to dual core or not to dual core...
kgunders at teamcool.net
Mon Aug 15 21:54:36 GMT 2005
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:36:14 -0700
Freddie Cash <fcash at ocis.net> wrote:
> On August 15, 2005 02:08 pm, Ken Gunderson wrote:
> > ah, that is the question...
> > It seems to me that for most normal workstation use one might well be
> > better off w/investing in faster single core cpu than in dual core.
> > Anybody running the dual core on desktop fbsd workstation can report?
> Considering 95% of all Socket 939 motherboards will accept dual-core
> processors with nothing more than a BIOS update, get a single-code
> system now, and upgrade to dual-core when the prices drop.
> The nice thing about AMD systems is you can do that. :) Intel
> dual-core requires an entire new chipset/motherboard, RAM, etc.
Right on AMD being mroe better than Intel... But what I was getting at
was, all other things being equal, i.e. same ballpark budget, would one
be better off sacrificing cpu a few hundred MHz to go w/dual core (e.g.
2.0 GHz) or better off "investing" in single core w/more Mhz and a 1MB
L2 cache (e.g. 2.4 GHz). Given that these puppies are w/in $20 of
each other, I'm inclined to opt for the later.
Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon?
More information about the freebsd-amd64