> > > What sort of tasks? I can believe heavily FP intensive tasks (like > > > multimedia) are easier on an Athlon (even better on a PPC 9450 Iwould > > > have thought) but I find that the significant cache on the processor I'm > > > using makes a big difference on lots of other stuff. Plus the lower (in > You're living in a dream world ~:^) No I'm exagerating somewhat.
I'm not claiming that compaired to the *latest* x86 chips I'm getting better performance but I find [no figures on this - this a just a rough guestimate based on how it feels to me] I can easily match and often beat the performance of x86 machines of 2 -> 3 times the clock speed. TBH the only difference I really notice between this UIIi based machine and the ~2Ghz P4 I'm using at work is when I'm using Mozilla. > Don't get wrong, I'm no -anything- > lover, and my company sells US2 based machines, but in the 6 years > between when a 333 MHz US2 U5/10 was kinda state of the art, and when > the Athlon XP2000 was kinda state of the art, X86 technology just got up > and left the solar system. A more appropriate question is which would > you rather have: the 333MHz U5 or a 450MHz P2 from roughly the same era? > The ultraSPARC box obviously has much better performance headroom and > therefore a much longer useful lifespan. Based on the era there is clearly no competition - what I guess I should have said is that the UIIi I'm using seems capabile of matching most of the x86 desktop machines I encounter on a daily basis for most tasks. Sorry I'm working lots ATM and get a bit sketchy when I need sleep this much :-\ Cheers, - Martin -- Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Seasons change, things come to pass"
