Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 13:37:43 -0500 From: Jon Noack <noackjr@alumni.rice.edu> To: Remi <MrL0L@charter.net> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD Message-ID: <40DF13F7.2000608@alumni.rice.edu> In-Reply-To: <36u63c$1uk902@mxip07a.cluster1.charter.net> References: <36u63c$1uk902@mxip07a.cluster1.charter.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 06/27/04 03:06, Remi wrote: > See that's I'm thinking, the raw performance is very attractive to me!! So > what's this about a p4 1.7 outperforming a 2.8? You got link to benchmarks? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel O'Connor [mailto:doconnor@gsoft.com.au] > Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 8:23 PM > To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org; obrien@freebsd.org > Cc: Remi; questions@freebsd.org; current@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 08:30, David O'Brien wrote: >>> I have a choice between AMD64 3200+ and a P4 2.8GHz with HT. >>> Which one would you guys recommend to run FreeBSD. Obviously the >>> i386 would be easier to run, so I guess my question is what is >>> the state of the AMD64 FreeBSD version? >> >> You do know you can run FreeBSD/i386 on the Athlon64 3200+ laptop, >> right? :-) A 3200+ running 32-bit FreeBSD will out-perform the P4 >> 2.8GHz running the same OS. > > A Pentium-M 1.7Ghz will outperform a 2.8Ghz P4 too ;) > > If battery life is important to you I'd suggest not getting an AMD64. > > For raw performance it's "pretty nice" though :) He said "Pentium-M". It's a completely different processor than the Pentium 4-M. Designed for mobile computing, it is best described as combining the best features of the Pentium 3 (short(er) pipeline, etc.) and the Pentium 4 (better branch predictor, etc.) with high-end power saving features to form a third processor far superior to the previous two. Here's a first look at the chip: http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/20030205/ Some benchmarks where a 1.6GHz Pentium-M destroys a 2.2GHz Pentium 4-M: http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/20030205/centrino-13.html http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/20030205/centrino-14.html Battery life in the 6+ hour range is common with Pentium-M laptops. Here's the first look results (note the Pentium 4-M had a battery with over 20% greater capacity!): http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/20030205/centrino-17.html If you value battery life, go with the Pentium-M. If you *most highly* value performance, the Athlon64 is probably the way to go. Jon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40DF13F7.2000608>