On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 08:32:20PM -0300, JoaoBR wrote: > On Friday 31 August 2007 02:38:52 Björn König wrote: > > JoaoBR wrote: > > > but athlon64-x2 for S940 and athlon64-am2 for sse3 capable cpus would be > > > kind of understandable for all > > > [...] > > > venice as said in another mail is not clear for all people and certainly > > > it does not appear on the box or elsewhere > > > > I think the names "athlon64-x2" and "athlon64-am2" would be most confusing > > and ambiguous, because the socket has nothing to do with the feature set > > of the CPU. Athlon64 X2 CPUs are not only available for socket 940, but > > also for AM2 and 939. There are SSE3 CPUs that fit into 940, AM2 and 939. > > > > well, the x2 thing I wasn't thinking it through and you are right, > what I meant to say that so far as I know all S939-X2 are SSE3 capable > and rev-E at least as all am2 are > > so eventually, athlon64-E would be more appropriate (with proper man Why? athlon64-E should apply to athlon64 rev's F & G? k8-sse3 seems best - with aliases for athlon64-sse3 and opteron-sse3. > opterons are not easy but it is already kind of advanced cpu so could be Why are Opteron's any harder? -- -- David (obrien_at_FreeBSD.org) Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. A: Why is top-posting (putting a reply at the top of the message) frowned upon? Let's not play "Jeopardy-style quoting"Received on Fri Aug 31 2007 - 22:07:26 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:17 UTC