New HP study shows Windows XP faster than linux 2.4.x (SuSE)

New HP study shows Windows XP faster than linux 2.4.x (SuSE)

Post by Marcus Cat » Tue, 16 Sep 2003 06:52:29



Yes, but Apple's Xserve beats them ALL!

DeLL and Sun aren't even in the same ballpark when it comes to speed for
the price...

http://www.yqcomputer.com/

Mar
 
 
 

New HP study shows Windows XP faster than linux 2.4.x (SuSE)

Post by Mike Byrn » Tue, 16 Sep 2003 07:27:40


Typical Apple benchmarketing.

Apple's own compile of BLAST is optimized for G4 and OSX (won't run on
anything else). Others run non-optimized NCBI-BLAST that'll run on
anything. Even their own hype lets on that NCBI-BLAST isn't optimized for
anything but word length 11.

"only at a word length of 11, for which NCBI BLAST has been extensively
optimized, do the IBM and Sun systems perform comparably to Xserve"

What they leave out is that Apple's recompile uses THEIR altivec compiler.
The IBM and Sun versions don't get to take advantage of those chip's SIMD
hardware. It's like racing comparable cars, all equiped with nitrous
injection and only one allowed to use it.

As for the Web Bench marketing, Windows Server 2003 beats them all.
http://www.yqcomputer.com/

For this test an HP ProLiant DL380 G2 server configured with two 1.4GHz
Pentium III processors (note that those were using 1.4GHz P3 processors not
server class Xeons) and Windows served 17,000 requests per second vs.
Xserve's 5,200.

Windows 2003 is over three times faster than Xserve when serving static
content even when run on previous generation hardware.



HP ProLiant DL380 G2 server configured with two 1.4GHz Pentium III
processors,

 
 
 

New HP study shows Windows XP faster than linux 2.4.x (SuSE)

Post by Marcus Cat » Tue, 16 Sep 2003 08:54:00


What, accurate?


No they don't, that was the purpose of the tests.


SIMD would make little difference up against Altivec, you know that, I
know that, so why the lies?


Yes, but your going to saturate your pipes before any of that becomes an
issue. Xserve wins hands down if you look at performance and PRICE.


But what is the cost? How about uptime? How about IT free maintenance?
Xservess win every time. Microsoft is HISTORY.
 
 
 

New HP study shows Windows XP faster than linux 2.4.x (SuSE)

Post by James Stut » Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:30:33


You're new, aren't you.

for

The purpose of the test was to make Apple look good and the other platforms
look bad.

That is all.

compiler.
SIMD

Altivec is SIMD. I know that, you don't know that, so why the lies?

JCS
 
 
 

New HP study shows Windows XP faster than linux 2.4.x (SuSE)

Post by Mike Byrn » Sat, 20 Sep 2003 16:09:02

Thanks.






extensively
platforms
 
 
 

New HP study shows Windows XP faster than linux 2.4.x (SuSE)

Post by James Stut » Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:51:34


You're welcome. ;)

JCS






on
optimized
nitrous
 
 
 

New HP study shows Windows XP faster than linux 2.4.x (SuSE)

Post by mode » Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:01:52

> > > > > What they leave out is that Apple's recompile uses THEIR altivec

It's a little more complicated than that. The AltiVec instructions
used in Apple's Blast actually have little or nothing to do with the
speed improvement. Their real purpose it would seem is to prevent the
software from being compiled and run on anything but a G4. The vast
majority of the speed improvement came from rewriting some of the code
in standard C such that a different algorithm is used for long word
lengths. Basically Apple Blast uses a progressively longer stride
through the database, so it peeks at proportionately fewer bytes in
the database as the word length increases. Again, this speed
improvement is implemented in standard C. If you read the Apple blurbs
carefully, you will see that Apple doesn't actually attribute the
speedup to Altivec either because to do so would be false advertising.

Yours,
Dog Breath