[Kenny] °­¿ëÇÑ´Ô ´º½º °ü·Ã

Register ±â»ç ¿ä¾à¹ø¿ªÇϽŠ±Û°ú ¿ø¹®À» ºñ±³Çß½À´Ï´Ù.

GeForce °ü·ÃÇØ

GF 4°¡ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ¿ø¹®¿¡ "64MB DDR GeForce AGP4"¶ó ÀûÇô ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù.

ÀÌ ¸»¸¸ ºÁ¼­´Â ´Ü¼øÈ÷ AGP4¶ó°í ÇÑ °ÍÀÏ »ÓÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

ÇØ´ç ±â»ç ¸¶Áö¸·¿¡ "±âŸ °í·Á»çÇ×"À¸·Î ¾Æ·¡¿Í °°ÀÌ ÀûÇô ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù.

Á¦Ç° º¥Ä¡¸¶Å©¿¡¼­ °¡Àå Áß¿äÇÑ °ÍÀº ¾î¶² ¸ñÀûÀ¸·Î ¾î¶² ºÎºÐÀ» Å×½ºÆ®ÇϳĿ¡ °üÇÑ °ÍÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ±×°Ô ´Þ¶óÁö¸é °á°ú°¡ ´Þ¶óÁú ¼ö ¹Û¿¡ ¾øÁÒ.

Other considerations

It s quite difficult to compare the performance of a given system on both Linux and Windows. The Quake benchmark is a rare exception, but basically it s apples and oranges. For example, what can we learn from evaluating the performance of Photoshop on Windows and the Gimp on Linux? Damn little, I reckon.

For that matter, what can we learn from running Netscape, StarOffice and the Gimp on both? It s entirely possible that these applications could have performance issues on a given OS which would skew the results.

I ll certainly try a number of tests like that during the weekend. This way, I hope, a single performance oddity won t cause too much distortion.

It s also worthwhile trying to match a system with an OS. For insight we can look at some of the everyday tasks common to both OS s, and compare them on different systems. I ve taken a few common-sense measurements on both SuSE and Win-XP with the Intel 850/Northwood combo, but these won t have meaning until I repeat them on a different system and see where they differ.

Which I ll do, early next week. ¢ç