Subject: Re: Intel x86_64 chips (Pentium 4 EMT)
To: None <fvdl@NetBSD.org>
From: List Mail User <track@Plectere.com>
Date: 02/19/2005 14:35:00
>From bounces-port-amd64-owner-track=plectere.com@NetBSD.org Sat Feb 19 13:38:17 2005
>Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 22:42:20 +0100
>From: Frank van der Linden <fvdl@NetBSD.org>
>To: List Mail User <track@Plectere.com>
>Subject: Re: Intel x86_64 chips (Pentium 4 EMT)
>On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 12:46:44PM -0800, List Mail User wrote:
>> Has anyone tried yet to run the "amd64" port on either a XEON or
>> a Pentium 4 EMT (i.e. Intel's flavor of x86_64 - they do work w/ the MS
>> beta software, and according to source internal to MS, both the prototypes
>> with and without the added 'NX' bit/capability work for them, just no stack
>> protection without the 'NX' bit - Also, the prototypes withut the 'NX' bit
>> are in 478 pin packages and will never be released)?
>It should "just work", but I haven't had a chance to try it myself..
That would be my guess, but I doubt that gcc is properly optimized
for the Intel variants, and I know that MS has a "small" number of pieces
of code which act differently on the Intel chips vs. the AMD chips (the exact
number I could probably find out, but what they are would be considered to be
"proprietary", though I *might* be told what `type' of things they are - I
know for very early Intel prototypes, the page table handling code was somewhat
different, but I believe that it is now the same).
I'm currently very impressed by the speed of both an Athalon64 2800+
and a Semperon 3100+; But with the opportunity to get some EMT chips, and
the fact that I like Intel chipsets better (I'm biased, I designed some of
the circuitry in parts of a few chips), and I like the 9x5 series' graphics
much better than the NVidia/Nforce stuff, likewise the built-in Intel NICs
seem much better than the Realtek/SIS/NVidia/Via ones on most K8 boards
(though it is tough to beat the price/performance of the Realtek 8100S 32-bit
giga cards, which can be found for $8).