Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Operating Systems › Linux, Unix › do any of the linuxes support sandy bridge yet?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

do any of the linuxes support sandy bridge yet? - Page 2

post #11 of 18
It's 16 bit programs, not 32 bit, that can't run on the 64 bit operating systems . Even in Windows' case, there really aren't very many 16 bit programs that the modern day computer user wants to run, given that the old 386 was 32 bit capable.

XP x64 just had problems for the first year because most manufacturers weren't writing drivers for it. If you actually had compatible hardware, it worked great.
SUPERPWN
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 4670K Asus z87-Pro MSI GTX 1080 Aero 32GB DDR3 Gskill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorMonitor
4TB Seagate Windows 8 x64 Overlord x270 OC HP ZR27 
MonitorKeyboardPowerAudio
Asus PG279Q G-Tune Topre Realforce 800w Yulong D100 DAC with Denon D7000 headphones 
  hide details  
Reply
SUPERPWN
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 4670K Asus z87-Pro MSI GTX 1080 Aero 32GB DDR3 Gskill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorMonitor
4TB Seagate Windows 8 x64 Overlord x270 OC HP ZR27 
MonitorKeyboardPowerAudio
Asus PG279Q G-Tune Topre Realforce 800w Yulong D100 DAC with Denon D7000 headphones 
  hide details  
Reply
post #12 of 18
i know you can run 32 on 64... buuuuuuut its by doing some weird lib kung fu aint it? (never ran 64 bit linux so idk lol) doesnt that complicate teh system a bit? cause some problems here and there?
Kinda meh now...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PhII 940 BE asus M4N82 Deluxe 2x 8800gts(g92) 2x 1g ocz ddr2 1066 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
/dev/sd[abc] /dev/sr0 WinXP/Linux 22in acer 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
950w rosewill timebomb Antec 900 (2small) Voodoo Deathadder (RED!) X-Trac Pads Ripper XL 
  hide details  
Reply
Kinda meh now...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PhII 940 BE asus M4N82 Deluxe 2x 8800gts(g92) 2x 1g ocz ddr2 1066 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
/dev/sd[abc] /dev/sr0 WinXP/Linux 22in acer 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
950w rosewill timebomb Antec 900 (2small) Voodoo Deathadder (RED!) X-Trac Pads Ripper XL 
  hide details  
Reply
post #13 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by EntTheGod View Post
i know you can run 32 on 64... buuuuuuut its by doing some weird lib kung fu aint it? (never ran 64 bit linux so idk lol) doesnt that complicate teh system a bit? cause some problems here and there?
No, the kernel naturally supports the running of 32bit libs. Really the kernel doesn't give a crap what you throw at it, it generally looks the same as long as you have 32/64 support built in. Use OSX as a good example, it runs both 32bit and 64 bit programs off the same 32bit kernel. =O What!? The 32bit kernel can run 64bit applications? Yes, and the opposite can be done just as easily. There is no kung fu, it's just making sure the 32bit libs are where they are supposed to be: If the system wants them in /lib32 you put them there, if it's in another place like /emu/ia32-linux you put them there (old linux, depreciated now).

Your thinking about this too much, it's not that complicated.
Current Rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.6GHz@1.44v GA-990FXA-UD3 R4.0 HD 7950 (1100/1450) 8G Muskin DDR3 1866@8CLS 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD LiteOn DVD-RW DL Linux/Windows 19" Phillips TV 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
OCZ 600W Generic Junk Logitech MX400 Generic Junk 
Audio
SBL 5.1 
  hide details  
Reply
Current Rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.6GHz@1.44v GA-990FXA-UD3 R4.0 HD 7950 (1100/1450) 8G Muskin DDR3 1866@8CLS 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD LiteOn DVD-RW DL Linux/Windows 19" Phillips TV 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
OCZ 600W Generic Junk Logitech MX400 Generic Junk 
Audio
SBL 5.1 
  hide details  
Reply
post #14 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by EntTheGod View Post
i know you can run 32 on 64... buuuuuuut its by doing some weird lib kung fu aint it? (never ran 64 bit linux so idk lol) doesnt that complicate teh system a bit? cause some problems here and there?
Nope.

The only times you ever have to do any extra work is if you have to compile anything yourself, and the code doesn't specify to look for 64bit libraries in addition to 32bit libraries. All you have to do is either symlink your libraries, or install 32bit libraries. Easy as that.

As for repos (in my case with Fedora), you won't notice a difference. Just install like normal.
Deimos
(13 items)
 
Pluto
(18 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 1090T Biostar TA890FXE Nvidia GTX 470 Corsair Vengence 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 830 MZ-7PC128D/AM Western Digital Black Western Digital Green Western Digital Blue 
CoolingOSOSMonitor
Dtek v2 Water Windows 7 Pro Fedora 16 LG4250 42" LCD TV 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Ergo Silverstone ST-1000P Cooler Master Cosmos 1000 Logitech G500 
Mouse PadAudio
X-Trac Ripper Asus D1 
  hide details  
Reply
Deimos
(13 items)
 
Pluto
(18 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 1090T Biostar TA890FXE Nvidia GTX 470 Corsair Vengence 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 830 MZ-7PC128D/AM Western Digital Black Western Digital Green Western Digital Blue 
CoolingOSOSMonitor
Dtek v2 Water Windows 7 Pro Fedora 16 LG4250 42" LCD TV 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Ergo Silverstone ST-1000P Cooler Master Cosmos 1000 Logitech G500 
Mouse PadAudio
X-Trac Ripper Asus D1 
  hide details  
Reply
post #15 of 18
Linux has had 64-bit support for almost 15 years; it predates Windows 98! It's far, far more stable than Windows 64-bit support will be for at least another decade. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to run 32-bit Linux on a 64-bit capable processor.

As for the Sandy Bridge CPU itself, yes, Linux supports it and has done for well over a year now. But good luck getting a motherboard...
Underground
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 920 C0 ASUS P6T6 WS Revolution GTX 460 TR3X6G1600C8D 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
WD1001FALS SAMSUNG SH-S223F 22X DVD MULTI Corsair H50 Fedora 16 KDE x86_64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
HP w19b Microsoft Comfort Curve Corsair CX600 Thermaltake Armor VA8003BWS 
MouseMouse Pad
Razer DeathAdder Black 
  hide details  
Reply
Underground
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 920 C0 ASUS P6T6 WS Revolution GTX 460 TR3X6G1600C8D 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
WD1001FALS SAMSUNG SH-S223F 22X DVD MULTI Corsair H50 Fedora 16 KDE x86_64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
HP w19b Microsoft Comfort Curve Corsair CX600 Thermaltake Armor VA8003BWS 
MouseMouse Pad
Razer DeathAdder Black 
  hide details  
Reply
post #16 of 18
Since they are X86_64, linux will run on it with no problems.

Actually, linux will "just work" on SB.
 
Gsvlip Dudyrm
(15 items)
 
Oda'maksv
(9 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3770k @ 4.5 1.312 load Zotac Z77 ITX Wifi GTX 1070 Gaming 2126/2249 w/ Hybrid cooler TridentX 16GB 2400MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
Samsung 850 Pro 1TB Seagate 2TB H105 EVGA Hybrid GPU cooler 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Asus MG279Q - 24" 144Hz 1080p Filco Majestic II w/ Cherry Reds Seasonic X 760W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Bitfelix Prodigy Logitech G400 Razer Goliath AKG A701 
AudioAudio
JDS Labs Objective 2 JDS Labs ODAC 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 750 3.99 (190x21) 1.376v Load ASUS P7P55d-E Pro GTX 670 FTW <- Poor overclocker :( 8GB (4x2GB) G.Skill DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
Samsung 830 Evo 128GB 2x 2TB  Some DVD drive OSX 10.10.4 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Asus 1080P Crap TX 750 HAF 922 G400s 
Mouse PadOther
Apple Keyboard Xbox One controler 
CPURAMHard DriveHard Drive
C2D 2,26GHz under volted @ .978v 8GB  Crucial M4 64GB SSD 500GB Scorpio Black 
OSMonitorKeyboardMouse
OS X 10.0 1280x800 Built-in Trackpad 
Audio
Built-in 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Gsvlip Dudyrm
(15 items)
 
Oda'maksv
(9 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3770k @ 4.5 1.312 load Zotac Z77 ITX Wifi GTX 1070 Gaming 2126/2249 w/ Hybrid cooler TridentX 16GB 2400MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
Samsung 850 Pro 1TB Seagate 2TB H105 EVGA Hybrid GPU cooler 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Asus MG279Q - 24" 144Hz 1080p Filco Majestic II w/ Cherry Reds Seasonic X 760W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Bitfelix Prodigy Logitech G400 Razer Goliath AKG A701 
AudioAudio
JDS Labs Objective 2 JDS Labs ODAC 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 750 3.99 (190x21) 1.376v Load ASUS P7P55d-E Pro GTX 670 FTW <- Poor overclocker :( 8GB (4x2GB) G.Skill DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
Samsung 830 Evo 128GB 2x 2TB  Some DVD drive OSX 10.10.4 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Asus 1080P Crap TX 750 HAF 922 G400s 
Mouse PadOther
Apple Keyboard Xbox One controler 
CPURAMHard DriveHard Drive
C2D 2,26GHz under volted @ .978v 8GB  Crucial M4 64GB SSD 500GB Scorpio Black 
OSMonitorKeyboardMouse
OS X 10.0 1280x800 Built-in Trackpad 
Audio
Built-in 
  hide details  
Reply
post #17 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by mushroomboy View Post
Any cpu that supports i686 can run all the binary prior. So i686 can run i386, i486, i586, ect... binary naturally. Since the linux kernel is built to i686 specifications (that or i386) the SB could naturally run the code with out any tweaks or modifications. CPU's don't so much have drivers or support, they have different types of language/code. To make it much easier we now call it x86 architecture, shortened and you can guess why. x*86 would be more correct, but not really needed.

x86_64 was the standard for 64bit set by AMD, mainly because it was better than what Intel created themselves (I think?). Their is the IA64, which IS NOT compatable with AMD cpu's. Though I think Intel tries to make all it's cpu's x86_64 friendly.

Short story, x86 designed cpu's can now run anything in the *86 family, whether it's i386 to i686. It will be this way for every x86 designed cpu.
intel's solution to 64 bit was to come out with a new architecture, you might have heard of the chip before, the itanium (it was a serious flop cause it didn't have backward compatibility with x86.)

i've come across a few of them in my day, not a whole lot work on them, even compiling from source is tedious, cause you have to modify the code here and there, and the distro choices for them are very "slim" and windows offering is even slimmer, i think the only windows install for them is nt4.0

they are great number crunchers, very fast in that aspect, i know guys who buy them slap a few together in a daisy chain, and then sell them to college kids to use as personal super computers.

and just a little technical nerd thing, x86_64 is sorta not a true 64 bit architecture, it can process 64 bit integers yeah, but its physical and virtue addressing space is only 48 bits, unless they extended to 52 bits like they were talking about, they also on this instruction set, extended the PAE feature from 36 bits to 52 bits (which pretty much gave it the same amount of addressable memory capabilities as it would running in 64bit "mode", so there is still some life left in the 32 bit x86 )
Bazinga Punk
(12 items)
 
ooh shiny!
(6 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Xeon 3440 AsRock P55 extreme Evga 8800 GT 512 MB Gskill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Western Digital Blue Antec Khuler 620 Ubuntu 11.10 Asus vw264H 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
GIGABYTE KM7600 CORSAIR TX 650 Cooler Master 590 GIGABYTE GM-M6800 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core I5 6500 Gigabyte z170xp-SLI Nvidia 970gtx Corsair 16gb ddr4 2666mhz  
Hard DriveOS
250gb Samsung Evo 850 Windows 10 & Ubuntu 15.10 
  hide details  
Reply
Bazinga Punk
(12 items)
 
ooh shiny!
(6 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Xeon 3440 AsRock P55 extreme Evga 8800 GT 512 MB Gskill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Western Digital Blue Antec Khuler 620 Ubuntu 11.10 Asus vw264H 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
GIGABYTE KM7600 CORSAIR TX 650 Cooler Master 590 GIGABYTE GM-M6800 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core I5 6500 Gigabyte z170xp-SLI Nvidia 970gtx Corsair 16gb ddr4 2666mhz  
Hard DriveOS
250gb Samsung Evo 850 Windows 10 & Ubuntu 15.10 
  hide details  
Reply
post #18 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by transhour View Post
intel's solution to 64 bit was to come out with a new architecture, you might have heard of the chip before, the itanium (it was a serious flop cause it didn't have backward compatibility with x86.)

i've come across a few of them in my day, not a whole lot work on them, even compiling from source is tedious, cause you have to modify the code here and there, and the distro choices for them are very "slim" and windows offering is even slimmer, i think the only windows install for them is nt4.0

they are great number crunchers, very fast in that aspect, i know guys who buy them slap a few together in a daisy chain, and then sell them to college kids to use as personal super computers.

and just a little technical nerd thing, x86_64 is sorta not a true 64 bit architecture, it can process 64 bit integers yeah, but its physical and virtue addressing space is only 48 bits, unless they extended to 52 bits like they were talking about, they also on this instruction set, extended the PAE feature from 36 bits to 52 bits (which pretty much gave it the same amount of addressable memory capabilities as it would running in 64bit "mode", so there is still some life left in the 32 bit x86 )
Yeah, I'm aware x86_64 isn't quite true 64bit, but it's close. I don't care about the debate as far as that goes, from our standpoint it executes 64bit code properly. I believe the reason was to keep 32bit support and allow the multi-lib solutions we have today. The original solutions Intel created could do 32bit environments but the AMD solution provided a better alternative (speed). I believe that they originally used the x86_64 specs designed by AMD and went from there.

I also know that IA64 is a completely different architecture, that's why I said it wasn't compatable. A person who installs an x86_64 OS and then wants to get an IA64 chip will run into problems, that's all that really matters.

[edit] I too know people who use Itaniums, but it's all server or farm work. I also guess they originally could do 32-bit code but dropped it because they couldn't get the implementation as quickly as AMD. They ended up doing a mix of patent sharing so that they both could be happy, Intel got x86_64 and I'm betting AMD ended up paying less for x86 patents.
Edited by mushroomboy - 2/10/11 at 12:24pm
Current Rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.6GHz@1.44v GA-990FXA-UD3 R4.0 HD 7950 (1100/1450) 8G Muskin DDR3 1866@8CLS 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD LiteOn DVD-RW DL Linux/Windows 19" Phillips TV 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
OCZ 600W Generic Junk Logitech MX400 Generic Junk 
Audio
SBL 5.1 
  hide details  
Reply
Current Rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.6GHz@1.44v GA-990FXA-UD3 R4.0 HD 7950 (1100/1450) 8G Muskin DDR3 1866@8CLS 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD LiteOn DVD-RW DL Linux/Windows 19" Phillips TV 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
OCZ 600W Generic Junk Logitech MX400 Generic Junk 
Audio
SBL 5.1 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Linux, Unix
Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Operating Systems › Linux, Unix › do any of the linuxes support sandy bridge yet?