On May 22, 2007 02:37:41 pm Neil Gunton wrote: > Lennart Sorensen wrote: > > Well I would certainly prefer 2 or 4GB ram on a new system. > > Are we talking about desktop workstations here? Forgive my ignorance, > but what on earth requires that much RAM? Video processing? I have 1 GB > in my desktop at the moment, and that's useful for when I'm running > VMWare, but that's about it. Most of the time, it's just being used for > disk cache. With the pricing on DDR2 ram now a days it is an easy decision to go with 2gb I got my 2gb for a little over $140 CAD just over a month ago and can get the same ram today for just under $120 CAD plus the caching does not hurt either just speeds up the machine even more. I am almost tempted to get another 2gb to throw in just for the hell of it. > > As for AMD, well when they come out with the quad, assuming it does what > > they claim it will do, then they will probably be back on my list of > > recommended parts. > > I think I must have gone to sleep for a couple of years. When I was last > looking at Intel vs AMD, "they" were saying that AMD's architecture was > much better than Intel's, because (I think this is right) for > communication between cores, the AMD doesn't have to go off-chip, but > Intel's architecture requires use of the external bus, and AMD's design > just plain scaled better. Or something. Then fast forward to today, > where apparently Intel's Core 2 Duo is apparently kicking the pants off > AMD... how did this happen? Is Intel really all that much better? Intel just did not stand still when getting their ass kicked they went out and designed something better. The Core 2 Duo is definitely faster when I built my new machine I just moved the hard drive from my old system AMD X2 939 running at 2.4ghz 2gb ram to new Core 2 Duo 2.49ghz 2gb ram. I re-complied the kernel on old for the modules needed to boot the new system it took just like it always did about 12 minutes on new machine it takes just about 8 and a half minutes. Now even with the new being ~100mhz faster and the ram running at 356FSB (DDR712) 5-5-5-15 vs old 240FSB (DDR480) 3-3-3-7 I don't think that can account for about a 3 and a half minute difference. > Also, I only really hear comparisons between the Core 2 Duo and Athlon. > How about Opteron? Is the Opteron still a good choice for servers? Or > has Xeon leapt ahead there too? From my experience of having had two different Opterons in my 939 board both of which I ran as fast as my X2 there was next to no difference in the performance of them vs X2. So Opteron vs Core 2 the Core 2 is faster against the Xeon I have no clue never had one of them. > Sorry for the ignorance. I don't pay much attention to hardware stuff in > between computer purchases. Last time I really looked was in 2005 or so. > > Thanks! > > /Neil Stephen -- GPG Public Key: http://users.eastlink.ca/~stephencormier/publickey.asc
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.