difference between i386 and i686?
FedoraForum.org - Fedora Support Forums and Community
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20
  1. #1
    nAuticA Guest

    difference between i386 and i686?

    i want to know that what is the meaning and difference between i386 and i686 specified at the end of each package..?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    4,851
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nAuticA
    i want to know that what is the meaning and difference between i386 and i686 specified at the end of each package..?
    Compiled for different CPU architectures. i386 should run fine on anything above a 386 processor. i686 is for newer Pentium processors (by new I mean PII and above), but can also be run on newer Intel Core 2 Duos, Athlons, etc.
    http://www.governmentsecurity.org/archive/t7601.html

    Theoretically, and by the metrics, i686 should be faster than i386 on a 686-compatible computer, assuming the entire system is compild for i686. But whether it would be enough of a difference to be noticeable to the end user? Well, probably not.

    EDIT:
    Just so you know, Fedora is (mostly) compiled to be compatible with i386 even though these days almost all people running Fedora on x86 are on i686 machines. The installer put an i686 kernel on my machine, though. From what I understand the installer is supposed to guess what kernel to install based on detected hardware (IIRC - I remember a bug back awhile where machines with i686-compatible processors were being given the i586 kernel).

    If you're looking at RPM suffixes, as long as you have a Pentium II or later, packages with i686 in the name should be okay, but picking i386 packages to be on the safe side can't hurt.
    Last edited by forkbomb; 9th September 2008 at 01:28 AM.
    - Tom
    "What is freedom? To have the will to be responsible for one's self." - Stirner

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    716
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    So far, I don't see any i686 packages for F9. Correct me if I'm wrong: F9 packages come in 3 flavors:

    x86_64 - AMD64 logo CPUs only
    i386 - All Intel (Pentium and above, not sure about 386 and 486), AMD, Cyrix and other compatibles.
    ppc - Apple-IBM-Motorola Power PC cpus. Only G3 and G4 ?

    (In F8, I can only see glibc.i686 and openssl.i686)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    4,851
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sounds about right. Then again, running uname -a...
    Code:
    Linux emma 2.6.25.14-69.fc8 #1 SMP Mon Aug 4 14:20:24 EDT 2008 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
    I believe the fact that both i686 and i386 are listed is that the kernel is compiled to be compatible with i386, but optimzed for the i686 extensions. As opposed to a "true" i686 distro (like Arch) which couldn't be deployed on 586 or lower. I think...

    I seem to remember a big hurrah going on in the Slackware community with a bunch of users loudly demanding that Slack be recompiled for i686 (from i486) because nobody runs i586 or lower processors these days anyway. I don't know about that assertion, but I remember some folks who know more about compiling coming back and saying that the builds on Slackware's install disks and in the mirrors were i486-compatible but i686-optimized. I think Fedora's builds are in a similar boat.

    EDIT:
    x86_64 - AMD64 logo CPUs only
    Logo? Intel Core 2 Duos run x86_64 just fine and I doubt their boxes have an AMD logo on them! Some purists say that calling an Intel processor AMD64 is evil because one should be vendor neutral, but for end-user intents and purposes, both the Intel Core 2s and Athlon X2 64s can run x86_64 just fine (they use the same basic instruction set - which is really a 64-bit extension for x86).
    Last edited by forkbomb; 9th September 2008 at 01:49 AM.
    - Tom
    "What is freedom? To have the will to be responsible for one's self." - Stirner

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    716
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What about Intel Core Duos? Run x86_64?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Sydney Australia
    Age
    65
    Posts
    2,633
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tjvanwyk
    Logo? Intel Core 2 Duos run x86_64 just fine and I doubt their boxes have an AMD logo on them! Some purists say that calling an Intel processor AMD64 is evil because one should be vendor neutral, but for end-user intents and purposes, both the Intel Core 2s and Athlon X2 64s can run x86_64 just fine (they use the same basic instruction set - which is really a 64-bit extension for x86).
    Actually any EM64T Intel processor (that include many Celeron and P4 chips) can run x64 software even though they aren't true 64 bit processors but the performance improvements are probably not noticeable with the earlier chips.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tlaxcala, México
    Age
    36
    Posts
    3,143
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by briantan
    What about Intel Core Duos? Run x86_64?
    No they don't. I think neither the Core Solos.

    Thanks.
    Joe.
    Notebook: Acer Nitro 5
    AMD Ryzen 5 2500U @ 2.0GHz, 8GB DDR4,
    128GB M.2, 480GB SSD.
    Fedora 32 x86-64.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    4,851
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    According to The Wikipedia, no, the Core Duos are not x86_64.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core

    "Core 2" seems to be a designation that means, "this thing is a 64-bit."
    - Tom
    "What is freedom? To have the will to be responsible for one's self." - Stirner

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Sydney Australia
    Age
    65
    Posts
    2,633
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by joe.pelayo
    No they don't. I think neither the Core Solos.

    Thanks.
    Joe.
    Yes they do.

    We should be careful between what is true 64 bit and what is capable of running 64 bit code. For a more detailed page on Wikipedia see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,952
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I got myself a Core Duo laptop and for a while was surprised why I couldn't get a 64-bit distro to install. No worries abotu it though.
    Desktop (64-bit) - F12, Debian Sid, OpenSUSE 11.2, ArchLinux

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have to say I too am rather confused about which iso('s) I should download. I find I really Like Fedora: And I missed the DVD with Fedora11 that was on Linux format. None of the DVD's I have downloaded have worked satisfactorily, especially after I put in a GeForce 8600GT PCIExpress16 Graphics card. And the mirrors do not appear to have the i686 versions, which might be why I cannot get the SHA-1 's to agree.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think I finally cracked reinstalling Fedora 11: I started with the Net install CD, which installed OK, with the video on the geforce 8600Gt. ~The Fedora 10 DVD from Linux Format only installs with the video on the via chrome motherboard controller. But I still do not know hoe to backup the current setup, so that if I can install the Linux drivers for the N\Vidia 8600Gt, and it does not work, I can at least revert to the situation I have now.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    4,851
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi Bill,

    It may be better to just start up a new thread with your concerns. Your video card concerns really don't have much to do at all with specific architecture compilation tweaks.

    Don't know what you mean by "The Fedora 10 DVD from Linux format" means. Bottom line is that 10:1 (or more) your home machine is x86 compatible so should be fine with the normal i386 install. Depending on how new the machine is, it might be able to run x86_64 (aka AMD64). But if you got it installed and have less than 3GB of memory or so, stop fretting about the chip architecture stuff.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Unhappy Fretting Penguin

    Sorry to have combined two separate issues in one post, but the need to reinstall Fedora 11, arose from being unable( having inadequate knowledge to restore the system to state before I "successfully?" installed NVIDIA drivers, resulting in system not going into GUI.
    Linux Format is a Linux Magazine available in UK, with a"free" DVD with each issue. One DVD I have is the installation DVD for Fedora10, which came with Linux Format magazine. My attempts to download a DVD iso, were unsuccessful in that the resulting DVD's did not work, giving errors( I cannot recall if they were the same errors.
    First way I found of installing Fedora 11 successfully was to install Fedora10, and use preupgrade to upgrade it to fedora11: longwinded, but it worked.
    Second better way was to use Netinstall CD, because it resulted in a better configuration of Virtualization, than starting with Fedora11 i686 Live CD; because I obviously lack the skill to correctly install virtualization.

    My comments about i386 versus i686 are mainly, because I found Fedora's web-site very confusing about what to download: The mirrors (at least in UK have only got 1386)
    I guess I fret, because, all these downloaded DVD iso's take up a lot of disk space

    As regards this computer: It has an 1.87 gigahertz Intel Core 2 Duo:
    Board: ASUSTeK Computer INC. P5VD2-MX SE Rev 1.xx:
    2048 Megabytes Installed Memory
    DISPLAY:
    NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT [Display adapter]
    LGE L1715S [Monitor] (17.1"vis, January 2004)
    So I cannot think it could possibly run 64bit Linux
    Checking the Motherboard manual: It cannot take more than 2GB of RAM, otherwise I would have increased the RAM.

    I will not further comment here about problems trying to install NVIDIA drivers for NVIDIA8600GT video card, except to state that I like Fedora11, especially as its native install virtualization is I find easier to use than Suse11-1's native install virtualization.
    Last edited by Billfoster; 9th October 2009 at 08:45 PM. Reason: small mistakes

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    4,851
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Billfoster
    ...It has an 1.87 gigahertz Intel Core 2 Duo:
    ...
    So I cannot think it could possibly run 64bit Linux
    As far as I know all members of the Core 2 line are 64-bit capable.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What is the difference between i386 and i686
    By vimod.c.nair in forum Hardware & Laptops
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 21st May 2009, 10:37 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2nd July 2005, 11:10 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •