Re: Debian stock kernel config -- CONFIG_NR_CPUS=32?
Ron Johnson put forth on 10/22/2010 8:48 PM:
> Bah, humbug.
>
> Instead of a quad-core at lower GHz, I just got my wife a dual-core at
> higher speed.
Not to mention the fact that for desktop use 2 higher clocked cores will
yield faster application performance (think of the single threaded Flash
hog and Slashdot jscript) than 4 lower freq cores. They also suck _far_
less power than a quad core (45-65w vs 95-115w avg AMD), and cost
significantly less. Fewer cores equals _more_ performance for less
money (purchase price and electrical $$)? What? Yep. :)
I built a new desktop for the folks last year based on a 2.8 GHz Athlon
II X2 (Regor). The CPU was something like $80 from Newegg. At the time
the least expensive AMD quad core was between $150-200 IIRC and ran
significantly hotter, 65w vs. 115w. It's running WinXP, FF, TB, etc,
and they love it. So quiet you can't hear the fans, period, but it has
great front/back airflow, none of that front, side, top, back fan
idiocy--used an Apevia gamer case:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811144140
As with likely many folks here, for most servers I prefer a higher count
of slower cores. My servers are all about multi user throughput--few
single processes ever come close to eating up all of a core. If one
process does decide to hog a core, other users don't suffer as they
might on a dual core server, as there are 3 or 7 more available cores
for the scheduler to make use of.
--
Stan
Reply to: