Re: Quake performance SGI vs Sun
From: JCS (mjcs_750_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 03/29/04
- Next message: UNIX Musuem: "Re: Quake performance SGI vs Sun"
- Previous message: joe smith: "Re: Quake performance SGI vs Sun"
- In reply to: UNIX Musuem: "Re: Quake performance SGI vs Sun"
- Next in thread: UNIX Musuem: "Re: Quake performance SGI vs Sun"
- Reply: UNIX Musuem: "Re: Quake performance SGI vs Sun"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 18:52:21 -0600
"UNIX Musuem" <unixmuseum@verizon.com> wrote in message
news:20040327165821.45e74317.unixmuseum@verizon.com...
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 01:04:18 +0200
> "joe smith"
<john.smith@iiuaudhahsyasdy232462643264276asdhfvhdsafhasdgdsagyufasgyufdashu
fdashuyfhuysafhuysafhuydh27324242742647623762667bhfbdsahbvfahds.net> wrote:
>
> > > you'll have to wait, tuesday is soylent green day.
> >
> > I know it hurts that SGI isn't on top, not even when comparing fairly
recent
> > R16000 based system to ancient PC toys. Must hurt a lot, because no one
is
> > commenting on the issue itself. ;-)
> >
<snip>
>
> One could argue that the only purpose of a Windows PCs - besides allowing
the spread of trojan & viruses with all their security holes, thanks to the
energy of our devoted anti-MS community trying to break Win on a daily
basis - is gaming and office applications. I for myself still don't see a
Win PC as a very good business machine. It's convenient to have both
business apps & office apps on the same
One *could* argue that. However, far more "Windows PCs" are used as
workstations these days then "workstation" machines.
>
> Now, going back to performance comparison, if we talk about solving a
multi-million dof FE model, serving a large Oracle database or anything of
the like, the UNIX boxes will prove to be very handy (and you will still be
able to play Quake while performing these heavy duty tasks on UNIX, while
Windows would pretty much be locked up)... In fact, my Octane dual R10K
250MHz (not R16K, not R14K, not even R12K) performs these kind of tasks on a
regular basis and easily outperforms PIV 2.4-3 GHz workstations...
Actually, I've done this exact thing on a P6 machine running IDEAS meshing a
large dof model while playing Quake - didn't lock up. Basically, it boils
down to this - the capability of an SGI these days is often understated by
one side just as the capability of a good PC is understated by those who
prefer the "traditional workstation".
>
> The bottom line is: if you have a choice between a UNIX box or a PC to
play games on, why bother UNIX? The PC is meant for that... For anything
somewhat scientific or involving large datasets manipulation, UNIX is a very
good first choice. I myself like sgi hardware for their I/O bandwith and
IRIX for taking advantage of it (grio, ffio, mpt,...).
Except for the expense. That makes it the second choice for anyone with any
kind of budget. At least on the desktop. You just DO NOT see large
numbers of traditional UNIX workstations in use these days - except for
legacy purposes. They've been replaced with Linux and Windows machines.
That is reality.
JCS
- Next message: UNIX Musuem: "Re: Quake performance SGI vs Sun"
- Previous message: joe smith: "Re: Quake performance SGI vs Sun"
- In reply to: UNIX Musuem: "Re: Quake performance SGI vs Sun"
- Next in thread: UNIX Musuem: "Re: Quake performance SGI vs Sun"
- Reply: UNIX Musuem: "Re: Quake performance SGI vs Sun"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
