already given, we tend to lean heavily to the opteron.
>
> regards,
> -Ryan
>
>>
>> P.
>>
>>
>> Ryan Sweet wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 3 May 2005, Peter Farrow wrote:
>>>
>>>> You may of course believe what you like.......
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> M. Farrow,
>>>
>>> I am quite convinced that M. Baker-LePain is not discussing matters 
>>> of belief, but of fact (fact that was on Intel's roadmap two years 
>>> ago and has been a released product for nine months).  Please it is 
>>> preferable if you don't begin arguments, but if you choose to have 
>>> an argument at least start with a remotely tenable position.
>>>
>>> http://www.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/index.htm
>>>
>>> It is true that the original xeons were 32bit cpus, but Intel chose 
>>> to keep the Xeon name for its EM64T technology.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> -Ryan
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> "based on the same x86_64 technology that AMD introduced with 
>>>>>> their Opterons."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you didn't top post, you wouldn't have to re-type my quote.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CentOS mailing list
>>> CentOS at centos.org
>>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CentOS mailing list
>> CentOS at centos.org
>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>>
>