Mark Allums put forth on 12/13/2009 8:16 AM: > On 12/13/2009 7:00 AM, Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote: >>> Stan Hoeppner<s...@hardwarefreak.com> : >>> If you want to stick with AMD, I recommend the following: >>> >>> AMD Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition Callisto 3.1GHz 2 x 512KB L2 Cache >>> 6MB L3 Cache Socket AM3 80W Dual-Core Processor >>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103680 >>> >>> ASUS M4A785T-M/CSM >>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131609 >>> >>> Kingston HyperX 8GB (4 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 >>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820104163 >> >> I second. Good advice. ;-) >> > > I agree, except that, if I understood correctly, he already has the CPU > (though I disregarded this in my own post). So he would want a > motherboard he can use with his Opteron.
I understood his "actually have" comment to mean that his current PC has an Opteron inside, not that he already has a new Opteron in hand for his new build. Amel talks about buying a new Opteron: Amel wrote: I have actualy an AMD Opteron and the idea is, for the moment, to buy: - CPU AMD Opteron 1356 - Motherboard Tyan Tomcat n3400B (S2925-E) - Memory Kingston KVR800D2E6K2/4G (2x kit of 2x2GB = 8GB) > 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. Take the Phenom II X2 vs the Opty 1356 for example. 3.1 GHz vs 2.3 GHz. The L3 cache is the same at 6MB, as is the core microarchitecture (phenom II x2 is a quad core chip with two defective cores disabled mind you), but the two cores of this Phenom run 700MHz faster than the Opty cores. That's a 35% clock speed difference and will definitely be noticeable whilst running the vast majority of desktop apps, such as FireFox, java(script), Flash, Acrobat (other PDF readers), Mplayer, etc. I'm not a big fan of the Slashdot javascript driven web site because it's so darn CPU intensive and doesn't need to be. It's inefficient as hell. The 3.1 Phenom x2 will run considerably faster than the 2.3 quad Opty whilst participating on Slashdot due to the jscript being single threaded. There are many many more examples that prove my point. I almost originally recommended a 3Ghz Athlon II x2 as it's some ~$30 cheaper than the Phenom II x2 above. The Athlon II is a clean sheet dual core design, not a quad core reject with cores disabled. It has a 65W TDP vs 80W TDP, and would give almost identical performance for the vast majority of apps because its two L2 caches are twice the size of the Phenom x2's and have much lower latency than the 6MB L3 on the Phenom. However, Amel is putting 8GB of RAM in the system, and if he actually runs a big app or combo of apps simultaneously that put a good dent in that 8GB of RAM, the 6MB L3 of the Phenom x2 would have a slight advantage here. -- Stan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
