Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 01:06:56 -0700 From: "Remi" <MrL0L@charter.net> To: <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD Message-ID: <36u63c$1uk902@mxip07a.cluster1.charter.net> In-Reply-To: <200406271253.01432.doconnor@gsoft.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
See that's I'm thinking, the raw performance is very attractive to me!! So what's this about a p4 1.7 outperforming a 2.8? You got link to benchmarks? -----Original Message----- From: Daniel O'Connor [mailto:doconnor@gsoft.com.au] Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 8:23 PM To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org; obrien@freebsd.org Cc: Remi; questions@freebsd.org; current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 08:30, David O'Brien wrote: > > I have a choice between AMD64 3200+ and a P4 2.8GHz with HT. Which one > > would you guys recommend to run FreeBSD. Obviously the i386 would be > > easier to run, so I guess my question is what is the state of the AMD64 > > FreeBSD version? > > You do know you can run FreeBSD/i386 on the Athlon64 3200+ laptop, > right? :-) A 3200+ running 32-bit FreeBSD will out-perform the P4 > 2.8GHz running the same OS. A Pentium-M 1.7Ghz will outperform a 2.8Ghz P4 too ;) If battery life is important to you I'd suggest not getting an AMD64. For raw performance it's "pretty nice" though :) - -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFA3j2V5ZPcIHs/zowRAoZpAKCnZMb/Kxk9wElcBhktj9NPDPsPggCgh6b2 iasKpu5F998wHLaC5flWA+E= =QBEE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?36u63c$1uk902>