hello, I see your point, but i think this processors are not for high level servers. I think this kind of processors is for the consumer. sun don't want to use them neither HP, they have ther own processors. This is for small servers, soho i belive. cya Marco On Thursday 01 January 1970 01:00, shado@mc.net wrote:
Hmm, well.. if you are talking about servers, speed and flagship processors, do you leave out the top performing ones even if they cost more?
For people who run Enterprise Applications like Oracle on top of Suse Enterprise and pay a per CPU license (a la 80K per processor), the fact that it costs a more is of little consequence...
*shrug*
Rich
Gee... maybe they wanted to compare chips that were comparably >priced, instead of the $3k per proc in the Intels.
- Herman
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 shado@mc.net wrote:
->I don't get why Tom Hardware didn't compare the AMDs against a Intel Xeon MP with 2 Meg of L3 Cache, Itanium, or Itanium2.. ?! -> ->Rich -> ->On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 12:56:55 +0000, Marco Oliveira wrote: ->>Good Afternoon ->> ->>http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030422/index.html ->> ->> ->>Best Regards ->> ->> ->>Marco Oliveira ->> ->> -> -> -> ->