Re: debian-user] Re: AMD vs Intel and the Debian kernel

(Java, Flash, etc. are not yet released in 64-bit compatible
versions). This requires some workaround but is generally manageable;
software that is not available in 64-bit versions will usually just be
run in 32-bit compatibility mode.

This is true. Flash is not yet released in 64-bit compatible versions. The
following URL shows the workaround.

http://www.fsckin.com/2007/09/20/how-to-install-adobe-flash-player-for-amd64-64-bit-on-debian-etch/

The nspluginwrapper helped me to run 32-bit flash player in a 64-bit
browser.

I found a problem with this method. All 64-bit browsers in my system are
running flash as a non-root user. But some of them(iceape, epiphany,
konqueror) are not running flash as a root. Iceweasel is running flash as
the user root.

Apart from this, I'm very much satisfied with amd processor. Compared to
Intel it is cheaper and faster.

- Jos Collin

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Jeff Soules <soules@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

AMD is a chip manufacturer. They started out (~20 years ago) as a
"second source" for 286 processors, but since then they have been
producing independently-designed chips within the x86 architecture
(i.e. they use the same instruction set).

(See:
AMD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD
x86 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMDx86> architecture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_architecture)

So 1:
AMD is a separate chip manufacturer. They are now a competitor, not a
second source.

2. Is there any significant architectural differences between the
products
manufactured by these two companies???
Yes. I'm not an expert on what those differences are, but they are
different chips with different hardware details.
It looks like there are differences in the CPU pipeline length (or
used to be), in the way some instructions are implemented, in number
of cores available, etc. You can find out more by googling
"difference between amd and intel architecture" or some such, a lot of
the links I was finding are outdated though. Keep in mind both
companies are releasing new chips every few months; something that was
true in mid-2007 will not necessarily be true any more, etc.

3. I ask the above question because it seems that the chips produced by
one
seem not be be plug in capable with the chips produced by the other
That is correct; they are not plug-in compatible. One needs an Intel
motherboard for Intel processors and an AMD mobo for AMD processors.

4. I also ask the above question because over the last 2 years software
problems "seem" to occur around one but not the other???
I haven't heard anything about this; I'm sure that one chip has
different problems from another, but all have problems.

5. Also, there is a non-i386 computer containing the AMD acronymn listed
with ARM and a dozen other non i386 computers listed by Debian.
Not sure what you're referring to. http://www.debian.org/ports/ lists
the different chip architectures supported by Debian. AMD64 (iirc,
someone will doubtless correct me if I'm wrong) is separate because
AMD chips had real 64-bit support before the Intel ones.
i386 traditionally refers to the 32-bit x86 instruction set.

6. How is it that (for example) the Debian i386 AMD chip (some but not
all)
are more condusive to the Debian kernel for certain kinds of operations
but
not so with the Intel chip?
Not sure what you're referring to. This is a pretty vague statement.

What version of Debian were you planning to run? You should find both
AMD and Intel chips supported perfectly well by the stable branch of
Debian.
The vendors are correct that you must use AMD motherboards with AMD
processors, Intel motherboards with Intel processors; but either one
should be capable of doing what the other does (within 32-bit
applications). AMD implements the i386 instruction set; everything
should work fine there. There will be some differences in 64-bit
land, because not everyone supports 64-bit software at this point
(Java, Flash, etc. are not yet released in 64-bit compatible
versions). This requires some workaround but is generally manageable;
software that is not available in 64-bit versions will usually just be
run in 32-bit compatibility mode. (Modern kernels are available for
both 64-bit and 32-bit architectures, of course; they just won't be
identical, because one is built with 64-bit support, one is not).

This isn't a processor-specific mailing list, so while I'm sure people
here will be able to answer your questions, they won't necessarily be
the best answers. It might be helpful if you could specify why you're
asking, or what exactly you're trying to do.

Best,
Jeff Soules

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ted Hilts <thilts@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Can someone enlighten me regarding my confusion with the term AMD.

1, I know that the term AMD (American Micro Devices) is supposed to be a
'second source' for Intel 32bit and 64bit microprocessors. But it seems
based on what I have read on this relationship between AMD and Intel that
there is controversy, legal actions, competition, and architectural
differences regarding the manufacture and selling of these
microprocessors.
So this suggests to me that AMD is not really a 'second source' (a
licensed second manufacturing and selling source supplier of identical
products as designed and manufactured by another company).

2. Is there any significant architectural differences between the
products
manufactured by these two companies???

3. I ask the above question because it seems that the chips produced by
one
seem not be be plug in capable with the chips produced by the other -- it
seems that the boards produced for one are different that the CPU boards
produced for the other???

4. I also ask the above question because over the last 2 years software
problems "seem" to occur around one but not the other???

5. Also, there is a non-i386 computer containing the AMD acronymn listed
with ARM and a dozen other non i386 computers listed by Debian. I
understand this second listing of non i386 machines (one example being
the
Motorola 68xxx) but am confused about the AMD non i386 machines place in
this listing.

6. How is it that (for example) the Debian i386 AMD chip (some but not
all)
are more condusive to the Debian kernel for certain kinds of operations
but
not so with the Intel chip??? I base this on Debian documentation where
the
Intel chip is not even mentioned.
Bottom line, over the past 2 years I have been struggling with the idea
of
using the correct (if there is such a thing) microprocessor board/chip
combination appropriate for certain operations but not at the exclusion
of
all other possible operations. Maybe I have just confused myself and
every
Intel board/chip combination is replaceable with every AMD board/chip
combination. But this is not what vendors have been telling me. They
are
telling me that on MS Windows OS (eg: XP) I can use either the AMD
board/chip combination or the Intel board/chip combination but the boards
and chips are not mutually compatible - AMD chips must go into AMD boards
and Intel chips must go into Intel boards. Also, I am being told that
some
Debian software will operate on some AMD board/chip combinations but not
others and that this has something to do with the specific kernel where
one
Debian kernel version will not run the same (for certain operations) as
another version.

So, I am confused and frustrated. I used to think that Debian kernels
would
all run without exception on either AMD or Intel board/chip combinations
and
the odd quirk in a kernel version would be resolved with a newer version.
I
was also told that the chip sets (including the MP chip(s) had different
parameters and an Intel chip set combination was not compatible with an
AMD
chip set combination thus making the boards non compatible with one
another.
In fact, I am told, it is these other chips (including and working with
the
MP chip) that account for many differences some of which play havoc with
certain Linux kernels. I am also told that indiscriminate use of a
Debian
kernel may bring problems that occur on an Intel system or vice-versa
for a
AMD system.

Is there a CHART that matches Debian kernels to tested and acceptable AMD
and Intel board/chip set matches while indicating limitations,
constraints,
and possible special operations for both???

I have seen this same question (in a variety of forms) asked on this
forum
as well as others but I haven't seen a complete answer.

Thanks in advance, for any comments, technical references, etc. == Ted
Hilts


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ancient P3 - upgradeable?
    ... games then maybe a motherboard with on-board graphics would be better value ... > roughly equivalent to the Intel Celeron range? ... the non-intel chipmakers could produce chips that behaved exactly like the ... more-or-lss gone away because the AMD chips are not being sold as plug-in ...
    (uk.comp.homebuilt)
  • Re: Ia32
    ... ability to program/control older chips anyway. ... | Intel Pentium II 1997 32-bit ... | with AMD ... | their own independent x86 designs with the AM486, ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: debian-user] Re: AMD vs Intel and the Debian kernel
    ... I know that the term AMD is supposed to be ... a 'second source' for Intel 32bit and 64bit microprocessors. ... They're two totally different chips, ... all) are more condusive to the Debian kernel for certain kinds of ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Re: debian-user] Re: AMD vs Intel and the Debian kernel
    ... AMD is a separate chip manufacturer. ... different chips with different hardware details. ... motherboard for Intel processors and an AMD mobo for AMD processors. ... with ARM and a dozen other non i386 computers listed by Debian. ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Re: Processors
    ... the big difference is that Pentium and Celeron ... AMD is a company that makes processors;-) ... Pentium and Celeron come from the Intel stable. ... Turion (although they make low-power chips like the Geode and many other ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
Loading