| From: | "Thomas E. Spanjaard" <tgen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:51:31 +0000 |
Bill Hacker wrote:
> Thomas E. Spanjaard wrote:
>> Bill Hacker wrote:
>>> elekktretterr@exemail.com.au wrote:
>>>> Well this is rather embarassing. This aint a 64bit processor. I bought
>>>> this thing like half a year after I bought my AMD64 workstation and
>>>> I had
>>>> assumed (Core Duo) would be 64 bit.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry.....
>>>>
>>> Odd, that. Just which specific CPU do you have? Mobility-something,
>>> perchance?
>>>
>>> Not only the Core-2, but the earlier Core-D had Intel's '64-bit
>>> extensions' (mostly) cross-licensed from AMD.
>>>
>>> My Core-D happily ran FreeBSD ADM64 (6.2 beta onward).
>>>
>>> Is DFLY that different?
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>> None of the Core Duo chips support EM64T. Are you perhaps confusing the
>> Pentium D with the Core Duo? Also, all Core Duo chips were mobile ones,
>> save for the Xeon ULV ("Sossaman"), which was for dual-socket servers
>> (short-lived though, as a couple of months later Woodcrest and friends
>> (Core 2-based) were released).
>
> ACK 'marketing Nomenclature' - (the 'Core-D' / Pentium D eg - pre 'Core
> 2' having been presented as meaning 'Core Duo')
I've never seen the Pentium D marketed as "Core-D" around here though,
that'd have been awful :).
> I'll worry about all that when VIA Nano dualcore become common or ARM
> gets faster.
Haven't seen those Nano chips in the wild yet, unfortunately.
> Meanwhile, after half a century of listening to fan noise, I'm chasing
> lower power instead of raw speed and have come to rather enjoy what
> Simon & Garfunkel called 'the sounds of silence'.
What about a blindingly fast system, but running in another
(sound-proofed) room? :P
Btw, your e-mail address bounces.
--
Thomas E. Spanjaard
tgen@netphreax.net
tgen@deepbone.net
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature