Re: debian-user] Re: AMD vs Intel and the Debian kernel
Ted Hilts 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.
You're incorrect. They're two totally different chips, which are mostly
compatible at the instruction level.
The two companies are competitors, not allies/partners.
> 2. Is there any significant architectural differences between the
> products manufactured by these two companies???
Absolutely. They're two totally different chips.
> 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???
That's right, because they're two totally different chips, manufactured
by two different competing companies.
> 4. I also ask the above question because over the last 2 years
> software problems "seem" to occur around one but not the other???
"This" problem occurs around "that" chip/company; "that" problem occurs
around "this" chip/company. Everybody have problems, and the two
chips/companies have different problems because they're two totally
different chips/companies.
> 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.
AMD manufactures both a 386-compatible chip, and non-386-compatible
chips. One chip is more suited for use in 386-compatible computers (such
as most end-user desktop machines); the other is more suited for use in
different applications, perhaps such as "iPhone"-type phones or PDAs or
car stereos or game consoles, etc. (I'm not "up" on the current
hardware, so this is just a generalized answer, and should not be taken
as specific information. Google has all the "real" answers for you.)
> 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.
"Debian i386 AMD chip"? Um, that doesn't even quite make sense. Debian
doesn't manufacture chips. (Well, Ian and Debra may have cooked up a
batch of home-made potato chips on occasion, but I'm not sure about
their home-life, so you'd have to ask them.)
> Maybe I have just confused myself and every Intel board/chip
> combination is replaceable with every AMD board/chip combination.
No, they are not replaceable with each other. It's much like Ford making
pickups and cars and tractors; they're similar in some generalized way,
and they're similar to pickups and cars and tractors from other
manufacturers, but there are significant differences, and you can't
expect to use a Ford tractor diesel motor in a Chevy Volt straight off
the sales lot.
> 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.
True.
> 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.
This is true, just as you wouldn't expect a Ford tractor tire to fit on
a Honda Accord. The Debian kernel has been written/modified to fit some
boards/chips, but not others.
> 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.
In the past, Debian has supported more architectures than other
GNU/Linux OSes and (and I think that may still be true for GNU/Linux,
although I think one of the BSDs has support for more architectures).
> 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???
Hopefully someone else may be able to answer this question.
> 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.
I myself am a bit confused by your post. In the first part, you seem to
indicate that you think all CPUs are created equally, but in the latter
part, you seem to realize that there are differences between different CPUs.
Hopefully, I haven't just added more noise to this list with my response.
--
Kent West <*)))><
http://kentwest.blogspot.com
Reply to: