Quote Originally Posted by mstp2009 View Post
F@H isn't that cache sensitive. I have run it on a E2160 (1MB) and an E6600 (4MB) clocked at the same speed (2.4GHz) and the results on the same WUs were within 4-5% of each other. I would not call that cache dependent.

What F@H is optimized for is SSE2/3 code. AMD X2 CPUs used to get trounced compared to C2D at the same clock in F@H, and with AMD's improvements to the SSE performance of K10 they are now up to par with C2D/C2Q. They didn't take the lead it looks like, but it is encouraging that they are competitive again.
Depends on the units really. There is this one project that my friend's X2 3800+ @ 2.7GHz would finish in time but not much time left to spare, while my Opteron 165 @ 2.8GHz has more time left. I think it is probably due to a mix of extra 100MHz and 2X the L2. Then others it didn't make a hill of beans difference, was just slightly faster on my opteron due to the 100MHz extra speed.


Sp33d, thanks for that test, brings it more into perspective
BTW, what team do you fold for?