Re: debian-user] Re: AMD vs Intel and the Debian kernel
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 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the links I was finding are outdated though.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@mcsnet.ca> 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
Reply to: