I haven't taxed the 3-core outside of the initial burn-in yet, but the burn-in did seem to do really well on a machine with 2GB memory. The Quad was lightning, but that machine also has 4GB of memory. Both machines have AMD chipsets on the motherboards, but I don't know if that has a lot to do with how well the procs perform unless there is some sort of optimization going on between the AMD chipsets and the AMD procs. Given the small difference in price, I'd say do the Quad. You'll probably run into some cycle-hungry app where that extra core would be appreciated, and Critch is right, the memory is a better place to spend your money. So really, it comes down to what do you need -- CPU cycles or memory in which to run you apps?
Jim Andrew Farnsworth wrote: > Has anyone used one of the "new" AMD Phenom triple core CPUs? I am > just curious as to how they stack up to the quad core CPUs. They > don't seem to really save a lot of money or power so it seems that for > the $30-60 extra it would be worth it to go quad core. > > Andy > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NLUG" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
