On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:31:34 -0700 Robert Lewis <rll@felton.felton.ca.us> 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.
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.
I am not familiar with the folding@home application, but instances have occurred where distributed_computing software has been compiled with "optimized-for-Intel" tools. On other (boinc) projects, their new "equal points for equal work completed" credit schemes give my 2.0 Ghz AMD processor daily average credits that are still in the same ballpark when compared to Intel (non-Conroe) processors. mikus