AMD Athlon64 Systems -- dual-940 boards with AGP+PCI-X are still costly ...

[nosp]

On Fri, 2003-10-17 at 06:06, Warren Togami wrote:
> I think a kernel compile would be a useless comparison because you would 
> be using completely different compilers to make two kernels for 
> different archs.  That is not very representative of anything.
Sure for, say, i86 vs. sparc because people are less interested in
comparing the two.  Since i32 and i64 are, although different archs,
likely to be compared against each other very frequently, I thought it
would be interesting.

> > 
> > For form's sake: (will mostly be exercising 32bit capabilities, but)
> > bonnie++
> > bootup time  (hopefully you won't be doing too much of this :))
> > shutdown time
> > quake3 timedemo
> > bogomips :)
> >
> 
> Perhaps quake3 if there is a 64bit version, but anything that relies 
> heavily on disk rather than processor wouldn't be particularly 
> interesting in a 32bit vs 64bit comparison.
Sure, hence "Just for form's sake".  The specs mention form a useful
part of a generic system benchmark suite and will not stress the
processor much; however they're probably useful if (since) you are
changing the mainboard (i.e., PCI bus) as well.

> Warren
Thanks for asking the question -- don't let all these crazy benchmark
requests stop you from posting whatever info you see fit to investigate
-- it'll all be interesting.  Thanks!