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 >> >