PDA

View Full Version : AMD and Linux



toracat
14th July 2004, 04:24 AM
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

Thoreau
14th July 2004, 05:03 AM
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)

ewdi
14th July 2004, 05:07 AM
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

David
15th July 2004, 01:22 AM
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.

Viro
15th July 2004, 01:40 AM
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.

crackers
15th July 2004, 05:35 PM
...an Apples to Oranges comparison...
Bad boy! Minus 5 points!

That one hurt!

greenleaf
4th September 2004, 08:51 PM
I downloaded SuSE ISO images but they don't install on my machine some how.

imdeemvp
4th September 2004, 08:57 PM
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

butters
7th September 2004, 08:02 PM
did you burn the iso as an image or did you do it as a data file?

imdeemvp
7th September 2004, 11:01 PM
butters,

its a live cd just for preview not to install....

Dog-One
21st September 2004, 01:12 AM
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...?