Keith,
A discussion of the Opteron platform vs. the Xeon platform began, that claimed the Opteron beat the Xeons.
You responded by posting scores from IBM's proprietary 64mb L3 box.
I pointed out (a little bit nastily, for which I apologize) that that platform triples the cost, and is therefore an apples to oranges comparison. And that less expensive (but close in cost) dual core Opterons would beat that system, too.
Now you're coming back with a comment about the base 3 series costing less, but that's the limited performance system that started the whole thing off:
That's IBM's latest brag sheet on the X3 series, barely 2 weeks old, from a box with quad 3.66ghz Xeon MP CPUs.
pc.ibm.com
ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/eserver/benchmarks/news/newsblurb_x366_SPECcpu2000_032905.pdf
Here are older scores from a less expensive system using Opterons. Same OS, also 4-way, but using an earlier, less optimized version of the same compiler. amd.com
You've got to pick one or the other to hold a meaningful discussion. Either similar systems with similar costs, in which case Opteron beats Xeon, or stacking up a very expensive OEM cache added proprietary platform, in which case Opteron dual core boxes will still win, while still costing a lot less.
In terms of keeping up to date, I'm reasonably well plugged in - check when I first mentioned the 5150 -
investorshub.com |
