From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org)
by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54)
id 1FOlNo-0001cK-Gx
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 00:51:28 +0000
Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.5) with SMTP id k2U0nj0k022837;
Thu, 30 Mar 2006 00:49:45 GMT
Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.201])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k2U0hYqp001160
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 00:43:35 GMT
Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 13so277776nzn
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 16:43:34 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=beta; d=gmail.com;
h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
b=ZIv01QWlXJwz4Z9nZSkOLPfaSq+wAOygDTCLSy8qPaXYCZ9zMzomXTtoHG+vXoUZedM+oSVAY6BS+pKzYcfbWKTcNr6DMoRDFBJ1UsSq2DJw0/iPqYGbLIQ/yrdi/upiQgzPPV4mznQ1YT65qg5Y4NVYWwsGQ8gV9atXXs1IN/k=
Received: by 10.37.12.38 with SMTP id p38mr1803394nzi;
Wed, 29 Mar 2006 16:43:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.154.3 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 16:43:34 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <e5a3e9ac0603291643l1d5353e4ucc180e4d9076eb3e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 16:43:34 -0800
From: "Lord Sauron" <lordsauronthegreat@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?
In-Reply-To: <7573e9640603291634v2f22f489t4ca3448c3e683b09@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <1143616641.29453.15.camel@neuromancer.home.net>
<7573e9640603282355t7ab5a526tfd619e0c9c45a03@mail.gmail.com>
<1143646905.21205.31.camel@neuromancer.home.net>
<7573e9640603290845h3bedb131m209cc6323aee5848@mail.gmail.com>
<e5a3e9ac0603291136g6c77df75j23e6145bf0f0553e@mail.gmail.com>
<e5a3e9ac0603291147o600bcbebs4716b3e4b0bd54b2@mail.gmail.com>
<442B0C32.3090609@gmail.com>
<Pine.LNX.4.64.0603291448500.22718@mail.magrittesystems.com>
<7573e9640603291634v2f22f489t4ca3448c3e683b09@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by robin.gentoo.org id k2U0hYqp001160
X-Archives-Salt: 108898a7-3ffa-48be-a3c9-0ae16ad8e07f
X-Archives-Hash: 62e5aa837811172aa93ccd6600135ff9
On 3/29/06, Richard Fish <bigfish@asmallpond.org> wrote:
> On 3/29/06, michael@michaelshiloh.com <michael@michaelshiloh.com> wrote:
> > How soon do you think we'll see laptops with the Dual Core Turion64?
>
> Summer. Got to have them out in time for back-to-school purchasing, right?
>
> >
> > Elsewhere (perhaps on this list on a different topic) someone
> > recommended not buying anything except for 64 bits (either AMD or Intel)
> > from now on. Do you agree, in particular regarding laptops?
>
> No, but others are going to disagree with me!
>
> Nobody is currently producing laptops that can have over 4G of memory
> (in fact, 2G is the max today in a laptop). And for my AMD desktop at
www.alienware.com I beg to differ. I could have sworn I saw a laptop
with more than 2G... where was it... wow! You appear to be right!
Darn.. I could have SWORN I saw something with > 2G...
> home, I don't see much difference between 64 and 32-bit programs. The
> programs I am most interested in running fast are compression,
> encryption, media encoding, and the like...standard desktop type uses.
There is a big difference. You most likely aren't running with
software compiled for 64-bit, or software that wasn't designed to take
advantage of 64-bit, rather targeting 32-bit and just praying the
compiler helps with the 64-bit part. It gets a bit technical, but
there is a big difference between something made from the ground up as
64-bit versus something that was made 32-bit and just recompiled
64-bit.
> Some things are slightly faster in 32-bit, some things are slightly
> faster in 64-bit, but neither mode seems to have a definitive
> advantage.
Yes, with the unfairness of the compiler, that is true. It's a lot
like if you had a car that could go 200MPH. Your driver may only hit
80MPH (the 32-bit code on a 64-bit chip), but then you get a driver
trained for 200MPH driving, and then he actually hits 200MPH (the
64-bit code).
It's like the good data in good data out / bad data in bad data out theory.
> So unless and until you require more memory or specific applications,
> I don't think you need to worry about 64-bit.
Well, I think we must include bragging rights into our deliberation.
That's a major part of it, too. Even though some people may never use
more than a whole MHz of their PC, they still like to brag ; )
PS: I'm not one of them. If there were a law against computer abuse,
I'd be locked up for life - It pains me to see a CPU idling.
> -Richard
>
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
--
========== GCv3.12 ==========
GCS d-(++) s+: a? C++ UL+>++++ P+
L++ E--- W+(+++) N++ o? K? w--- O? M+
V? PS- PE+ Y-(--) PGP- t+++ 5? X R tv-- b+
DI+++ D+ G e* h- !r !y
========= END GCv3.12 ========
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list