🚀 go-pugleaf

That post came out garbled. Let me try again:
4 Seti@Home systems:

AMD TBird 1.2, 256 MB DDR memory - 557 wu's - 5.596 hrs/wu
AMD Tbird 1.2, SDRam Memory - 156 wu's - 6.192 hrs/wu
AMD XP1700+ (oc'd to 1524 mhz) DDR 384mb- 460 wu's - 3.756 hrs/wu
IBMX41 (P4 1.6) 256mb ram -46 wu's - 5.584 hrs/wu

The XP1700+ is slightly oc'd to run at 1524mhz. The IBMX41 P4 1.6 runs at
> 1596 mhz so from a clock speed these 2 machines are comparable. However it
> takes 32% less time on the XP1700+ to do an average wu. SETI is 100%
compute
> intensive and does a number of Fast Fourier Transforms (FFT's) so from a
> pure compute processing point of view AMD is the clear winner. Most
> benchmarks also show AMD the winner, however, those that will take
advantage
> of SSE2 will show some advantage for Intel. This area is one that will
raise
> some emotions, and there are arguments for both sides, but for me and my
> house I will take AMD.

Gary


"Gary Cartwright" <gcartwr1@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:21cl8.178764$Dl4.20040732@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> My own experience: I have 4 systems running seti@home:
>
>       System      Hrs         Units      Hrs/wu
>
>       AMD 1.2 DDR Memory 3117.0 557 5.596
>
>       AMD 1.2 SDRAM 1585.1 256 6.192
>
>       XP1700 1727.6 460 3.756
>
>       IBM X41 (P4 1.6) 256.9 46 5.584
>
>
>       Totals 6686.5 1319.0 5.069
>
>
> The XP1700+ is slightly oc'd to run at 1524mhz. The IBMX41 P4 1.6 runs at
> 1596 mhz so from a clock speed these 2 machines are comparable. However it
> takes 32% less time on the XP1700+ to do an average wu. SETI is 100%
compute
> intensive and does a number of Fast Fourier Transforms (FFT's) so from a
> pure compute processing point of view AMD is the clear winner. Most
> benchmarks also show AMD the winner, however, those that will take
advantage
> of SSE2 will show some advantage for Intel. This area is one that will
raise
> some emotions, and there are arguments for both sides, but for me and my
> house I will take AMD.
>
> Gary
>
>
> "Ari Oppenheimer" <ak79@iafrica.com> wrote in message
> news:3c9213fc.0@news1.mweb.co.za...
> > Hi,
> > I've noticed that the new AMD Proccessors are call XP 1600, XP 1700, XP
> 1800
> > etc, but the actual speed of the XP 1600 for example is only 1.4 GHz.
> >
> > Now does this compare to a P4 1.6Ghz or a P4 1.4Ghz. Also, consider the
> fact
> > the the P4 runs at a 400Mhz bus. To me it seems as if Intel comes out as
> the
> > sure winner over here. After all it seems as if P4 1.6Ghz is better than
> AMD
> > 1.4Ghz,.
> >
> > Please let me know if my deduction is right, or should I go for the AMD
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>