On 4 Sep 2006 at 20:50, Richard Baker wrote: > Andrew said: > > > Ah, yes, you're quite right. On a quick investigation, for some > > reason the external search I used gave me the *upgrade* price for an > > existing PC. > > That one isn't even remotely the same processor. It has a 533MHz > front-size bus, 512KB of cache, a single core, and is based on the > obsolete Netburst microarchitecture. The 5150s in the Mac Pro have a > 1333MHz front-size bus, 4MB of cache, two cores and are based on the > new Core microarchitecture. The Core architecture has much better > performance per clock cycle than NetBurst does too, so the fact that > the two have the same clock speed is extremely misleading. > > (You may be interested to know - or may already know - that the Core > microarchitecture was designed by Intel's team in Haifa.)
Yes, I did. > I was pretty much astonished by the price and performance of the Mac > Pro, especially as someone who spends quite a bit of money on Xeon > servers to run Windows applications. And I don't know that much about them because for what I do, I'm nearly allways GPU-limited or bus-limited, not CPU-limited. So I'm looking at high-end graphics cards combined with a (dual core) 4600 Mhz Athlon X2. The only people (and of course, the high-performance servers..) who have Opteron/Xeon processors at work are the video specalists. AndrewC Dawn Falcon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
