I have to agree with cooloutac.
Btw, with new laptop, I've switched from quad-core to dual-core (with higher
per-core performance) and I don't regret. This is not to discourage you from
quad-core, I'd probably also go for quad-core if I could: However, with
laptops, I was much constrainted
All of this more or less answers my question. I'm not planning on having a lot
of VMs busy simultaneously. I do expect to have a lot of VMs open for various
purposes. Most will be idle much of the time. Some might be doing a thing or
two. It sounds like a fast quad-core processor with gobs
I still think clock speed matters more. If trying to budget I would focus on
ram and i/o speed which would make a bigger difference in Qubes then how many
cores. faster ram and lots of it and a big ssd should be more a priority.
Also you want to make sure that the board supports iommu/vt-d in
On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 9:49:05 AM UTC+2, mojosam wrote:
> My question isn't about how many virtual CPUs to assign but whether a Qubes
> system with many cores is really faster than one with fewer cores. Does the
> OS know how to use many cores and do a good job of exploiting them?
Yes,
My question isn't about how many virtual CPUs to assign but whether a Qubes
system with many cores is really faster than one with fewer cores. Does the OS
know how to use many cores and do a good job of exploiting them?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 6:48:57 AM UTC+2, mojosam wrote:
> I'm thinking about replacing one of my computers. I don't know if that will
> be my Qubes machine or one of the others. I talked to the owner of the local
> mom & pop computer shop. I said that I was considering getting an AMD
>
