SALT NOT INCLUDED
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20051107/index.html

EdG wrote:
> SALT NOT INCLUDED
> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20051107/index.html
>

I couldn't read through it. They are so boring. Somebody oughta tell
them about getting to the point quickly.

Yousuf Khan

Bitstring <JVHcf.17011$(E-Mail Removed)>, from the
wonderful person Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)> said
>EdG wrote:
>> SALT NOT INCLUDED
>> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20051107/index.html
>>
>
>I couldn't read through it. They are so boring. Somebody oughta tell
>them about getting to the point quickly.

Start at the last page and work back!!

0c summary - dual core Opterons (and Xeons) are overpriced - two single
core CPUs of that class work out nearly as good as one dual core, for
less $ (and leave you an upgrade path).

However the =cheap= dual core (consumer grade .. Pentium D and AMX x2)
CPUs were not properly covered in the review at all - my assessment is
still that those kick-a$$, if you stay away from the bleeding edge.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.

GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
> Bitstring <JVHcf.17011$(E-Mail Removed)>, from the
> wonderful person Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)> said
>> EdG wrote:
>>> SALT NOT INCLUDED
>>> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20051107/index.html
>>>
>> I couldn't read through it. They are so boring. Somebody oughta tell
>> them about getting to the point quickly.
>
> Start at the last page and work back!!
>
> 0c summary - dual core Opterons (and Xeons) are overpriced - two single
> core CPUs of that class work out nearly as good as one dual core, for
> less $ (and leave you an upgrade path).

Forgetting about Xeons and talking about Opterons only ...

If power consumption is important to you, then you need to factor
in that each of the single-core chips uses about the same amount
of power as a dual-core one at the same clock speed.

For workstations, if not servers, noise also becomes an issue.
For example, the Zalman CNPS7000 is a fairly quiet fan/sink, but
a system with two of them is still noticeably noisier than a
system with just one of them. You definitely don't want a box
with two of the AMD stock coolers on your desk.

At the 2 GHz level it costs about $400 (USD) more to go with one
Opty 270 instead of two Opty 246's. Performance is essentially
identical so you just have to decide whether it is worth $400 to
you to have an empty CPU socket available for an easy upgrade and
the reduced power consumption and noise.

That $400 price differential also stays more or less also applies
at the 2.2 GHz level (Opty 248 vs Opty 275) and 2.4 GHz level
(Opty 250 vs Opty 280), but it becomes lower in proportion to the
overall cost of the processors.


If you are sure that 2 cores is enough for you, then you can
go with Socket 939 for the 1P system - in which case a single
dual-core Athlon64 or Opteron with 1MB L2/core costs about $100
more than a pair of single core Opty 2xx at the same clock speed.

Factor in the motherboard savings and you can save an additional
$150 to $400 by going with a Socket 939 motherboard instead of a
2P motherboard. And with most of the 2P motherboards you will
have to get a more expensive E-ATX or rackmount case and will
need a more expensive EPS12V PSU instead of an ATX PSU.

However, if you want more than 4 GB RAM or if you need the PCI-X
slots that all but the cheapest 2P motherboard have, then a 1P
motherboard is not an option for you.


>
> However the =cheap= dual core (consumer grade .. Pentium D and AMX x2)
> CPUs were not properly covered in the review at all - my assessment is
> still that those kick-a$$, if you stay away from the bleeding edge.
>

EdG wrote:
> SALT NOT INCLUDED
> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20051107/index.html

"Right now, going for a dual processor machine using single cores will
deliver the best bang for the buck."

I think Tom has been either drunk or spastic since child-birth. He was
talking about 1 dual-core Vs dual single cores, but obviously the
dual-core could be an X2 or 939 opty, which costs half a 200 series
opty, and half as much for the motherboard/ram.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 08:01:31 +1300, Paul Gunson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>EdG wrote:
>> SALT NOT INCLUDED
>> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20051107/index.html
>
>"Right now, going for a dual processor machine using single cores will
>deliver the best bang for the buck."
>
>I think Tom has been either drunk or spastic since child-birth. He was
>talking about 1 dual-core Vs dual single cores, but obviously the
>dual-core could be an X2 or 939 opty, which costs half a 200 series
>opty, and half as much for the motherboard/ram.

It seems to be an affliction there that any difference/advantage must be
wildly overstated - we've seen this kind of thing for years... the
Hyperbolic Tomvoid.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald