To be blunt, I do not trust your benchmark results. You get athlon results two to four times faster than the equivalent Intel chips. You then say "This shows one thing: Athlon CPUs pwn and Intel CPUs are pieces of shit, My 2.2GHz athlon did almost 6x the work of a 3.2GHz intel ffs!"
If you get discrepancies this wide, you really should be looking at your test. Nobody survives in the semiconductor world by selling products that are two to four times slower than the competition at the same prices. Yet you claim they do, despite the fact that no benchmarking professionals have backed this up. Is anyone supposed to take this seriously?
How am I supposed to take this seriously when I can get 13,553,853 fps with this test out of my 460 MHz Celeron with a wussy 128 kb cache With KDE and Mozilla running, XMMS loaded, and a bunch of other dinky stuff running in the background, and you get only 15,108,371 with a modern 2.4 GHZ Intel Celeron? Are you seriously going to tell me that my 460 MHz is almost as fast as that 2.4 GHZ box?
You also publish NO details about the benchmarks. What optimization levels did you use? What compiler? If you used GCC, did you optimize for cpu architecture with the -march= switch? Did you run it on systems that had kernels optimized for their chips? Did you take the SAME binary and run it across platforms? If not, did you use the same compiler and the same version and the same libraries? And don't forget about cache! For heavy FP calculations, a large cache is very important, but you left all that information out.
Finally, Linux is not UNIX. UNIX is a family of operating systems which conform to strict written specs created by the Open Group and then are submitted to the Open Group for a rigourous and expensive testing and certification. Neither Linux nor FreeBSD do that. They are "unix-like systems" or "*nix" systems, but NOT UNIX. Those scumbags at SCO are continually trying to convince everyone that Linux is an illegal UNIX. Don't help them out.
