Ron Johnson put forth on 10/22/2010 8:48 PM: > Bah, humbug. > > Instead of a quad-core at lower GHz, I just got my wife a dual-core at > higher speed.
Not to mention the fact that for desktop use 2 higher clocked cores will yield faster application performance (think of the single threaded Flash hog and Slashdot jscript) than 4 lower freq cores. They also suck _far_ less power than a quad core (45-65w vs 95-115w avg AMD), and cost significantly less. Fewer cores equals _more_ performance for less money (purchase price and electrical $$)? What? Yep. :) I built a new desktop for the folks last year based on a 2.8 GHz Athlon II X2 (Regor). The CPU was something like $80 from Newegg. At the time the least expensive AMD quad core was between $150-200 IIRC and ran significantly hotter, 65w vs. 115w. It's running WinXP, FF, TB, etc, and they love it. So quiet you can't hear the fans, period, but it has great front/back airflow, none of that front, side, top, back fan idiocy--used an Apevia gamer case: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811144140 As with likely many folks here, for most servers I prefer a higher count of slower cores. My servers are all about multi user throughput--few single processes ever come close to eating up all of a core. If one process does decide to hog a core, other users don't suffer as they might on a dual core server, as there are 3 or 7 more available cores for the scheduler to make use of. -- Stan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4cc31d5c.3020...@hardwarefreak.com