 |
 |
 |
 |
| Using Fedora General support for current versions. Ask questions about Fedora and it's software that do not belong in any other forum. |
14th July 2004, 04:24 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 22
|
|
AMD and Linux
A friend of mine who is a SuSE9.1 user sent me the following link:
http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2114&p=3
This article states "SuSE comes out ahead of Fedora consistently" in their performance tests. Any thoughts on this?
toracat
|
14th July 2004, 05:03 AM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Kalamazoo, Michigan
Age: 30
Posts: 410
|
|
|
I read that from OSnews.com. I don't really know what to say, Anyone who has a 64 chip right now isn't going to use a linux distro "out of the box" if they use Linux, they should've made all the changes that need to be made then run the test again. Also, both Linux Distros beat Windows(save the games...of course)
__________________
Things do not change; we change.
HDT
"Do I understand your question, man, is it hopeless and forlorn?" Bob Dylan
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
-- The Friends of Voltaire, 1906
My NcpMount script for Netware servers
http://forums.fedoraforum.org/forum/showpost.php?p=544473&postcount=8
Thanks to: Brunson & Ibbo
|
14th July 2004, 05:07 AM
|
 |
Retired Admin
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Penguin Land
Age: 63
Posts: 1,939
|
|
I'm using suse on one of my system, however i dont think suse is faster, because suse turned on many services by default (pro version) such as SSHD and etc.
Suse however have a nice config tools (YAST), that is all i can see where suse is better than fedora, however fedora have the edge of being in good development cycle 
I do notice a slight speed increase in 64 bit on fedora compred to suse 9.1
|
15th July 2004, 01:22 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Posts: 90
|
|
|
it's a shame there was no mention of OS 9/X. I'd have liked to have seen how that faired seeing as how apple dominate the multimedia industry.
|
15th July 2004, 01:40 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 114
|
|
|
To my knowledge, OS X still isn't 64 bit. And its going to be an Apples to Oranges comparison since you aren't just comparing the OS, but the underlying hardware as well.
|
15th July 2004, 05:35 PM
|
 |
Retired Community Manager
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Age: 56
Posts: 3,423
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Viro
...an Apples to Oranges comparison...
|
Bad boy! Minus 5 points!
That one hurt!
__________________
Linux User #28251 (April '93)
Professional Java Geek :cool:
|
4th September 2004, 08:51 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 38
|
|
|
I downloaded SuSE ISO images but they don't install on my machine some how.
__________________
Using VMWARE virutual PC to eval Fedora Core 2 :)
|
4th September 2004, 08:57 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 44
Posts: 8,256
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by greenleaf
I downloaded SuSE ISO images but they don't install on my machine some how.
|
its a live cd just for preview purposes not for installation
|
7th September 2004, 08:02 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ridgecrest, CA - USA
Age: 29
Posts: 52
|
|
did you burn the iso as an image or did you do it as a data file?
__________________
Signature? I aint got no Signature. We dont no Signature. I dont got to show you any stinking Signature.
My laptop:
pentium 4 3.2ghz, 1.5GB ram, 128mb video, 80gig hd, 802.11b/g wireless, 15.0" xtf display. running fedora 7
registered linux user #455466
|
7th September 2004, 11:01 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 44
Posts: 8,256
|
|
|
butters,
its a live cd just for preview not to install....
|
21st September 2004, 01:12 AM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: NORTHCOM
Posts: 813
|
|
|
IMHO, many of the performance tests that I've reviewed shy away from 64-bit. I ran some tests for kicks using 32-bit FC2 on a Pentium 4 1.8A, then the same tests with 64-bit FC2 on an Athlon 64 2800 (1.8GHz). Even though both machines are cranking at 1.8GHz there is a huge difference in the amount of work each machine can do in the same amount of time. To top it off, I went back and ran the tests again with 32-bit FC2 using the AMD CPU. Anyone want to take a guess as to which side it was closer to...?
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
Current GMT-time: 08:15 (Tuesday, 21-05-2013)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
