| From: Cristian Sava <smc_ro@xxxxxxxxx> | I have some new boxes in front of me: | - Dual Intel Xeon 3600 EM64T, 8GB | - Athlon 64 3500+, 1GB, Asus A8N-E, 200GB Sata 2 | - Athlon 64 3200+, 512MB, 120GB Sata | I use FC4 x86_64 & Windows x64 on Athlon 64 and FC4 | i386 on Xeon. | Dual Xeon 3600 is 2.8 faster than Dual Intel PIII 1.13 | Ghz & 1GB with a Postgresql database. | Athlon 64 works much better with Windows x64 than FC4 | x86_64. In what way? I have no big problems with FC4 x86_64. There are so few native applications for "Windows XP Professional x64 Edition" that I'm surprised that you find it useful. What are you using it for? | Just my feeling: Athlon 64 or Opteron are much, much | better than Intel EM64T on 64 bit SO. What is SO? In what way are AMD products so much better? I know that Intel is missing the 64-bit I/O stuff; this could have performance impacts for database applications and the like. The Intel CPUs are currently greater power hogs (but so were older AMD chips). Intel multi-core chips have more of a memory bus bottleneck. Intel chips take more cycles to get a task done, but the clock is faster, so most tasks are done in roughly the same time. The final tuning variable is price -- rather carefully set by the manufacturer. All in all, I think that the differences are modest. I don't see a reason to say that AMD chips are "much, much better". (The only x86_64 systems that I've bought have had AMD chips, so I did think that AMD chips were somewhat better.)
