--- James Mansion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I guess I should have qualified my question. > If > >you're pushing less than 100Kb/s then there's > >really no reason to spend 3X the dollars on a > >multi-core system. So the only real value of > an > > >As of NOW, the price differential between a > >single core 2.6ghz Opteron and a dual-core one > is > >about 120%. I can't think of many applications > >that are going to push a 2.6Ghz opteron that > >justify spending more than twice as much. Of > > While I'd agree that in general CPUs today are > really pretty fast, I think this '3X' and > '120%' pitch suggests borked thinking, at least > for the case of whether to buy a dual core > socket 939 or 940 chip - because while the cost > differential is quite steep, its only the CPU > and > in effect you get a lot more bang for an > incremental change in system bucks - you don't > even need a pricey mobo. A dual-core 2.6 Opteron is about US$1079. whereas a single core is about $460. So for about $200. more I can build 2 2.6Ghz systems that give me a lot more bang for my buck than 1 dual-core system. Intel isn't quite in play yet, since a dual-core Pentium D doesn't give me the performance of a single 2.6Ghz Opteron, so there's no point in even considering it. Woodcrest/Conroe will change things, of course. Again, I'm talking about getting past the wall, so the lower end stuff doesn't buy me anything. DT __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
