x86_64

[jbk]

Jerry Feldman wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 09:57:02 -0500
> "James Kramer" <kramerjm at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Thanks for the information.  I will help to focus my research efforts. I can
>>take a little time to decide, but my Tohsiba Tecra 8100 has lost a key and
>>it is becoming increasingly aggravating to type on it.  It appears that I
>>would be happy with the HP, Compaq or IBM.  I don't do much gaming although
>>I use 3D graphics for modeling so I will select the dedicated memory.  I can
>>easily get by with 32 bit, but 64 bits sounds appealing to my inner geek
>>side. The price of new notebooks is becoming more affordable so it should be
>>fun hunting.  I am certain that soon after I make the purchase, Toshiba will
>>come out with their cell processor line of notebooks using graphics drivers
>>derived from Playstation 3.
> 
> Just a bit about 64-bit vs. 32-bit. 
> Linux fully supports 64-bits and has for over 10 years.
> On the X86-64 processors you have a fully linear memory model. 
> Applications written for 32-bits will run fine, but will think they are
> on a 32-bit processor. 
> However, there is no guarantee that your system will be faster just
> because it is 64-bits. While many applications will run faster on
> 64-bits, some 32-bit applications may run slower when ported to
> 64-bits. also note that both AMD and Intel roadmaps show that they will
> be producing no 32-bit processors sometime during second quarter this
> year. Make sure you check online at one of the Linux laptop sites such
> as http://www.linux-laptop.net/ before you buy. Being inside HP, I know
> that HP spends quite a bit of money on Linux, but they still make
> computers that don't support Linux. personally, my Compaq Presario
> laptops have done well and have survived a few droppings. 
> Again, in your case, go for the better graphics chips and plenty of
> memory.
> 
I'm redirecting this thread because I'm interested in 
continuing the discussion on 64 bit architecture. I'm 
currently running 32 bit Fc4 on a semperon 64 bit processor. 
I also am dual booting Fc5test2-3 64bit. On the Fc4_32 I 
compiled the kernel to support the atholon 32bit arch (k7 as 
defined in the .config). On the Fc5 side I installed the 
stock kernel 64bit (k8). I also upgraded to a 7200rpm disc. 
What I observe on the 32 bit side is a much more responsive 
network. Applications accessed from other cpu's on the 
network are much quicker to load. Which is what would be 
expected. When booting into Fc5 I notice a much shorter boot 
from init to login. I also notice that gnome applications 
load noticeably quicker. OO is still a bit sluggish to load. 
I have not done any real work that would test the processing 
power of the 64 bit. These observations are not apples to 
apples comparisons. I don't know if gnome has streamlined 
their code and it would be quicker to load on 32 bit as 
well. Is anyone testing 32 and 64 bit Fc5 on the same machine?

Jim