From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 19 15:00:53 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DDD316A481 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:00:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from smtp-out5.blueyonder.co.uk (smtp-out5.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.213.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06FC54485D for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:00:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from [172.23.170.145] (helo=anti-virus03-08) by smtp-out5.blueyonder.co.uk with smtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FsLFC-0006bx-Gn; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:00:50 +0100 Received: from [82.41.34.175] (helo=[192.168.0.2]) by asmtp-out1.blueyonder.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FsLFA-0000Ja-Vc; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:00:49 +0100 Message-ID: <4496BC20.4010204@dial.pipex.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:00:48 +0100 From: Alex Zbyslaw User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-GB; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060515 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nikolas Britton References: <20060619111155.GB4589@gothmog.pc> <20060619130452.17965.qmail@web33314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060619135011.GA40614@gothmog.pc> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: I need a freebsd 5.3 desktop server; recommendations? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:00:53 -0000 Nikolas Britton wrote: > On 2006-06-19 06:04, Danial Thom wrote: >> > I'd say that a $55. celeron on Freebsd 4.11 would be just as fast as a >> > Sempron an 5.3, so why not save some money and get something that >> > everyone knows is "production ready"? >> >> I'm not so sure. It would take quite a few tests and some _real_ >> numbers to convince me that such a claim was true :-) >> > > Any 64-bit AMD chip will knock the socks off of equivalent Intel > solutions in code compiling benchmarks. This doesn't always hold true > though, for example Adobe Photoshop is still faster on Intel because > the app is tuned for big pipelines / NetBurst. > _______________________________________________ I think the point was that slower-processor+4.11 is faster than faster-processor+5.3 which may or may not be true and might depend greatly on workload. Without actual benchmarks, it's just speculation. And it's still only really interesting if it still holds significantly for 6.X rather than 5.X. Even then, I am inclined to the opinion that CPUs get faster so quickly that even a 20% difference will evaporate in months, and since 5/6.X support newer hardware, I couldn't actually care less if they are a bit less efficient. AMD64s are nice though :-) --Alex I see it was our perennial 5.X basher Danial Thom you are quoting. He's a bit of a troll, in case you hadn't noticed ;-)