http://www.2cpu.com/review.php?id=110&page=1

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:58:23 +0100, EdG <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

Opteron got preety much fuxored in the poo hole in Linux kernel bench.
Something was fishy, well "The Black Scholes kernel benchmark is one that
Jim and I were turned onto by the guys at Intel." yep, great test :]
Power consumption says it all, Intel goes for brute force (as much silicon
as 700W PS can handle)

--
I really have no idea what this means. And since I can't install linux on
it, I'm gonna go back to surfing pr0n.
the penguins are psychotic / just smile and wave

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:03:40 +0100, "hackbox.info"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:58:23 +0100, EdG <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>Opteron got preety much fuxored in the poo hole in Linux kernel bench.

I'm not sure that's entirely the case. Remember this is a single-core
Opteron that was released August 5th of 2003 being compared against a
3.8GHz Xeon released Sept. 26th of 2005 and a dual-core Xeon that
won't be released for several months yet.

In short, there really isn't much you can read into the comparative
scores of the various chips.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:30:06 -0500, Tony Hill <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:03:40 +0100, "hackbox.info"
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:58:23 +0100, EdG <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>Opteron got preety much fuxored in the poo hole in Linux kernel bench.
>
>I'm not sure that's entirely the case. Remember this is a single-core
>Opteron that was released August 5th of 2003 being compared against a
>3.8GHz Xeon released Sept. 26th of 2005 and a dual-core Xeon that
>won't be released for several months yet.
>
>In short, there really isn't much you can read into the comparative
>scores of the various chips.

I think it's pretty clear that Intel is operating in post-disaster recovery
mode: "...invited to fly out to Oregon and spend some quality time at
Intel's Jones Farm campus" == "get some of those Web site dupes to publish
*our* benchmark numbers"... "make them feel like they've been summoned to
the highest office on the planet"... "oh and use the 'bent' compilers".:-)

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:58:23 -0600, EdG <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>http://www.2cpu.com/review.php?id=110&page=1

No surprise - 2 year old single core 130nm Opty246 beaten by not yet
released latest and greatest Intel 65nm dual core (though 246 still
managed to win a few benchmarks). Should've been matched to 280, or to
quad 852(equal core number) - the picture would've been different. By
the time Dempsey is released in quantities, AMD will probably have
something a few speed grades up from 280.

NNN

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 23:24:36 GMT, "(E-Mail Removed)"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:58:23 -0600, EdG <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>http://www.2cpu.com/review.php?id=110&page=1
>
>No surprise - 2 year old single core 130nm Opty246 beaten by not yet
>released latest and greatest Intel 65nm dual core (though 246 still
>managed to win a few benchmarks). Should've been matched to 280, or to
>quad 852(equal core number) - the picture would've been different. By
>the time Dempsey is released in quantities, AMD will probably have
>something a few speed grades up from 280.
>
>NNN

Lets hope so for AMD's sake, but AMD has been on a pretty steady course
since the Hammer was released, hopefully they'll gain a few % more of
share before Intel can stop the Opteron train.

Compared to a Quad 852 the Intel would have lost 7 out of 10 benchmarks.
;p