On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 15:22, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
I don't want to read the book. Is it the same as AMD's ?
Ollie
Li-Ta Lo ollie@lanl.gov writes:
On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 15:22, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
I don't want to read the book. Is it the same as AMD's ?
I haven't found any differences yet.
It's still a Xeon and not an Opteron, but I don't see that the OS would really care.
Eric
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Li-Ta Lo ollie@lanl.gov writes:
On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 15:22, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
I don't want to read the book. Is it the same as AMD's ?
I haven't found any differences yet.
It's still a Xeon and not an Opteron, but I don't see that the OS would really care.
unless they somehow manage to install the memory controller inside the proco, there's no way this is gonna be as good as the opteron...
Eric
Linuxbios mailing list Linuxbios@clustermatic.org http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
Li-Ta Lo wrote:
I don't want to read the book. Is it the same as AMD's ?
From the Intel FAQ:
Q9: Is it possible to write software that will run on Intel's processors with 64-bit extension technology, and AMD's 64-bit capable processors?
A9: With both companies designing entirely different architectures, the question is whether the operating system and software ported to each processor will run on the other processor, and the answer is yes in most cases. However, Intel processors support additional features, like the SSE3 instructions and Hyper-Threading Technology, which are not supported on non-Intel platforms. As such, we believe developers will achieve maximum performance and stability by designing specifically for Intel architectures and by taking advantage of Intel's breadth of software tools and enabling services.
-Bari
-
Amaury Jacquot -
Bari Ari -
ebiederman＠lnxi.com -
Li-Ta Lo