Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:38:55 -0500 From: "Andrew C. Hornback" <achornback@worldnet.att.net> To: "Charles Burns" <burnscharlesn@hotmail.com>, <hanif@ladha.com>, <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Some h/w recommendations please... Message-ID: <006501c16e0d$2995d500$6600000a@ach.domain> In-Reply-To: <F176p3R35ocSyXz41jD00001e74@hotmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: Charles Burns [mailto:burnscharlesn@hotmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 5:27 AM > To: achornback@worldnet.att.net; hanif@ladha.com; > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: RE: Some h/w recommendations please... > > > You're going to want to avoid the P4 unless you've got cash > to burn, plain > >and simple. If you've gotta stick with Intel, go with a PIII. > If AMD is > >an > >option, look at a Thunderbird or Athlon MP system. I'd wait a > while before > > Note that the expense of the P4 does not mean it is fast. Only the very > highest end P4s can beat the .13 micron P3's and Athlons (except in very > specific SSE-2 optimized software. Lightwave for Windows comes to mind) > P4 is just a bad idea all around at the moment. I've never said that the P4 was fast, and I concur that it's not a good idea to consider for any application at the present time. > >investing in an Athlon XP, simply because of the immaturity of the > >technology. When you're doing development work, you don't need to be > >worrying if the system is crashing because of the hardware or the > >development work. Best bet would be something rock solid and dependable > >(i.e. the PIII). > > I would have to disagree a little bit there. The AthlonXP (which is > identical to the MP, other than some extra testing that is done to chips > sold as "MP") works in most good Athlon motherboards designed for the > Thunderbird Athlon, and those are very mature and stable. That's new information to me, although I'll admit that I don't keep up with Athlon technology. At this point, I'm busy keeping a handle on my all Intel shop. > Additionally, > while there are no known issues now, the P3 platform had several very > serious stability hangups, whereas the Athlons haven't really had any > particularly serious ones (unless you count first generation motherboards > from 1998). Lemme guess... you're alluding the the FIC motherboards that would go south if you looked at them wrong? *grins* > Iam referring to the i810 MTH hub issue, which made an entire > generation of motherboards flaky, and of course the fact that Intel > demonstrated that they were willing to forego stability for > marketing when > they released the 1.13GHz .18 micron P3, which could not compile > the Linux > kernel without crashing. (See the "Tom's Hardware" article). Hmm... I can't say that I've come into contact with an i810 motherboard. Most of the hardware that I have here is either BX chipset or ServerWorks LE. I don't tend to go for the "low end" or "consumer grade" hardware, and this is one of the reasons why. As far as the 1.13 GHz chips go, I think we're pretty much immune to that. Our highest end server runs a pair of 1 GHz PIIIs, and while HP says that it can go higher, it's rock solid and runs like a champ... why mess with a good thing? > While that last > issue didn't really effect anything much, as very few systems > were actually > sold, it does show that Intel did release a chip without testing > to see if > it actually worked. Not a good mark on the record. Sort of the inverse of how AMD does things with under-rating chips, etc. > As far as AthlonXP chips, I generally recommend that people get > motherboards > that use 100% AMD chipsets (both southbridge and northbridge). Most AMD > stability problems that have popped up over the years seem to be from VIA > chipsets. While the AMD760 isn't the fastest chipset on earth, > and while it > has been end-of-life'd by AMD recently, it is mature and reliable. Reliability is a key consideration for me, and I figure that it should be for anyone wanting to do any sort of development work. If the platform you develop on isn't rock-solid, is your end product going to be anything more? [snip] > > > RAM: I can definitely afford 256Mb and possibly 512Mb, I > think going to > > > a 1Gb would be a stretch. > > > > 512 MB would be a good place to start. > > I agree here too. You can get a 256MB DIMM of Crucial registered > ECC memory > for about USD$37, and unregistered ECC for about USD$34. Even 1GB > wouldn't > really be that expensive. (ECC would be safest for a system that demands > stability. Registered DIMMS would be required to have more than > 768MB if you > go with 256MB DIMMS--the largest that Crucial (A good place to > get quality, > CHEAP RAM) makes) > Sheesh, my reply is starting to look like LISP. ECC would be a good idea, as it only costs a couple of dollars more, if that. Micron/Crucial is also making 512 MB and 1024 MB DIMMS now. I've seen them out there, the 1024 MB ECC PC-133 goes for $146 last time I checked. --- Andy To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?006501c16e0d$2995d500$6600000a>