The Pifast and Sciencemark access latency tests? They're "lower is better" tests. If I've got the wrong graphs, let me know and I'll triple check, but I think everything is correct.Originally Posted by Spoonbender
Rys
The Pifast and Sciencemark access latency tests? They're "lower is better" tests. If I've got the wrong graphs, let me know and I'll triple check, but I think everything is correct.Originally Posted by Spoonbender
Rys
MOLLY AND POPPY!
Here's a quote from my posting, the one which you are supposedly replying to:Originally Posted by satanskji
"suggest a few real-world Linux 64 applications used by professionals and I'm sure the suggestions will be taken on board for future testing"
So, yes, I was talking EXACTLY about 64-bit benchmarking. And what you suggestered WERE NOT 64-bit Linux apps. You did not read my posting in any detail whatsoever. Or maybe not even at all.
You may be right that 64-bit Linux versions of these apps will be available before 64-bit XP ships. BUT THEY'RE NOT AVAILABLE NOW. Which was the point. There are just as few (ie none) 64-bit graphics workstation apps currently available for Linux as there are for the beta Windows XP 64-bit.
So, while you say you're not trying to be mean, you're clearly not reading this thread properly. Instead, you're just trying to defend Linux like some kind of fundamentalist lunatic. What you've failed to notice is that I'm not knocking Linux, just trying to explain why the 64-bit testing suggested by freebrew wasn't really relevant to the type of systems in the test.
Great article
Theres one thing im wondering about though! Why did u use 3.4 ghz Xeons versus 250 opterons ? When I check prices, if u wanna use a 250 opteron it compares almost perfectly to a 3.6 ghz xeon. The 3.4 ghz is alot cheaper.
Besides that a great article.
Kiriath
When the article was done, the price points were different
Okay that explains it =DOriginally Posted by David
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)