Subject: Re: Intel x86_64 chips (Pentium 4 EMT)
To: None <email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: List Mail User <track@Plectere.com>
Date: 02/20/2005 08:15:09
>From email@example.com Sun Feb 20 07:14:14 2005
>Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:13:56 +0100 (CET)
>Cc: track@Plectere.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
>Subject: Re: Intel x86_64 chips (Pentium 4 EMT)
>From: Havard Eidnes <email@example.com>
>X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
>Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
>> > 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..
>I can hereby vouch for it working, save for the extra spewage
>right after it detects the (serial) console port.
>I'm currently in the process of installing the amd64 port on an
>IBM x306 with a 3.2GHz P4 processor. The dmesg output from the
>install cd-rom from 2.0 follows:
The EMT's have been shipping in Europe and Asia for almost 4 months,
but they're just now appearing in the U.S. (except for IBM and DELL, who
"announced" months ago, but weren't shipping until recently - and I always
assemble from components myself).
P.S. I notice IBM refers to "EM64T" not the "EMT" that was in the Intel
price sheets and internal documentation; Must be a marketing change!?