Re: Quad Cores

[Bill Broadley <bill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> AMD beats Intel hands-down in power consumption, though:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/16/nnanda_benchmark_amd_and_intel_quad_cores/

I saw this, looks like the typical biased marketing that is very common.
Who paid for the research?

> 41% less watts (when idle) is much better than a few percent more speed
> in my book. Of course, if you're crunching numbers day and night, it
> might still be worth to buy Intel.

FB dimms are hot, that's not news.  If you want more power efficiency buy 
intel systems that use DDR-II.  Not to mention 2GB dimms instead of 1GB.  Not 
to mention 45nm CPUs.

Granted AMD enjoys advantages are higher dimm counts as well as higher socket 
counts.  Then again intel is shipping quads and for the most part it seems 
like AMD isn't.

--
amd64-list mailing list
amd64-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/amd64-list