# which architecture should I use?



## douglasfim (Dec 14, 2010)

I have a notebook with the processor core i3 350m

I use amd64 or ai64


----------



## vermaden (Dec 14, 2010)

Use amd64, ia64 is Itanium.


----------



## SirDice (Dec 14, 2010)

If you have less then 4GB of memory I'd stick to i386.


----------



## vermaden (Dec 14, 2010)

SirDice said:
			
		

> If you have less then 4GB of memory I'd stick to i386.


Its 2010 (almost 2011), there is no longer need to stick to i386 if You have 64bit CPU.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Dec 14, 2010)

vermaden said:
			
		

> Its 2010 (almost 2011), there is no longer need to stick to i386 if You have 64bit CPU.



I don't think it is a matter of need, but there could be an advantage, no?


----------



## ckester (Dec 14, 2010)

For those who aren't yet bikeshed painters or senior members, some references:

FAQ on i386's memory limit of 4GB.

The FreeBSD AMD64 Project.  Includes link to info page for the freebsd-amd64 mailing list.

A quick forum search turned up at least three previous threads on the topic "i386 or amd64?":
http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=2642
http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=2778
http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=16351


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Dec 16, 2010)

Reading different threads on the subject has not helped me because there is no consensus whatsoever. I still think SirDice has the right idea.

I chose amd64 specifically because I have 8GB memory. However, as I have now spent weeks and still not gotten a desktop system to function acceptably, I start to think that perhaps I should have chosen 32 bit. It's hard to know what is causing problems, so there is always doubt.


----------



## vermaden (Dec 16, 2010)

OJ said:
			
		

> I have now spent weeks and still not gotten a desktop system to function acceptably


What exacly? A 'desktop' term tells nothing really


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Dec 16, 2010)

vermaden said:
			
		

> What exacly? A 'desktop' term tells nothing really


I didn't think this would be an appropriate thread to discuss my problems, but you can see my other threads for specifics. 

As to what might be architecture related I don't know, it is the doubt that lingers ... is that why Konqueror crashes, or 32 bit Linux ports lock up? Who knows? Everyone seems to have different experiences, presumably because they have different hardware and different software mixes. The trouble with comparing architectures is that there are few comparable situations. Sorry if you didn't get that out of the earlier post.


----------



## vermaden (Dec 16, 2010)

@OJ

From what I have seen, besides Konqueror crashes, most of Your problems comes fomr lack of knowledge, mistyped commands, messing ports with packages (we all have these problems sonner or later, but its exacly the same on i386 ... at least for these problems that I have ckecked Your latest threads).

For example VESA framebuffer does not work (or it did not work some time ago) on amd64, but is that 'wallpaper boot' really that needed?


----------



## douglasfim (Dec 16, 2010)

I'm using amd64

my laptop has 3GB DDR3 memory, but I intend to increase 4GB

these days I did a benchmark comparing 32 and 64 bit on my notebook

64bit came out a little better, I also do not have the 32bit version of FreeBSD, amd64 only

I do not want to re-download FreeBSD, my internet is bad "1Mbps"

thanks


----------



## ckester (Dec 16, 2010)

OJ said:
			
		

> Reading different threads on the subject has not helped me because there is no consensus whatsoever.



You're right, there is no consensus.  You'll have to decide for yourself.


----------



## douglasfim (Dec 16, 2010)

my doubt was more between amd64 and ai64

but as they said "ia64 is Itanium"

I thank all


----------



## UNIXgod (Dec 16, 2010)

douglasfim said:
			
		

> my doubt was more between amd64 and ai64
> 
> but as they said "ia64 is Itanium"
> 
> I thank all



It's confusing isn't it. AMD 64-bit implementation succeeded where intel's failed. The open source community kept the name amd64 where intel renamed it EMT64 or what not for obvious reasons. So now you can buy an AMD chip with intels 32-bit instruction set and AMD's 64-bit instruction set or you can buy an Intel with AMD's 64-bit instruction set and intels 32-bit instruction set. crazy.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Dec 16, 2010)

vermaden said:
			
		

> @OJ
> 
> From what I have seen, besides Konqueror crashes, most of Your problems comes fomr lack of knowledge, mistyped commands, messing ports with packages (we all have these problems sonner or later, but its exacly the same on i386 ... at least for these problems that I have ckecked Your latest threads).
> 
> For example VESA framebuffer does not work (or it did not work some time ago) on amd64, but is that 'wallpaper boot' really that needed?



What mistyped commands? Even though I have pretty much only used the command line since the early 80's I still make mistakes, but to suggest that that is the source of my troubles is a little offensive. Especially in the context of making an informed, and individualized,  choice between 32 bit and 64 bit architecture.

As for wallpaper boot (nice expression btw) I agree that it would be a pleasure to avoid that and if it is not supported, then that is a good argument for using amd64. 

PS: fomr, sonner, exacly, and ckecked indeed.


----------



## phoenix (Dec 17, 2010)

UNIXgod said:
			
		

> It's confusing isn't it. AMD 64-bit implementation succeeded where intel's failed. The open source community kept the name amd64 where intel renamed it EMT64 or what not for obvious reasons. So now you can buy an AMD chip with intels 32-bit instruction set and AMD's 64-bit instruction set or you can buy an Intel with AMD's 64-bit instruction set and intels 32-bit instruction set. crazy.



What's worse is that Intel keeps changing the name:  EM64T, IA-32e, Intel64, etc.


----------



## ab (Dec 17, 2010)

I'd like to have Vesa back. My laptop went from i386 to AMD64 this year. I liked the ability to expand my screen's display capacity. Alas, I haven't otherwise bothered as my i386 machines are all accessed over SSH and KDE 4.5's Konsole provides for sizing and screen slicing, no prob.

My T61p, new to me last year, went from 2GB to 4GB of RAM and I made the switch, started from scratch, and completed my third successful install to a now STABLE 8.1 version. The wow features I share during spasms of FreeBSD evangalism include functioning NVidia 3D, which has been quite a kick since it coexists with my wild web-tabbing across three (3) browsers and the aforementioned super-console desktop that I let run all the time.

For me AMD64 is great and the bigger, faster argument easily won me over. Besides, i386 is for your single core hardware, of course.

P.S. thank you to the many on this forum and via freebsd.org for the wealth of information made available to learn and use FreeBSD through your personal contributions.


----------



## ckester (Dec 17, 2010)

ab said:
			
		

> Besides, i386 is for your single core hardware, of course.



???

I'm running i386 on a dual-core Atom with no problems.


----------



## vermaden (Dec 17, 2010)

ckester said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> I'm running i386 on a dual-core Atom with no problems.



He propably thought 'the other way', I assume that he wanted to tell that if You have very old box with small amount of RAM, then get i386.


----------



## o2cool (Dec 25, 2010)

*trying on full on BDS*

Hello, I have been a Slackware user for about 10 years now. I am deciding to find something more BSD-like (Ubuntu drives me nuts). I have a Slackware server that I have built and configured but I am looking for something more fun and something that has better support. I have a AMD K7 board and am wondering which distro I should download. i386? Thank you in advance


----------



## o2cool (Dec 25, 2010)

Oops, meant BSD not BDS. It's early at work this Christmas morning.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Dec 25, 2010)

You should probably also apologize for using the word "distro" around here ... Anyway: amd64 should do for your CPU.


----------



## o2cool (Dec 25, 2010)

DutchDaemon said:
			
		

> You should probably also apologize for using the word "distro" around here ... Anyway: amd64 should do for your CPU.



Sorry for using the word distro. ok now that is out of the way. will the amd64 be ok for a single core processor?


----------



## DutchDaemon (Dec 25, 2010)

Yep.


----------



## phoenix (Dec 29, 2010)

o2cool said:
			
		

> I have a AMD K7 board and am wondering which distro I should download. i386? Thank you in advance



AMD K7 family of CPUs (original Athlon, Athlon-MP, AthlonXP, Duron, etc) are 32-bit CPUs.  Thus, your only option is to run the 32-bit version of FreeBSD, aka i386.

AMD's 64-bit extensions to x86 originated with the K8 family of CPUs (Opteron, Athlon64).


----------

