- Joined
- Dec 10, 2002
- Location
- Minnesota
Kay. I'm not the expert on the subject by any means. I was just wondering if anyone else had made their way over to Tom's Hardware to look at the benchmarks in their Opteron vs. Xeon article? This isn't an AMD vs. Intel thread. I just noticed something and I wanted to see what other people think.
Going off of just what I saw in that one article, (Which I agree is generally never a good idea, but I find it hard to loacte benchmarks that are easily read) I was noticing that the Opteron was doing a fairly good job of snuffing out the Xeon when running under Linux. However when the platform switched to Win XP, the Opteron took on a more mediocre role.
And I was remembering waaaay back when XP and the P4 were new and there was all that hype that Microsoft and Intel had designed their products around eachother so they'd work like greased lightning with eachother. I didn't really give it much thought back then because whenever Microsoft comes out with a new OS everybody and their dog has something bad to say about it.
But now that I look back on it, since XP has come out, the Athlon has been doing more than it's fair share of sucking @$$ under Win XP. Sure it dominated while Intel pounded out that whole Willamette thing, but after the release of the Northwood, it's like AMD can't produce a chip to compete under XP to save their lives. So maybe there was something to that conspiracy theory?
And here's another one.
If the P4 is geared to XP, could AMD have geared the Opteron for Linux? Instead of going for the cash cow we like to call the home user market, could they have a plan up their sleeve to take over the server processor market? Then, as the get around to it, start pushing in on the home market again? From where I sit, it doesn't seem like a half bad plan. (Of course I'm not CEO of a major corp either.) But the server market would be a good place for AMD to get some reputation and cash. If IT decisionmakers would take two seconds to compare the two processors, and see that AMD costs less and has better performance on *nix machines, they simply wouldn't give a rip about how it matched up under Windows.
But really I have only two pieces of "evidence" to back this up. And they're flimsy at best. The one being the benchmarks from the one source. (Rather than three or four, which would make it a lot more credible) And two, I had been watching AMD's site quite a bit and noticing that in the AMD News they had a number of articles about AMD meeting with heads of the Linux community and such. Also not very credible. But I think worth noting. Anywhos. That's just my conspiracy theory.
*Puts flame suit on* Okay. Tell me what ya think.
Going off of just what I saw in that one article, (Which I agree is generally never a good idea, but I find it hard to loacte benchmarks that are easily read) I was noticing that the Opteron was doing a fairly good job of snuffing out the Xeon when running under Linux. However when the platform switched to Win XP, the Opteron took on a more mediocre role.
And I was remembering waaaay back when XP and the P4 were new and there was all that hype that Microsoft and Intel had designed their products around eachother so they'd work like greased lightning with eachother. I didn't really give it much thought back then because whenever Microsoft comes out with a new OS everybody and their dog has something bad to say about it.
But now that I look back on it, since XP has come out, the Athlon has been doing more than it's fair share of sucking @$$ under Win XP. Sure it dominated while Intel pounded out that whole Willamette thing, but after the release of the Northwood, it's like AMD can't produce a chip to compete under XP to save their lives. So maybe there was something to that conspiracy theory?
And here's another one.
If the P4 is geared to XP, could AMD have geared the Opteron for Linux? Instead of going for the cash cow we like to call the home user market, could they have a plan up their sleeve to take over the server processor market? Then, as the get around to it, start pushing in on the home market again? From where I sit, it doesn't seem like a half bad plan. (Of course I'm not CEO of a major corp either.) But the server market would be a good place for AMD to get some reputation and cash. If IT decisionmakers would take two seconds to compare the two processors, and see that AMD costs less and has better performance on *nix machines, they simply wouldn't give a rip about how it matched up under Windows.
But really I have only two pieces of "evidence" to back this up. And they're flimsy at best. The one being the benchmarks from the one source. (Rather than three or four, which would make it a lot more credible) And two, I had been watching AMD's site quite a bit and noticing that in the AMD News they had a number of articles about AMD meeting with heads of the Linux community and such. Also not very credible. But I think worth noting. Anywhos. That's just my conspiracy theory.
*Puts flame suit on* Okay. Tell me what ya think.
