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
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
