Re: Differences between AMD and Intel CPUs [was: Re: Dragonfly andHyperthreading....]

["Thomas Edward Spanjaard" <t.e.spanjaard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

<EM1897@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:6C3B2051.2AA8F267.000424FF@xxxxxxxxxx
> Well sorry, but you are just completely wrong about
> everything. I've already cited the P8SCi as an example,
> Im sure you know how to use google to get prices.

I was talking about both a CPU and the motherboard which you were claiming. 
In your P8SCi example, you left the CPU out of the price.

> Your "test" is also completely wrong, and your analysis
> of the bus wrong as well. For example, passing 80Mb/s
> through a box with a 33Mhz/32bit nic might use 50% of
> the cpu, and you pop a pci-x card of the same type (say
> the em driver) and it will drop to 1/3rd of the usage.
> Saying that you can pass some amount of data is not a
> useful analysis, because if you use 100% of the cpu
> instead of 30% to achieve the throughput its worthy
> of note. There are 1000s of I/O operations that are not happening in the 
> background, and as the bus saturation increases,contention increases and 
> those operations take longerand longer. Its not rocket science, its very 
> easy to
> look at the interrupt load with different kinds of
> cards. Anyone that thinks the way you do just isn't
> paying attention. But, its very typical of what I've
> been saying. That is, that a lot of people who should
> know better don't seem to understand the basics of
> what the real bottlenecks are. It seems almost comical
> that teams of engineers are rewriting an OS trying to
> squeeze some cycles out of a CPU without any understanding
> of the main bottleneck to networking performance.

That's not a difference between PCI-X and PCI, but a difference in adapters 
and drivers. Lookup the specs, PCI-X doesn't provide the functionality you 
claim. To be able to test both buses properly, you need to run an identical 
adapter in it (PCI-X happens to be backwards compatible with PCI2.x, so 
we're lucky there). Only then you can bench both properly, as they'll be 
using the same chip and driver.

Furthermore, I was just pointing out that you can achieve good results with 
PCI, and never cared about CPU utilization. In fact, it was on a UP PIII-S 
1.2GHz system, and I got nowhere near 50% CPU utilization from the I/O. See 
my remark about properly using the hardware's abilities.

Also, why do you ignore my remark about your client software?

Cheers,
       -- Thomas E. Spanjaard