On Sun, Apr 17, 2016, at 08:26 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2016-04-15, Daniel Ouellet <[email protected]> wrote: > >> That's nice. I don't have a ferrari, I have a rather basic truck. > >> > >> You are off topic. > > > > Sorry Theo, > > > > He asked for > > > > "real world through put?" > > > > I provided some to be helpful. > > From a different machine though. Compared to APU1 the APU2 has 4x the L2 > cache, RAM is clocked a quarter faster, twice the number of cpu cores, > and a few more cpu features (e.g. AES-NI, RDRAND). On the downside the > bios is still a bit in flux (note it should be possible to flash from > OpenBSD, but you need a patched version of pciutils). > > It depends on the workload but in certain cases these changes will make > a huge difference. >
But his point is still valid. He knew he had an inferior machine but it was still able to saturate a 150Mb/s line. That means unless the person asking for throughput data is using a DS4/NA then he probably will be Okay. These requests for 'Real World' numbers are almost always stupid, because the people asking are almost certain to never need the max amount of bandwidth even a modest machine can supply. Really? Are you actually considering this box for use at the telecommunications provider you work for?
