<quote who="[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
> i am thinking aroung a PIII 500-800 or so hopefully.. or would an AMD be
> better. I am not looking for bleading edge so the latest stats from
> tomshardware dont really help so generally i am looking for real life
> experiences etc.
Not looking for bleeding edge, but you want a P3 500-800? Hmm. That's fairly
bleeding edge - in terms of usefulness anyway. Are you going to be rating
your desktop system for transactions per second? ;)
If you're willing to spend around $500+ on a P3, then you *really* ought to
be thinking less about grunt-in-one-spot and more about multiple-gruntage.
I doubt I'll be upgrading too soon [1], but if I were to get me a chunky new
machine, I wouldn't even consider a single processor. Find an Abit VP6 (the
next in line from the BP6 dual proc board, which caused large amounts of
appreciative dribble, and jealousy by the truckload), and grab yourself two
good Celerons.
Whilst MHz usually means poop, the Celeron and P3 cores are almost exactly
the same, so you can usually [2] compare their MHz as a decent performance
metric. Plus, you can get yourself an 800MHz Celeron for about $200, and an
800MHz P3 for about $520. Big difference, huh?
And two processors are funner than one.
- Jeff
[1] Windows machines are upgraded because of games. Linux machines are
upgraded because of Raster. <URL: http://linux.conf.au/papers/#P11>
[2] For desktop machines anyway. The difference will be noticable for more
strenuous tasks, which do include games and graphics stuff (having a chunky
2L cache is nice for these things).
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------- http://linux.conf.au/ --
It's not just a song! It's a document of my life!
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
