From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Jul 20 10: 7:42 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from dan.emsphone.com (dan.emsphone.com [199.67.51.101]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5030737BFB6 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:07:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: (from dan@localhost) by dan.emsphone.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01832; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:07:32 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dan) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:07:31 -0500 From: Dan Nelson To: Siegbert Baude Cc: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Kernel option NO_F00F_HACK Message-ID: <20000720120731.B1377@dan.emsphone.com> References: <397722AD.427D36AE@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.5i In-Reply-To: <397722AD.427D36AE@gmx.de>; from "Siegbert Baude" on Thu Jul 20 18:02:53 GMT 2000 X-OS: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In the last episode (Jul 20), Siegbert Baude said: > Hi, > is this kernel option a workaround for a known Pentium bug (feature? > :-) )? If so did Intel remove this bug in newer chips? Or asked in a > different way: Is this option still necessary for all generations of > Pentiums from Pentium 60 to Pentium III 1 GHz? All 586-class chips from Intel suffer from the bug afaik. The pII and pIII aren't Pentiums for the purposes of the F00F test, they're 686-class CPUs. Blame Intel for their goofy naming scheme ("haha! we'll stop using numbers at all, and call everything Pentium from now on!") -- Dan Nelson dnelson@emsphone.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message