Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD on the Athlon64 in 64bit vs Pentium4 3.2E
veliath writes "Came by a comparison from about three weeks ago, between two systems running FreeBSD. One is an Athlon64 running FreeBSD in 64bit mode and the other a Pentium4 3.2E running FreeBSD in 32bit mode."
The article says that Intel's HT doesn't improve performance much. Isn't this expected, considering that IIRC FreeBSD's kernel threads still suck and most of the programs are single threaded anyway?
You're forgetting something very crucial here ... the Athlon64 is clocked almost 1 GHz slower than the P4 ... yet the performance difference is virtually nil. That says a lot more about the performance of the Athlon64 than anything.
That's not a "ho-hum" benchmark to me. That's an "Intel has royally fubar'd themselves. Here's hoping their Pentium-M strategy brings them back on track."
Interesting point, but surely, Intel will be running into physics problems way faster than AMD will, because Intel are running much closer to the raw speed edge.
Megahurtz myths aside, frequency is still frequency and there is an upper limit. The first one to hit the wall loses, by the way. So the frequency/performance aspect of intel processors is definately worth keeping in mind. This is why the Pentium-M is becoming the forefront processor-More IPC than the PIV architecture. Perhaps intel has hit the wall already?
Likewise, one could reason that many of the tricks that Intel are using to increase frequency could be applied to AMD's architectures in the future, giving AMD much more room for growth, as intel has already exhausted many of the available technologies.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
I like how you use four key points, without defending them at all.
:P
How is it more reliable, how is it easier to use, maintain, and how is the community better?
I mean, personally I don't give a shit which you use; I prefer FreeBSD over Linux any day, for any purpose. That's just me.
P.S. Several months == nothing. n00b@!$!$
But seriously, you do seem a TAD biased towards Linux. But that's cool too, because your opinion isn't going to change shit for me in the end.
-If God wanted people to be better than me, he would have made them that way.
They used to be neck and neck, now Linux is in front and accelerating.
Have you looked at the finished benchmark document?
There is an area where Linux is 100 times faster than FreeBSD and yet NetBSD is 400 times faster than FreeBSD.
This benchmark that you covet so highly, is being largely discredited, to the point where the author is considering taking it off the net and re-doing it properly.
Linux 2.6 is pretty new, FreeBSD 4.9 takes very cautious steps forward and 5.x is an unstable work in progress. NetBSD made massive strides towards O(1) scaling in various areas, in a very short time.
Any fucking idiot can look at loads of benchmark numbers, find one small area where his OS of choice beats the "opposing" OS and then declare his OS the greatest.
Did you look at the real World benchmarks?
Judging by the bonnie++ and bytebench results alone, all Linux systems should have had a score far superior to the BSD's, but that is not the case. Linux 2.4 seems to be bound by some scalability issues, but they seem to be mostly resolved in the 2.6 series.
Doesn't look like Linux killing the BSD's and accelerating to me.
A clear winner here is FreeBSD 4.9, with Linux 2.6 not so far behind.
So, to sum up: You discredit an experimental branch of FreeBSD by linking to developer comments that are essentially regarding a moment in time. You link to the fefe benchmark and claim Linux to be far superior, when in fact it compares OS at very different stages of development and shows BSD's making huge improvements in just 2 weeks! And you link to a story about NASA deploying Linux to 512 processors, as a way of rubbing some people nose into the fact that Linux can actually scale well!
You are declaring a winner when the race in not yet finished. And here is a tip. The race never will be finished and during the never ending race, the lead will swap many times in many different areas. Stupid insecure people will continue to seek at least small areas where their OS shines, so as to feel good about themselves and belittle others.
You need to get over yourself.
BTW, I am not trying to say BSD rocks and Linux sucks, I am merely pointing out, that both have strengths and weaknesses (as compared to each other), in small areas. It is the overall performance of the required application that matters.
I don't refute with counterpoints because I have no argument other than that your argument is weak.
BSD is not better than Linux, and Linux is not better than BSD. I personally am much more comfortable with a BSD system, your experience may vary. I don't care, and I do not think highly of someone who dislikes someone simply because of the OS that they choose to put their support behind.
BSD snobs disgust me.
Speed and stability aren't everything. For example: BSD could be 50% slower than Linux, and I could still get my work done in it faster. Don't agree? Don't believe me? That's your problem.
Get over it. What OS you use is irrelevant, it's whether or not you're accomplishing the task that you got on the computer to complete that matters.
-If God wanted people to be better than me, he would have made them that way.
time is included in most Linux distros.
So it OpenSSL.
I think someone cant get over the fact that *BSD is dead.