Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:54:34 -0600 From: Ken Gunderson <kgunders@teamcool.net> To: Freddie Cash <fcash@ocis.net> Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: to dual core or not to dual core... Message-ID: <20050815155434.08ac079e.kgunders@teamcool.net> In-Reply-To: <200508151436.14837.fcash@ocis.net> References: <20050815150825.79226025.kgunders@teamcool.net> <200508151436.14837.fcash@ocis.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:36:14 -0700 Freddie Cash <fcash@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. -- Best regards, Ken Gunderson Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050815155434.08ac079e.kgunders>