The spare CPU cycles only help if your bus can fill them. That's the meaning of the phrase you quote. A 1Ghz processor is no faster and has no more CPU cycles to spare than the 500Mhz processor (depending on the bus speed - some newer buses go beyond this).
In addition, you mention servers as being CPU-intensive. My own experience has shown the desktop to be most CPU-intensive, while servers are I/O intensive. Jon On 26 Jun 2003, Rick Warner wrote: > On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 11:40, Javier Gostling wrote: > > > > > It will depend on the specific situation. Compression will do lots of > > good for bandwidth scarce situations, but on a LAN or standalone system > > it will just waste CPU. > > This is so lame. Any PC less than 2-3 years old and not being used > as a server (which should not be running X anyway) has so many spare CPU > cycles that the amount taken to compress the stream will be trivial. > With today's CPUs there is no valid argument against compression. > > As one PC pundit wrote: "anything over 500MHz is for bragging rights, > only". > > - rick warner > > > -- > redhat-list mailing list > unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list > -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
