On 12/13/2009 1:53 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Mark Allums put forth on 12/13/2009 8:16 AM:
The question of dual-core vs. 4-core has been raised; with i7, you get potentially the best of both with "turbo boost". It is capable of shutting down unused coes while speeding up in-use ones to keep power/thermal dissipation within the spec'ed envelope. This works well IME, although I don't know if it has kernel support in Linux or Debian (or whether it requires it.)It wasn't a question, it was a statement. For the vast majority of desktop applications, the level of process forking and/or threading isn't sufficiently high enough to allow a lower frequency quad core CPU to give better performance than a higher clocked dual core CPU, assuming the two CPUs are of the same architectural family, in this case AMD. If you factor in overall price/performance/watt this statement becomes even more true.
I wasn't generalizing, I was being quite specific. I think more cores are better, with the understanding that this is something that will be more important in the near future, less important Right Now.
What I was being specific about was that the Core i7 with the X58 chipset has the ability to go faster than the stated operating frequency anytime all four cores and eight threads aren't being used.
If you are insisting on being loyal to AMD, then it doesn't apply.I would like to reiterate that we don't know OP's application. Assuming Desktop, the choice of CPU isn't critical. Almost any will do. The exception possibly being lots of video encoding or GIMP/'Shop, in which case more threads/cores and memory are important. Otherwise, other factors might be more important, like choice of video card or chassis/case color.
MArk Allums