> > 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
--- 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?
> >
> >
--- Martin Cracauer 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 CPU ...
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, et
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 "bal
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 r
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
--- 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 belie
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
> > k
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
--- "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 .
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
-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 be
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 s
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 evide
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)
Em
16 matches
Mail list logo
