RE: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD

See that's I'm thinking, the raw performance is very attractive to me!! So
what's this about a p4 1.7 outperforming a 2.8? You got link to benchmarks?

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel O'Connor [mailto:doconnor_at_gsoft.com.au] 
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 8:23 PM
To: freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org; obrien_at_freebsd.org
Cc: Remi; questions_at_freebsd.org; current_at_freebsd.org
Subject: Re: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 08:30, David O'Brien wrote:
> > I have a choice between AMD64 3200+ and a P4 2.8GHz with HT. Which one
> > would you guys recommend to run FreeBSD. Obviously the i386 would be
> > easier to run, so I guess my question is what is the state of the AMD64
> > FreeBSD version?
>
> You do know you can run FreeBSD/i386 on the Athlon64 3200+ laptop,
> right? :-)  A 3200+ running 32-bit FreeBSD will out-perform the  P4
> 2.8GHz running the same OS.

A Pentium-M 1.7Ghz will outperform a 2.8Ghz P4 too ;)

If battery life is important to you I'd suggest not getting an AMD64.

For raw performance it's "pretty nice" though :)

- -- 
Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer
for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au
"The nice thing about standards is that there
are so many of them to choose from."
  -- Andrew Tanenbaum
GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFA3j2V5ZPcIHs/zowRAoZpAKCnZMb/Kxk9wElcBhktj9NPDPsPggCgh6b2
iasKpu5F998wHLaC5flWA+E=
=QBEE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----