From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266119AbTGDSra (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:47:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266122AbTGDSra (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:47:30 -0400 Received: from 82-43-130-207.cable.ubr03.mort.blueyonder.co.uk ([82.43.130.207]:46221 "EHLO efix.biz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266119AbTGDSrU (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:47:20 -0400 Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.22-pre2 and AthlonMP? From: Edward Tandi To: Kernel mailing list Cc: willy@w.ods.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk In-Reply-To: <1056848334.2332.6.camel@wires.home.biz> References: <1056833424.30265.39.camel@wires.home.biz> <1056837060.6778.2.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> <1056840603.30264.45.camel@wires.home.biz> <1056842271.6753.19.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> <1056845040.2315.27.camel@wires.home.biz> <1056848334.2332.6.camel@wires.home.biz> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1057345339.2349.81.camel@wires.home.biz> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.0 Date: 04 Jul 2003 20:02:19 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2003-06-29 at 01:58, Edward Tandi wrote: > The what processor thread... For purely academic interest, and to satisfy my own curiosity, I have pulled the two processors out of the box to examine their markings. Here they are: Processor 1 ----------- | AHX1200AMS3C == Athlon MP 1200MHz (0.18um), CPGA package, 1.75V, 95'C max temp, 256K L2 cache, 266MHz max bus speed. | AGKGA 0137MPMW Athlon XP Palomino core, manufactured 37th week of the year 2001. Processor 2 ----------- | AHX1200AMS3C == Athlon MP 1200MHz (0.18um), CPGA package, 1.75V, 95'C max temp, 256K L2 cache, 266MHz max bus speed. | AGHCA 0129CPAW Unknown core, manufactured 29th week of the year 2001. So although they look identical, have the same model number and were produced only 8 weeks apart, they really do have a different stepping (and core) identifier. I couldn't find what the AGHCA corresponded to. Ed-T. > > I have to admit, I have noticed something a little odd coming out of > > /proc/cpuinfo: > > > > processor : 0 > > vendor_id : AuthenticAMD > > cpu family : 6 > > model : 6 > > model name : AMD Athlon(tm) MP > > stepping : 1 > > cpu MHz : 1194.690 > > cache size : 256 KB > > fdiv_bug : no > > hlt_bug : no > > f00f_bug : no > > coma_bug : no > > fpu : yes > > fpu_exception : yes > > cpuid level : 1 > > wp : yes > > flags : fpu vme de tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca > > cmov pat > > pse36 mmx fxsr sse syscall mmxext 3dnowext 3dnow > > bogomips : 2385.51 > > > > processor : 1 > > vendor_id : AuthenticAMD > > cpu family : 6 > > model : 6 > > model name : AMD Athlon(tm) Processor > > stepping : 2 > > cpu MHz : 1194.690 > > cache size : 256 KB > > fdiv_bug : no > > hlt_bug : no > > f00f_bug : no > > coma_bug : no > > fpu : yes > > fpu_exception : yes > > cpuid level : 1 > > wp : yes > > flags : fpu vme de tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca > > cmov pat > > pse36 mmx fxsr sse syscall mmxext 3dnowext 3dnow > > bogomips : 2385.51 > > > > What confuses me here is how on earth the second processor reports > > itself without the "MP" bit and with a stepping of 2. They were > > identical processors when I put them in and I haven't touched them > > since. Is there any way this could be reported wrongly? > > Further info on this, x86info gives the following results: > > x86info v1.7. Dave Jones 2001 > Feedback to . > > Found 2 CPUs > CPU #1 > Family: 6 Model: 6 Stepping: 1 [Athlon 4 (Palomino core) Rev A2] > Processor name string: AMD Athlon(tm) MP > > PowerNOW! Technology information > Available features: > Temperature sensing diode present. > > CPU #2 > Family: 6 Model: 6 Stepping: 2 [Athlon MP] > Processor name string: AMD Athlon(tm) Processor > > PowerNOW! Technology information > Available features: > Temperature sensing diode present.