what do i386 and i686 refer to?
Jim Kroger
versions. I had to get a "kernel" and another file to go with it. I was
told I need i686, but while there was a i686 version of one, there was
only a i386 version of the other.
I'm running Red Hat 7.3 on a Dell c830 laptop.
Many thanks for any assistance.
Jim
bd
> When getting a video driver, I noticed there were i386 and i686
> versions. I had to get a "kernel" and another file to go with it. I was
> told I need i686, but while there was a i686 version of one, there was
> only a i386 version of the other.
>
> I'm running Red Hat 7.3 on a Dell c830 laptop.
i386 is safe, but if your CPU can handle it, i686 is faster.
On a console, type 'cat /proc/meminfo'. You should see something like:
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 8
model name : Celeron (Coppermine)
stepping : 6
cpu MHz : 797.591
cache size : 128 KB
fdiv_bug : no
hlt_bug : no
f00f_bug : no
coma_bug : no
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 2
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 mmx fxsr sse
bogomips : 1592.52
Since the cpu family is 6, i686 should work for me, as well as i586,
i486, and i386.
Jean-David Beyer
> On Mon, 26 May 2003 12:52:25 +0000, Jim Kroger wrote:
>
>
>>When getting a video driver, I noticed there were i386 and i686
>>versions. I had to get a "kernel" and another file to go with it. I was
>>told I need i686, but while there was a i686 version of one, there was
>>only a i386 version of the other.
>>
>>I'm running Red Hat 7.3 on a Dell c830 laptop.
>
>
> i386 is safe, but if your CPU can handle it, i686 is faster.
>
> On a console, type 'cat /proc/meminfo'. You should see something like:
Better change that to:
On a console, type 'cat /proc/cpuinfo'. You should see something like:
---
> processor : 0
> vendor_id : GenuineIntel
> cpu family : 6
> model : 8
> model name : Celeron (Coppermine)
> stepping : 6
> cpu MHz : 797.591
> cache size : 128 KB
> fdiv_bug : no
> hlt_bug : no
> f00f_bug : no
> coma_bug : no
> fpu : yes
> fpu_exception : yes
> cpuid level : 2
> wp : yes
> flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 mmx fxsr sse
> bogomips : 1592.52
>
>
> Since the cpu family is 6, i686 should work for me, as well as i586,
> i486, and i386.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 1:35pm up 7 days, 19:09, 2 users, load average: 2.07, 1.93, 2.01
Matthew Miller
>Since the cpu family is 6, i686 should work for me, as well as i586,
>i486, and i386.
But beware that i586 is a weird one, and will probably run *slower* on i686
than i386 will.
--
Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
Jim Kroger
Is it the cpu? What is an architecture?
Thanks
Jim
--
A list of jazz guitar instruction websites:
www-personal.umich.edu/~jimkk/jazzfast.html
rseegmoarjk
Travis Casey
> Nobody has yet said what i386 and i686 refer to.
>
> Is it the cpu? What is an architecture?
The CPU used in the original IBM PCs was the 8088, which was a version of
their 8086 CPU with the data bus cut from 16 to 8 bits. Intel continued to
produce new CPUs which were backwards-compatible with the 8086/8... and
later models of PCs used those CPUs.
The next was the 80186, which wasn't much used. (No, I don't know why.)
Then came the 80286, which IBM used for its PC-AT... and which therefore was
also used by makers of PC "clones". Then came the 32-bit 80386, which
first Compaq and then IBM used in PC-compatibles. There was also a version
of the 80386 which was 32 bits internally, but had a 16-bit data bus,
called the 80386SX.
Some other chip makers started making compatible CPUs, and also marketing
them as "80286" and "80386" CPUs. Intel sued for trademark infringement,
but the courts held that a part number could not be a valid trademark.
People generally called the "80286" and "80386" not by their full part
numbers, but just "286" and "386". So Intel decided to follow that pattern
themselves, and their next CPU was advertised not as the "80486", but the
"486DX", with a cut-down version (no built-in floating-point unit) called
the "486SX". When other chip makers tried to put out there own "486DX"
chips, Intel again sued... and again got struck down, with the court
holding that "486DX" was not a valid trademark.
So for their next CPU, Intel avoided numbers entirely, and called what would
have been the "80586" by the original scheme the "Pentium"... but many
people called it a "586" anyways.. Then came the "Pentium Pro", based on a
new design, and called by some the "686". The Pentium II and Pentium III
follow the basic Pentium Pro design, so they are also considered "686"
chips.
The "i" is for "Intel". All the CPUs are backwards compatible, so an "i686"
processor will run code written for an "i386"... the code just isn't
optimized for it.
An "architecture" is essentially the design of the chip's internals.
--
ZZzz |\ _,,,---,,_ Travis S. Casey <efi...@earthlink.net>
/,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ No one agrees with me. Not even me.
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_)
Christopher Browne
> Nobody has yet said what i386 and i686 refer to.
>
> Is it the cpu? What is an architecture?
"i386" refers to the architecture ("design") of the Intel ("i" is for
"Intel") 80386 processor.
The 80386 was the first kind of processor on which Linux was made to
run.
"i686" refers to a later series, again from Intel, of processors with
additional capabilities and instructions. Intel decided by that point
not to number them as "80686", due to inability to put trademarks on
numbers. "i686" points to the Pentium Pro and Pentium II chips, which
notably added in MMX instructions.
The notion of "architecture" is related to that of "design;" these
"architectures" involve computer CPUs with particular sets of
capabilities. When someone "architects" a building, that involves
designing in building features to fit with purposes planned for the
building, as well as engaging in actvities fitting with the design of
the building.
The designers of computer processors generally build a variety of
related CPUs; the "architecture" addresses things like:
- the way registers are set up; these are "memory cells" on the
chip that are used to store addresses or values that are to be
processed;
- the model by which memory will be addressed;
- the set of instructions used to control the CPU.
Intel produced "80386" processors with varying sets of features; the
"architecture" characterizes the similarities between those
processors.
Later designs from Intel have generally been derivative of the earlier
ones. Code written for "80386" chips generally runs quite well on
later models, and, indeed, on later architectures such as i486, i586,
and i686. The later series' offer additional capabilities, but it is
not always mandatory to make use of all the "new stuff."
--
"cbbrowne","@","ntlug.org"
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/sgml.html
"you can obvioulsy understand what i'm saying. you're just being
pendantic." -- bazz...@yahoo.com
Jim Kroger
Jim
In article <baugd5$3mhc7$2...@ID-125932.news.dfncis.de>,
Christopher Browne <cbbr...@acm.org> wrote:
--
Jim Kroger
Charles A. Burge
All of which shows that today's Pentiums are basically souped-up 386's.
In nearly ten years there has been much that was an improvement of
existing technology but little that was revolutionary or innovative. At
least from Intel, that is.
Cheers,
Charles A. Burge
notbob
http://web.textfiles.com/computers/EDDYHAWK/mcpu2.txt
nb
Maurits van de Kamp
> All of which shows that today's Pentiums are basically souped-up 386's.
> In nearly ten years there has been much that was an improvement of
> existing technology but little that was revolutionary or innovative. At
> least from Intel, that is.
To me they're all souped-up 8080's, selected by IBM because they were
bad enough to prevent their pc from competing with their own Vax. :)
The first thing from Intel that I can take seriously is the Itanium,
which (supposedly) is finally free of 1970's legacies.
Maurits.
James Knott
I see he missed the 8008, which was between the 4004 and 8080. It was
originally designed to be used in Datapoint terminals.
--
Fundamentalism is fundamentally wrong.
To reply to this message, replace everything to the left of "@" with
james.knott.
Matthew Miller
>All of which shows that today's Pentiums are basically souped-up 386's.
>In nearly ten years there has been much that was an improvement of
>existing technology but little that was revolutionary or innovative. At
>least from Intel, that is.
Well, there is, in Itanium, but no one wants it.
And actually, there's quite a bit behind-the-scenes improvements in the x86
line....