From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 15 21:54:36 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4936D16A41F for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:54:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kgunders@teamcool.net) Received: from koyukuk.teamcool.net (koyukuk.teamcool.net [209.161.34.19]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6B8C43D53 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:54:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kgunders@teamcool.net) Received: from koyukuk.teamcool.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by koyukuk.teamcool.net (TeamCool Rocks) with ESMTP id 5B4C511EB9; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:54:35 -0600 (MDT) Received: from cochise.teamcool.net (unknown [192.168.1.57]) by koyukuk.teamcool.net (TeamCool Rocks) with ESMTP id 1F5BD11EB8; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:54:35 -0600 (MDT) Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:54:34 -0600 From: Ken Gunderson To: Freddie Cash 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> Organization: Teamcool Networks X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.9.12 (GTK+ 2.6.7; i386-portbld-freebsd5.4) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: to dual core or not to dual core... X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:54:36 -0000 On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:36:14 -0700 Freddie Cash 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?