i386 or amd64 debian for new intel 64 bit cpu?
in [General Linux]
|
From: The Natural Philosopher on 30 May 2010 19:43 Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: > On 05/30/2010 12:54 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> Robert Heller wrote: >>> At Sun, 30 May 2010 12:10:59 -0700 "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma(a)12000.org> > > >>> >>>> I have to format the disk and start all over, I think, but that would >>>> be ok. >>> > >>> Yes indeed -- DON'T try to 'upgrade' from 32-bit to 64-bit. This is >>> likely to create a 'mess'. Do a proper 'fresh' install. >> > >> Yup. >> >> I did this: essentially everything could be got to work except an HP >> scanner which only had an HP 32 bit driver. That was dead. >> >> Few minor buglets at the moment, but by and large stable and a lot >> faster on screen update rate. >> > > OMG ! I have an HP scanner (HP scanjet 5590) which I can't live without. > > I wonder if debian has a tool which one can run, which checks all the > hardware on the PC for compatibility with 64 debian OS? Check the xsane stuff. If its listed as fully functional, it will definitely work in a limited sense.. http://www.sane-project.org/sane-mfgs.html#Z-HEWLETT-PACKARD says its fully supported..which means it will at least work IME. > > This way one can run this script, and find out if all currently > connected devices will work or not on 64bit debian, before going through > the installation. I have also Fujistu scanSnap device, and Samsung > CLR-15 printer which I'd like to still use. These all now work ok on > 32bit debian. > Printers are usually a bit better supported. > --Nasser
From: Aragorn on 30 May 2010 22:19 On Sunday 30 May 2010 21:10 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody identifying as Nasser M. Abbasi wrote... > I've got a new intel 64 bit PC. I installed i386 latest debian on it. > > It works fine. Then I noticed there is amd64 debian also. > > http://www.debian.org/CD/netinst/ > > Would it be better to install amd64 instead? In my personal opinion, yes, because then you'd actually be using all of your processor(s). From the performance point of view, some things would run faster - i.e. that which is optimized for 64-bit - and some things would run slower - i.e. that which has not been optimized for 64-bit yet. One of the biggest advantages of a 64-bit system is that you have access to more than 4 GB of physical RAM, or in practice, more than ~3.6 GB of physical RAM, as legacy PCI devices use an address space below the 4 GB barrier and so the physical RAM at those addresses cannot be used anymore without some form of remapping. This is called "the PCI memory hole" and it still exists in 64-bit systems, but because 64-bit can access memory addresses above the 4 GB barrier, the RAM that gets lost to the PCI memory hole can be remapped to a location above 4 GB barrier. A 32-bit kernel with PAE enabled can also do this, but the general "desktop" flavor of distribution-supplied kernel images does not have PAE enabled - if it does, then the name of the kernel package will typically give you a hint. > I am assume amd64 will work on this pc. Yes, it will. > How is debian 64 bit support for 32 bit applications? Not using Debian, I cannot answer that question, but most 64-bit distributions come with a full set of 32-bit libraries, so that shouldn't be any problem. There are also 64-bit wrappers which can integrate 32-bit browser plugins into a 64-bit browser. > Why is it called amd64 btw? why not intel64? may be becuase amd had > 64 bit before intel? Intel already had a 64-bit processor chip before AMD did - i.e. the Itanium - but this is not an x86 processor and could only run 16- and 32-bit x86 code via a slower x86 emulation mode of the Itanium processor. AMD chose the other approach and extended the x86 architecture to the 64-bit level, and patented the design. Intel then followed suit with an x86-64 implementation of their own, but their design wasn't really usable - for starters, it wasn't fully compatible with AMD64 and it lacked an IOMMU - and so they then dropped their own x86-64 design and took a license on AMD's x86-64 architecture for their own chips. Intel's implementation is called EM64T, but since the design is from AMD, the packages and ISO files are generally referred to as AMD64. Processor-specific optimizations aside, the x86-64 processor chips sold by AMD and those from Intel are functionally compatible. But just as with x86-32, the distribution kernels contain a lot of generic code that works on both designs, while more specialized compile-time optimization of the code is possible. This is even true for processors coming from the same manufacturer. Contrary to 32-bit however, there will be less "generic" stuff than if you were to install i586 (i.e. Pentium I-level) packages on an i686 system (e.g. Pentium 4). The commonly used designations are AMD64 and x64-64 - some companies such as Microsoft or Sun also use the term x64, but that's not an official name for the platform - but you should *never* pick ISO images or packages for IA64; that's the name for the Intel Itanium platform. -- *Aragorn* (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
From: Aragorn on 30 May 2010 22:43 On Sunday 30 May 2010 21:41 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody identifying as Robert Heller wrote... > At Sun, 30 May 2010 12:10:59 -0700 "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma(a)12000.org> > wrote: > >> [...] Why is it called amd64 btw? why not intel64? may be becuase >> amd had 64 bit before intel? > > Yes and no. Originally Intel had a 64 bit instruction set, the ia64. IA64 is not an x86-64 implementation, Robert; it is the Intel Itanium processor, which is only compatible (with x86-32, not with x86-64) via a very slow hardware-initiated emulation. The Itanium never got off the ground for use on anything other than servers and high-end workstations (from e.g. SGI), but is still being used in that market segment. I think that even HP might still be offering some systems with Intel Itanium processors. They're quite expensive compared to x86-64. > I think Intel still makes chips with this instruction set, but Intel > now uses AMD's 64 bit instruction set (known as x86_64) in their > mainstream processors -- the ones you are likely to get in retail > commodity PCs (including 'Intel' Macs). Intel also did have an x86-64 implementation of its own at first - albeit that they only started developing that long after AMD64 was already available - but this implementation was not fully compatible with AMD64 and lacked a lot of features, so it wasn't even really usable for 64-bit - I believe the Pentium 4 with 64-bit extensions was of this generation. Intel then dropped that design and took a license on AMD's design. > I think this is much like when Sony gave up on BetaMAX VCRs and > started making VHS (JVC's invention) VCRs. Yes, but except for the fact that BetaMAX was technically better than VHS, and this does not really hold for either Intel's own very first x86-64 implementation, nor for the Intel Itanium, which is too expensive and way too slow at running x86-32 code. As I understand it, the AMD64 design - like the i686 - is capable of runtime code optimization. The Itanium wasn't, but instead it relied on full compile-time optimization, very much like old-school RISC. -- *Aragorn* (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
From: Nasser M. Abbasi on 31 May 2010 00:08 On 05/30/2010 07:19 PM, Aragorn wrote: > Contrary to 32-bit however, there > will be less "generic" stuff than if you were to install i586 (i.e. > Pentium I-level) packages on an i686 system (e.g. Pentium 4). > > The commonly used designations are AMD64 and x64-64 - some companies > such as Microsoft or Sun also use the term x64, but that's not an > official name for the platform - but you should *never* pick ISO images > or packages for IA64; that's the name for the Intel Itanium platform. > Thanks for the info. When I type uname, I get this 2.6.26-2-686 It is a bit confusing, since it says "686" there, and at first I thought I was running debian 64 bit, but it is not, since I downloaded the i386 iso. At first, I did not download the amd64 bit iso, thinking that was for AMD only. I knew that ia64 was for different arch all together (itanium). But looking now at the FAQ, http://www.debian.org/CD/faq/ it says: >>> "By far the most popular one is the Intel/AMD architecture, so most people will only want to get the images for "i386". If your PC has a 64-bit AMD or Intel processor, you will most likely need the "amd64" images (though "i386" is also fine), the "ia64" images will not work." >>> I am just trying linux for now, so it is not too important I use 64 bit debian, but may be in the future I will try it, may be wait for the next major debian release. --Nasser
From: Aragorn on 31 May 2010 00:16
On Monday 31 May 2010 06:08 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody identifying as Nasser M. Abbasi wrote... > On 05/30/2010 07:19 PM, Aragorn wrote: > >> Contrary to 32-bit however, there will be less "generic" stuff than >> if you were to install i586 (i.e. Pentium I-level) packages on an >> i686 system (e.g. Pentium 4). >> >> The commonly used designations are AMD64 and x64-64 - some companies >> such as Microsoft or Sun also use the term x64, but that's not an >> official name for the platform - but you should *never* pick ISO >> images or packages for IA64; that's the name for the Intel Itanium >> platform. > > Thanks for the info. When I type uname, I get this > > 2.6.26-2-686 > > It is a bit confusing, since it says "686" there, and at first I > thought I was running debian 64 bit, but it is not, since I downloaded > the i386 iso. Well, the i386 designation is often used to denote that the packages are compiled for x86-32, but that does not necessarily mean that they are actually optimized for use on an 80386 processor. ;-) Most 32-bit distributions for the x86-architecture these days are optimized either for i586[1] or i686[2]. [1] Intel Pentium and Pentium MMX, and AMD K5, K6, K6-II, K6-III. [2] Intel Pentium Pro, Pentium II, Pentium III and Pentium 4 and all derived Xeons and Celerons, and AMD K7 (Thunderbird), Athlon, Athlon XP and Athlon MP, and all derived Durons. > At first, I did not download the amd64 bit iso, thinking that was for > AMD only. Nah, it's common to AMD and Intel. ;-) > I knew that ia64 was for different arch all together (itanium). Yep. > But looking now at the FAQ, http://www.debian.org/CD/faq/ it says: > > >>> > "By far the most popular one is the Intel/AMD architecture, so most > people will only want to get the images for "i386". If your PC has a > 64-bit AMD or Intel processor, you will most likely need the "amd64" > images (though "i386" is also fine), the "ia64" images will not work." > >>> Yep, that is correct. ;-) > I am just trying linux for now, so it is not too important I use 64 > bit debian, but may be in the future I will try it, may be wait for > the next major debian release. Well, it all depends on your personal needs and preferences. Personally I would use AMD64, but my requirements are different from yours. ;-) -- *Aragorn* (registered GNU/Linux user #223157) |