Palu, <Go ahead - Ail - educate yourself - if you can.>
Sure I can, in contrast to you.
Check out the following footnote in the
source you cited
( tweakit.com ):
<I decided that for a system to be considered
stable it had to complete an error free run
of Winbench97. Once the optimal settings were
found to comply with this, the testing started.
It was possible to get higher scores in any
one test but the system would not be able to
complete Winbench97, so the scores you see
for all test are based on a stable Winbench97
config.>
It shows two things:
a) systems were configured DIFFERENTLY!
b) Some advanced configurations WERE NOT
STABLE. Which one - it is not clear from the
source. You would think, of course, that
Xeon's config was slower, do you? Any
case is bad for you, can you see this?
In any case, why the hell someone want
to compare two bus-compatible processors
in two different motherboards?
If you would be more honest and engineeringly
accurate, you would go with the SAME board,
like Tom "Uberclockmeister" did. You may
check out his results:
tomshardware.com
Xeon vs. PeeII
tomshardware.com
tomshardware.com
tomshardware.com
tomshardware.com
tomshardware.com
tomshardware.com
In all the above, the difference is ridiculously
small for 2x jump in "most important" L2 speed,
as you (and Intel) want us to believe.
In desperate atempt to find something where the Xeon
is good at, Tom found a whopping 16% gain:
tomshardware.com
That was an AVI playback plus unzipping 1.2GB file plus
running Winstone98. For your education,
I would not put too much trust
into these benchmarks because the time sharing in NT
is weird, depends on many factors like keyboard
focus and loading order, and priorities
are dynamically allocated in unpredictable way.
Therefore it is clear now that you crawl back
to your garage to do more retarded woodworking
and let others to analyze and discuss MARKET
behaviour instead of listening to your silly
arguments about technical matters you have
no clue about. |
