I've seen a similar behaviour, but not such a big swing. The P4s Xeons were more than 40% slower than the Opterons. The current generation of Xeons however do bettter by 10% over the Opterons. Of course you need to also weigh in the cost of the chips, but looking at the system as a whole that isn't as large an effect. On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Miles O'Neal wrote: > Troy Dawson said... > > |It really comes down to your application. If possible, try it on two > |comparable CPU setups, one AMD and one Intel. I've seen some wildly lopsided > |tests, try to at least give them the same amount of memory and the same disks. > |Then run your application on it, and see which is faster. > | > |That's how I decided I like the Opteron. On my tests (recompiling rpm's) the > |Opteron beat the Xeon. But I saw other people with the exact same setup, and > |for them the Xeon beat the Opteron. It all came down to the application. > > And that can change over time. For years > we bought only AMD-based systems, because > most of our apps consistently ran better > on them. Then we found a couple that were > decidely better on INtel. When we tested > equivalent servers for the last set of > compute farm systems, Intel won hands down. > > -Miles > -- /------------------------------------+-------------------------\ |Stephen J. Gowdy, SLAC | CERN Office: 32-2-A22| |http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~gowdy/ | CH-1211 Geneva 23 | | | Switzerland | |EMail: [log in to unmask] | Tel: +41 22 767 5840 | \------------------------------------+-------------------------/