AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD

Jon Noack noackjr at
Sun Jun 27 11:37:46 PDT 2004

On 06/27/04 03:06, Remi wrote:
> See that's I'm thinking, the raw performance is very attractive to me!! So
> what's this about a p4 1.7 outperforming a 2.8? You got link to benchmarks?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel O'Connor [mailto:doconnor at] 
> Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 8:23 PM
> To: freebsd-current at; obrien at
> Cc: Remi; questions at; current at
> Subject: Re: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD
> Hash: SHA1
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 08:30, David O'Brien wrote:
>>> I have a choice between AMD64 3200+ and a P4 2.8GHz with HT.
>>> Which one would you guys recommend to run FreeBSD. Obviously the
>>> i386 would be easier to run, so I guess my question is what is
>>> the state of the AMD64 FreeBSD version?
>> You do know you can run FreeBSD/i386 on the Athlon64 3200+ laptop, 
>> right? :-) A 3200+ running 32-bit FreeBSD will out-perform the P4 
>> 2.8GHz running the same OS.
> A Pentium-M 1.7Ghz will outperform a 2.8Ghz P4 too ;)
> If battery life is important to you I'd suggest not getting an AMD64.
> For raw performance it's "pretty nice" though :)

He said "Pentium-M".  It's a completely different processor than the 
Pentium 4-M.  Designed for mobile computing, it is best described as 
combining the best features of the Pentium 3 (short(er) pipeline, etc.) 
and the Pentium 4 (better branch predictor, etc.) with high-end power 
saving features to form a third processor far superior to the previous two.

Here's a first look at the chip:

Some benchmarks where a 1.6GHz Pentium-M destroys a 2.2GHz Pentium 4-M:

Battery life in the 6+ hour range is common with Pentium-M laptops. 
Here's the first look results (note the Pentium 4-M had a battery with 
over 20% greater capacity!):

If you value battery life, go with the Pentium-M.  If you *most highly* 
value performance, the Athlon64 is probably the way to go.


More information about the freebsd-current mailing list