Garrett Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No kidding. But I doubt the competence of people that buy computers
from big name manufacturers, unless they bought it maybe for server
applications, large scale deployment of machines, etc. Gotta love
their little Flash graphics with the balls
On 1/12/06, Gerard Seibert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Garrett Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No kidding. But I doubt the competence of people that buy computers
from big name manufacturers, unless they bought it maybe for server
applications, large scale deployment of machines, etc. Gotta
--- Martin Cracauer cracauer@cons.org wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote on Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at
12:52:24PM -0400:
I'm going to assume that Dual Core is better
(can't believe that they took
a step back) ... but, is how does it rate? I
know that HyperThreading is
definitely != Dual
--- Garrett Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Jan 11, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Danial Thom
wrote:
Wait, I can download music, run a virus
scanner
and play games all at the same time? wow.
Wait,
I can do that anyway. Does each core have its
own
hard drive too?
I wonder how many
I have benchmarks comparing dual-core 939
socket systems against dual
940 socket systems here:
http://cracauer-forum.cons.org/forum/crabench.html
Just a question about your benches, any reason
you just don't ship files to /dev/null? That was
always the standard in unix to get the
On 10 Jan 2006, at 18:06, Andrew P. wrote:
By 2010 we'll see 4-core, 8-core and maybe even 16/32 solutions.
We got those in 2005: http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/
index.xml
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--- Andrew P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/10/06, Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm going to assume that Dual Core is better
(can't believe that they took
a step back) ... but, is how does it rate? I
know that HyperThreading is
definitely != Dual CPU ... but how close
Ceri Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 10 Jan 2006, at 18:06, Andrew P. wrote:
By 2010 we'll see 4-core, 8-core and maybe even 16/32 solutions.
We got those in 2005: http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/index.xml
That's a little different than what Andrew was describing as
Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Andrew P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/10/06, Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm going to assume that Dual Core is better
(can't believe that they took
a step back) ... but, is how does it rate? I
know that HyperThreading is
--- Gerard Seibert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Andrew P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/10/06, Marc G. Fournier
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm going to assume that Dual Core is
better
(can't believe that they took
a step back) ...
On Jan 11, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Danial Thom wrote:
Wait, I can download music, run a virus scanner
and play games all at the same time? wow. Wait,
I can do that anyway. Does each core have its own
hard drive too?
I wonder how many meetings they had before they
came up with that description of
Marc G. Fournier wrote on Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:52:24PM -0400:
I'm going to assume that Dual Core is better (can't believe that they took
a step back) ... but, is how does it rate? I know that HyperThreading is
definitely != Dual CPU ... but how close does Dual Core get?
It is the real
I'm going to assume that Dual Core is better (can't believe that they took
a step back) ... but, is how does it rate? I know that HyperThreading is
definitely != Dual CPU ... but how close does Dual Core get?
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
On 1/10/06, Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm going to assume that Dual Core is better (can't believe that they took
a step back) ... but, is how does it rate? I know that HyperThreading is
definitely != Dual CPU ... but how close does Dual Core get?
There is extensive evidence
I'm going to assume that Dual Core is better (can't believe that they took a
step back) ... but, is how does it rate? I know that HyperThreading is
definitely != Dual CPU ... but how close does Dual Core get?
Dual Core = two physical CPUs, possibly sharing L2 cache.
HyperThreading = double
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc G. Fournier
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 8:52 AM
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Dual Core vs HyperThreading vs Dual CPU
I'm going to assume that Dual Core is better (can't believe
16 matches
Mail list logo
