[rescue] The best 'rescue' workstation

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

Sun, 24 Apr 2005 @ 22:45 +0100, Mike Meredith said:

> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 17:07:19 -0400, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> > Given that AMD seems about 30% faster clock-for-clock, it would be
> > interesting to see this test run on something like a fairly low end
> > AMD64, like my 3000.
> 
> I would have included the AMD64 results, but it's tough trying to figure
> out what their clock speed *really* is. 

Not sure what you mean... 

For example, I have an AMD 3000, which is a 2.0GHz CPU.  It's called a
3000 because it runs as well as a 3GHz Intel.  Having played with both,
I'd say that's pretty accurate.

Do you mean because they use the Intel-equivalent model number?

Or were you talking about the Opteron naming scheme?

It might be hard to tell from the name alone, but the specs have the
absolute clock speed.

AMD does this because in the PC market, the buyers base their decisions
on MHz.  They were losing sales to Intel based on clock speed alone,
even to shops that should have known better.

> Certainly the results are at http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/

For particular machines, yeah.

I would like to run the test on my own system.  Didn't see anything
there like mine.


-- 
shannon "AT" widomaker.com -- ["The determined programmer can write a
FORTRAN program in any language." ]