Frankster wrote:
> Greetings to all,
>
> Has anyone heard of any networked desktop problems that have been proven to
> be due to AMD processors?
What possible network problem could ever come from the CPU? Your
question makes about as much sense as asking whether having too many
Toshiba rather than Sony tv's tuned to a certain channel has ever caused
that tv station to go offline.
> I'm a network admin, and I've got a consultant who is advising that we
> purchase some AMD powered desktops. In the past my attitude has been to
> always purchase pentiums - simply because I do NOT have the time to worry
> about possible processor conflicts (there's FAR too many other issues for
> admins to fret about!) Not that pentiums are perfect, but the user base is
> so massive that it's likely enormous pressure will be brought to bear on
> those responsible for any problems. It's also my hunch that any performance
> gain from AMD would not be significant to my users. Finally, a pentium
> problem is much easier to explain to management than an AMD problem.
It sounds to me like you want us to confirm your prejudices. You don't
need us to do that, all you have to do is stomp into your management's
office and tell them, "I hate AMD's, I ain't gonna work in no office
that has them dang AMD's." I'm sure they'll find that to be a compelling
argument.
But if you are open-minded, then there are some very tangible reasons
for going with AMD processors instead of Intel ones. Lower power
consumption, resulting in less electrical bills, and less heat. Recent
tests measured right at the power supply have shown that with
identically configured AMD and Intel systems, the AMD systems would use
185W while the Intel ones would use 250W. This is a result of not only
the greater power requirements of the CPU, but the extra fans and longer
durations that the fans must be run at full speed on the Intel systems.
As for performance, and whether users will notice the difference, that
entirely depends on what the current systems that they are comparing
them to. They will easily notice a difference if the current systems are
P4 2.4Ghz or lower. Upto P4 3.0Ghz, they might notice a slight
difference. Beyond that, I doubt it, especially for office apps. One
thing they may find is that the AMD's are much more balanced performers,
they are usually rated "very good" at all applications. Whereas the
Pentium 4's maybe merely "good" at most applications, and "excellent" in
a few select applications like video encoding.
>
> I should mention that we are using Win2k servers, Win2k3 servers, Citrix
> (bigtime), AD, VPNs across several sites, wireless networking, SQL, and
> (soon) considerable multimedia technology.
Excellent, AMD processors are the preferred choice for most server
applications too, especially all of those ones that you just mentioned.
For example, it's well known that Pentium 4/Xeon needs highly optimized
software to run well; an older operating system like Win2K wouldn't be
able to provide that kind of optimization on a Xeon since Microsoft
doesn't update it anymore. An AMD Opteron would take any operating
system, old or new, run it well with or without optimization; because of
its more generally balanced performance. Also Microsoft itself initially
developed the new 64-bit versions of its operating systems entirely on
AMD processors.
Yousuf Khan<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
>> Stay informed about: Any AMD networked desktop problems ??? 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->