New computer

[Embattle]

No, you're a smelly little perv

 

[Mr B]

...Intel...so b0rr0w3d.

Mr^B (pikey and proud)

 

[Embattle]

Wow what a nice picture....whats it mean then....come on?

 

[Mr B]

erm..

Dhyrstone is a synthetic CPU benchmarking program:

More information here:

http://performance.netlib.org/performance/html/dhrystone.intro.html

Whetstone is more or less the same thing but concentrates on the FPU.

More information here:

http://gwyn.tux.org/~balsa/linux/benchmarking/articles/html/Article1d-3.html

Dhrystone is measured in MIPS (Millions of Instructions Per Second)
Whetstone is measured in MFLOPS (Millions of Floating Point Operations per second).

Hope this helps.

B

 

[Embattle]

Oh I know all the tech behind it but I really want to know why it matters?

What do you use your comp for?

 

[Embattle]

I mean its not as if it really shows that much about a computer.

 

[Mr B]

I use Athlons in Win2k Servers at the office running SQL 2000 update batches...(running various interpolation calculations to Currency market prices - Linear/Cubic Splining, etc...)

On a Quad Xeon box (Xeon III-800's), this process used to take upwards of 6 hours per night.

Now I run it on 3 Athlon powered Win2k boxes (each running 1.2 CPU's @1.33) - threading the data between all 3 - and the process now takes just under 2 hours and no longer has to be run overnight - saving on 24/7 support, and saving money because 3 Athlon rigs cost substantially less than the single Quad Xeon box.

I believe we are the one of the first companies to start using Athlons in "mission critical" servers - they still have Compaq/Intel backups, but they've been running for 2 months solid with only minor problems (such as we'd been having with the Intel boxes).



B

 

[Embattle]

Most companies don't oc there processors.

 

[Mr B]

The overclocking was a recent venture - they've been running for a week - and still no problems...

Even all 3 running at the stock 1.2 it took a shade over 2 1/2 hours to complete the batch.

...for my purposes (cost and sheer number crunching capabilities) I use AMD.

 

[Embattle]

Hmm interesting...still not something I would do with company boxes down to the fact that ocing voids warranties etc.

Not stability wise since its not that major of a jump.

[Edited by Embattle on 01-04-01 at 12:05]

 

[stu]

Thing is, I really don't give a toss how many uberflops my processor does... I'd rather it worked. I mean, I've still not heard a decent explanation for why it took about 6 months to get Athlons working with GeForces properly... and right now I know of someone who is having major compatibility issues with his VIA chipset and SB Live... it's not like Nvidia and Creative are "fringe" manufacturers are they. Whilst people still make pieces of kit and write proggies for Intel, I'm sticking with Intel, and all the gigaflops in the world won't change that. Because, for most of us, we don't run processes that take 3 hours. And the fact that you're the first company to use AMD for "mission critical" kit should also say something. Good luck with your boxes tho, if you're happy with them and they work that's all you can ask for really.

 

[Embattle]

Its been the case for some time now that AMD offer better performance/price ratio but Intel offer better compatibility.

 

[Mr B]

As you say, there have been compatability problems with the AMD Motherboards and GeForces/SBLive's,etc...

Seeing as I use only bog standard £20 OEM gfx cards and have no need for sound - I took a gamble and got them in.

Intel/Compaq have been the traditional route - although I suspect the reliability of the new boxes are more to do with Win2k than anything else...

For home system use, yes, AMD's do have a tendancy to be awkward bastards - but if you're prepared to do a little tinkering, they are fine..

 

[Testin da Cable]

not all that happy with compaq servers either

 

[Wij]

Com[atibilty problems are quite rare for KT133 chipsets nowadays. I've never heard of any probs for ages.