[rescue] The best 'rescue' workstation

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

Mon, 25 Apr 2005 @ 07:24 +0100, Mike Meredith said:

> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 20:07:05 -0400, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> > Sun, 24 Apr 2005 @ 22:45 +0100, Mike Meredith said:
> > > I would have included the AMD64 results, but it's tough trying to
> > > figure out what their clock speed *really* is. 
> 
> Perhaps I should have said it's tough trying to figure out what their
> clock speed is from the SPEC results list. I wasn't going to hunt down
> the real clock speed ... I'm lazy :)

Ah, gotcha.

It seems that the AMD64s and Opterons do pretty well.

> I guess it would be a case of identifying another reasonable benchmark
> then. At least between us, we've probably got a way of generating a
> reasonable comparison list.

I saw a few FX53 CPUs, and I assume that means the newer 64-bit AMDs
that use a 39/40 type socket.

I've got the previous generation with a single-channel memory
controller.  Interestingly, this thing outruns the memory on most of the
other CPUs that have dual channel memory controllers.

The dual-channel new-socket AMD CPUs can move data quite fast.

What I'm interested in though is how fast the 4-way and 8-way AMD
systems can run.

Also interesting is the increasing use of HyperTransport, and I've read
some things about upcoming improvements and more channels that sounds
interesting.

Now if only someone would get rid of the crappy BIOS...

Evil thought: Now is about the time for someone like Sun to decide that
PC BIOS is cool, and start building their machines to require video to
use the BIOS...

(shudders)

-- 
shannon "AT" widomaker.com -- ["Star Wars Moral Number 17: Teddy bears are
dangerous in herds."]