On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 07:15:09AM -0400, C. Ahlstrom wrote: > I've had the opposite experience (AMD being a bit faster). However, > three things: > > 1. Tweak and build my own kernel, setting scheduler parameters. (Any > apparent performance increase may be dumb luck, thouhg.) > > 2. The Core Duo is on a DELL laptop, so that may cripple it a bit > (chuckle). > > 3. Due to problems running Win 2000 in a virtual machine, I doubled > the RAM to 4 Gb. > > In general, the AMD system is a tiny bit faster, but at generating ISO > files it absolutely smashes the Core Duo systems (again, with the above > provisos). > > Anyway, let us know your experience. Since I just upgraded, it will be > awhile before "family considerations" will permit the purchase of a quad > core and 24 Gb of RAM <grin>.
A Core Duo is nothing like a Core 2 Duo. The Core Duo is a much older architecture and not a match for the AMD. The Core 2 Duo (and Quad) on the other hand are almost always outperforming the AMDs. I really hope AMD comes out with a new CPU to beat intel soon. I like to see the competition. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
