I've seen a similar behaviour, but not such a big swing. The P4s Xeons
were more than 40% slower than the Opterons. The current generation of
Xeons however do bettter by 10% over the Opterons. Of course you need to
also weigh in the cost of the chips, but looking at the system as a whole
that isn't as large an effect.
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Miles O'Neal wrote:
Troy Dawson said...
|It really comes down to your application. If possible, try it on two
|comparable CPU setups, one AMD and one Intel. I've seen some wildly lopsided
|tests, try to at least give them the same amount of memory and the same disks.
|Then run your application on it, and see which is faster.
|
|That's how I decided I like the Opteron. On my tests (recompiling rpm's) the
|Opteron beat the Xeon. But I saw other people with the exact same setup, and
|for them the Xeon beat the Opteron. It all came down to the application.
And that can change over time. For years
we bought only AMD-based systems, because
most of our apps consistently ran better
on them. Then we found a couple that were
decidely better on INtel. When we tested
equivalent servers for the last set of
compute farm systems, Intel won hands down.
-Miles
--
/------------------------------------+-------------------------\
|Stephen J. Gowdy, SLAC | CERN Office: 32-2-A22|
|http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~gowdy/ | CH-1211 Geneva 23 |
| | Switzerland |
|EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Tel: +41 22 767 5840 |
\------------------------------------+-------------------------/
