On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:01:51 GMT, f/fgeorge <ffgeorge@yourplace.com>
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:26:03 GMT, CeDeROM <cederom@_remove_tlen.pl>
wrote:

hi :)

Martin 53N 1W wrote:

Considering the number of people running Boinc and s@h, I'm surprised 
that there aren't more 'problems' posts.

because there is still no s@h for freebsd amd64 YET >:[
and boinc does not compile ;)
no seti, no problem, no cry :D

greetz!
cdr

Doesn't the 32 bit program for FreeBSD work?
The AMD 64 chip is NOT optimized for doing the kind of calculations
that Seti does. It would only be barely better than a 32 bit chip of
the same speed if a specific client were written. All in all not a
worthy programming job at this point in time. maybe when Berekeley
gets the programs settled down to where they are not updating the base
program every couple of months it would be worthwhile, but with the
constant changes the advantages just are not enough.

Sorry for replying to my own post but I went and found an "official"
reason the AMD 64 chips are not "better" than they are for Seti.
From John McLeod III, senior volunteer for Boinc...."S@H is mostly
floating point which uses the FPU. It is the IPU that is 64 bit, the
FPU has not changed much. Eventually, I expect 64 bit versions, but
since they will not buy that much, they are not a priority."