Mike wrote:
I don't agree. Because of the extra registers and other tweaks I get considerably more performance on processor intensive computational tasks. YMMV depending on your task mix.
mike.
On Sunday 22 October 2006 11:44, Randall R Schulz wrote:
You should not expect 64-bit machines to be faster 32-bit machines with comparable clock speeds. Quite the opposite, really. The only good reason to go to 64-bit machines is when you need the virtual address range they afford.
I have a dual processor AMD 64-bit 2.4 Ghz 250 Opteron with 4-GB of RAM. I have an Intel 2.4-GHZ 32-bit machine with 1-GB of RAM. I am running folding@home (something like seti@home) but doing protein analysis) I watch the folding cranking results and can tell you that the Intel machine is doing computational stuff and returning results at about twice the speed of the AMD. By watch, I mean I have two terminal windows open watching both machines do there work. By the way, the AMD machine has no one on it and no work to do but this project. The Intel has multiple people on it and lots of stuff going on. The results were a complete surprise to me and somewhat shocking. By the way, for those of you interested in joining this project we have setup a SuSE Linux Users group. So if you register you may wish to join our group. http://folding.stanford.edu/ Cheers, Bob