On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Miguel Paraz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: .. > I guess I could go for the low-end 8600GT/DDR-3 at PhP3,300.
well everything is relative... the 8600GT is still not enough of a speed bump for me.. .. > I do want to play modern games, but RTS not FPS so they demand less > GPU power. I would like to play them at full settings at 1680x1050 > though :) You'd be surprised how much GPU those games need. More so at full res. .. > So, back to the original topic - VT - seems like you don't need it :) > > As for my Solaris requirement - I didn't reply earlier - hardware > compatibility isn't too important because I'll likely run it > virtualized. > > But I can't accept why Intel put VT only in the E6xxx and above, while > AMD made its virtualization feature available on the lowliest X2 3600+ > (or even lower?) Maybe because VT only makes sense with 4 MB L2 cache? I didn't get the computer for work, but for games. I don't run VM's on it either (I dual-boot). I only use it for work when I need 2 machines for something. As for VT... Intel is just deliberately crippling the entry-level processors. Tomshardware has a benchmark showing that the E2180 @ 3 GHz is <5% slower than a real 3GHz E6xxx. So if they put VT on the E2xxx nobody would buy the E6xxx anymore. That 4MB vs 1MB of cache doesn't result in any huge performance benefits for "normal" benchmarks. Of course for matrix inversions which fit entirely in the cache (an infamous use case for the MIPS R8000 back in the day...) 4MB of cache will be much faster than 1MB. But for general server workloads.... it's almost meaningless. Large boxes like HP Integrity Itanium have large amounts of back-end cache because they need all the bandwidth they can get. But most apps common folk run, don't need an Integrity. _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
