difference - you could set up a single processor on a dual board using
desktop processors (early Celerons or any PIII). You could either chew the
cost of the second chip immediately or wait and get it later.
Now the motherboards tend to be at least a little pricier (although there
are still some bargains out there) and with Intel you need more expensive
Xeons - however you can still up a dual AMD system for not much more money.
Personally I did trust the Athlon's heat problems enough when I got my
current machine and replaced my dual PIII with a PIV single. Performance
for tasks is much better, but multitasking response time when completely
south.
Personally I think the advantages are well worth a modest cost bump, but
can't see spending any more than, say, 50% more at the outside. But it's
really up to you - how long do you wait now for programs to switch/open?
How much is it worth to you to speed that up. ;^)
Jim Davis
From: Mark W. Breneman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 11:47 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Intel HyperThreading
I guess I should have qualified what I said by saying that HT is more or
less dual CPU emulation.
I would gladly take a dual CPU system for a development workstation in a
heart beat. but, I just don't want to pay for one. :-) I guess that is my
point / question.
Are the advantages of a dual CPU workstation enough to justify the cost?
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
