Re: Intel EMT64 Xeon vs AMD Opteron

2005-02-07 Thread Chris Dillon
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Scott Long wrote: With FreeBSD, it's a bit of a toss-up. There is no strong affinity set or enforced between process memory and where the process is running. Having some notion of affinity (i.e. NUMA support) would be a good thing. Oh, and the 4+2 configurations are

Re: Intel EMT64 Xeon vs AMD Opteron

2005-02-05 Thread Freebsd9999
In a message dated 2/4/05 11:29:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: D'oh. One other thing. In the benchmarks I've seen, Opterons Play Nicer with SMP because of the Hypertransport setup in some applications. (IE, they don't fight over memory the way Xeons do). Look for a

Re: Intel EMT64 Xeon vs AMD Opteron

2005-02-04 Thread Claus Guttesen
Cost wise, AMD Opteron 246 is roughly the same cost as a 3.0Ghz Xeon ... But how do they compare performance wise; specifically related to FreeBSD? We have a dual xeon (nocona) @ 3.2 GHz and a dual opteron @ 2 GHz, both with 4 GB RAM and running the amd64-port. My impression is that the

Re: Intel EMT64 Xeon vs AMD Opteron

2005-02-04 Thread Freebsd9999
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Cost wise, AMD Opteron 246 is roughly the same cost as a 3.0Ghz Xeon ... But how do they compare performance wise; specifically related to FreeBSD? We have a dual xeon (nocona) @ 3.2 GHz and a dual opteron @ 2 GHz, both with 4 GB RAM and running the amd64-port. My

Re: Intel EMT64 Xeon vs AMD Opteron

2005-02-04 Thread Astrodog
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 11:37:08 +0100 (CET), Claus Guttesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cost wise, AMD Opteron 246 is roughly the same cost as a 3.0Ghz Xeon ... But how do they compare performance wise; specifically related to FreeBSD? We have a dual xeon (nocona) @ 3.2 GHz and a dual opteron

Re: Intel EMT64 Xeon vs AMD Opteron

2005-02-04 Thread Astrodog
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:38:43 -0800, Astrodog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 11:37:08 +0100 (CET), Claus Guttesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cost wise, AMD Opteron 246 is roughly the same cost as a 3.0Ghz Xeon ... But how do they compare performance wise; specifically

Re: Intel EMT64 Xeon vs AMD Opteron

2005-02-04 Thread Scott Long
Astrodog wrote: On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 11:37:08 +0100 (CET), Claus Guttesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cost wise, AMD Opteron 246 is roughly the same cost as a 3.0Ghz Xeon ... But how do they compare performance wise; specifically related to FreeBSD? We have a dual xeon (nocona) @ 3.2 GHz and a dual

Re: Intel EMT64 Xeon vs AMD Opteron

2005-02-04 Thread Scott Long
Astrodog wrote: On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:38:43 -0800, Astrodog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 11:37:08 +0100 (CET), Claus Guttesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cost wise, AMD Opteron 246 is roughly the same cost as a 3.0Ghz Xeon ... But how do they compare performance wise; specifically

Intel EMT64 Xeon vs AMD Opteron

2005-02-03 Thread Nathan Vidican
Hey all, Just looking for general opinions and/or advice regarding use of one over the other. Cost wise, AMD Opteron 246 is roughly the same cost as a 3.0Ghz Xeon ... But how do they compare performance wise; specifically related to FreeBSD? (Not subscribed to both lists I sent this to, please

Re: Intel EMT64 Xeon vs AMD Opteron

2005-02-03 Thread Nick Pavlica
I think this would depend on your application, but I have hear allot of good things about AMD 64. --Nick On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 17:04:21 -0500, Nathan Vidican [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey all, Just looking for general opinions and/or advice regarding use of one over the other. Cost wise,

Re: Intel EMT64 Xeon vs AMD Opteron

2005-02-03 Thread pete wright
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:41:43 -0700, Nick Pavlica [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think this would depend on your application, but I have hear allot of good things about AMD 64. --Nick On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 17:04:21 -0500, Nathan Vidican [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey all, Just looking for