On Saturday 25 June 2005 13:02, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Sat, 2005-06-25 at 01:27, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > > But at this point, let's just forget this whole thread because it's > > obvious that you're not interested in hearing me out, just hearing > > yourself out. > > Some real-world benchmark numbers would make the case more > convincing. Does anyone have some? I'm particularly interested > in anything with AMD vs. IBM's 64-bit xeon boxes. The talk we had wasn't really about 64bit... There are a few benchmarks out there comparing the two - but none I've seen actually test 64bit linux tuned for Opteron/Xeon (instead of the stock RHEL kernels, see below) with large memory (>4GB) running heavy IO. That's where you'd see the biggest issue with intels implementation because of the lack of IOMMU. Here is a list of benchmarks and why they are not idea to demonstrate the differences in how the 64bit extensions work: http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2447 - No heavy IO, no opteron tuned kernel but EM64T kernel for both. http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=pciews&page=1&cookie%5Ftest=1 - Windows, 32bit. http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2347 - windows, 32bit http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040927/index.html - windows, 32bit. More interesting my opinion is the tuning though... There was a couple of threads about mtune differences between k8 and nocona (i.e. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2005-June/thread.html#00719) and the RHEL3U2 release notes where EM64T was first supported (http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-3-Manual/release-notes/as-amd64/RELEASE-NOTES-U2-x86_64-en.html - look in the kernel info section). Peter.