waldo kitty wrote:
On 1/15/2013 06:01, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, Sven Barth wrote:
Am 15.01.2013 11:52, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
That is a weird assumption. I would go for the second one, hands
down...
I wouldn't if the second one is significantly slower than the first one.
Otherwise I'd agree :)
On old hardware, maybe, but these days ?
please define "old hardware"... PII 300mhz is "too old"? PIII 800mhz?
and of course, how much RAM would be considered "not enough"?
I suffered a massive drop in performance when my 4x PIII 2.9GHz died,
and (wanting compatibility with the same type of pluggable disc sleds) I
had to fall back to a 2x 800MHz for Qemu etc. People are giving away
2GHz servers because they're five years old, or 2.8GHz games machines
because their graphics have fallen behind: unless you have compatibility
requirements there's limited excuse for struggling with anything slower.
For production use speed might not matter that much provided that it's
offset by lots of CPUs/cores and adequate memory, but for builds you
need brute-force CPU because FPC paralellisation isn't particularly
fine-grained.
Which is a shame, because today we're collecting a Sun V880 that
somebody local wants cleared from their office: 16x 800MHz CPUs in a
100kg+ chassis. Great as a database, web server, or for things like
Linux kernel builds; not great for FPC/Lazarus or as a Qemu host. Ho hum.
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
