From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262460AbUBXVLA (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:11:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262431AbUBXVK7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:10:59 -0500 Received: from kinesis.swishmail.com ([209.10.110.86]:48399 "EHLO kinesis.swishmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262460AbUBXVKp (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:10:45 -0500 Message-ID: <403BC021.3010709@techsource.com> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:20:33 -0500 From: Timothy Miller MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Heil CC: Rogier Wolff , Thomas Zehetbauer , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Intel vs AMD x86-64 References: <16435.14044.182718.134404@alkaid.it.uu.se> <20040222025957.GA31813@MAIL.13thfloor.at> <1077584461.8414.164.camel@hostmaster.org> <403B5257.2030305@techsource.com> <20040224194354.GA13816@bitwizard.nl> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org John Heil wrote: > On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Rogier Wolff wrote: > > >>Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:43:54 +0100 >>From: Rogier Wolff >>To: Timothy Miller >>Cc: John Heil , >> Thomas Zehetbauer , >> Kernel Mailing List >>Subject: Re: Intel vs AMD x86-64 >> >>On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 08:32:07AM -0500, Timothy Miller wrote: >> >>>Things may have changed, but when I last built a Linux box (Athlon XP >>>2800+), I was not able to find a motherboard for recent AMD processors >>>with 64bit/66mhz PCI slots. If I'd needed that, I would have had to go >>>with Intel. >> >>Ehmm. We've been trying to get 64/66 slots in our systems a while, and >>the only affordable option I've been able to find are the dual-athlon >>boards (Tyan, Asus). > > > > And so far, I've found Tyan to be the slightly more reliable of the two. The problem was that the Tyan I found which did 64/66 was a dual processor board (not a problem) that had a maximum FSB of 266mhz (or maybe it was 200?). I would have been stuck with dual Athlon XP 2400+ (or worse), rather than something faster like the 2800+ I have. Well, the dual would be faster if I were running multi-threaded applications, but most of the CPU-intensive stuff I tend to tinker with is single-threaded and also memory-intensive, making the single 2800+ more attractive (I could have gotten the 3000+, but the cost increase wasn't worth the small performance increase).