Edward Dekkers wrote:
Jeff Vian wrote:
On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 11:04 -0500, Tony Nelson wrote:
At 8:30 AM -0700 12/13/05, Robin Laing wrote:
...
NOTE: I am an AMD user, but I think arguments should be fair and factual
not biased or based on innuendo.
I (almost) agree fully. We build both AMD and Intel boxes here. There is
just one point I'd like to make.
You mention a Sempron 3000+ outperforming a P4 3GHz. I just want to
mention this is NOT our experience with building these boxes.
For the sake of arguments remaining fair, this would have to be corrected.
No doubt the new AMD (X2 especially) series absolutely spank whatever
Intel has to offer at the moment, but our Winstone/Performance/Burn-In
tests our PCs MUST complete before leaving the office, do not support
your Sempron statement.
All your other arguments get my vote.
Regards,
Ed.
I have read so many reports where these tests are not the best
indicator of performance. I have seen some machines that have done
well with tests but ran poorly with actual applications. Almost like
Microsoft's Windows is better performance studies, something just
doesn't seem to add up.
