to dual core or not to dual core...

[Gary Jennejohn]

Ken Gunderson writes:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:36:14 -0700
> Freddie Cash <fcash at ocis.net> wrote:
> 
> > On August 15, 2005 02:08 pm, Ken Gunderson wrote:
> > > ah, that is the question...
> > 
> > > It seems to me that for most normal workstation use one might well be
> > > better off w/investing in faster single core cpu than in dual core.
> > > Anybody running the dual core on desktop fbsd workstation can report?
> > 
> > Considering 95% of all Socket 939 motherboards will accept dual-core 
> > processors with nothing more than a BIOS update, get a single-code 
> > system now, and upgrade to dual-core when the prices drop.
> > 
> > The nice thing about AMD systems is you can do that.  :)  Intel 
> > dual-core requires an entire new chipset/motherboard, RAM, etc.
> 
Right on AMD being mroe better than Intel...  But what I was getting at
> was, all other things being equal, i.e. same ballpark budget, would one
> be better off sacrificing cpu a few hundred MHz to go w/dual core (e.g.
> 2.0 GHz) or better off "investing" in single core w/more Mhz and a 1MB
> L2 cache (e.g. 2.4 GHz). Given that these puppies are w/in $20 of
> each other, I'm inclined to opt for the later.
> 

I used to have a single core 3200+ (2200 MHz and 512 kB cache) in my
ASUS A8V Deluxe.

I then put a low-end X2 into it (also 2200 Mhz and with 512 kB cache)
and my build worlds are now twice as fast! :-) SMP does have its benefits.

The only drawback was that I had to replace my RADEON card with an
NVIDIA due to stability problems in SMP mode. Since I run mostly in
32-bit mode the nvidia-driver port works OK for me. However, that
would not be an option in 64-bit mode!

---
Gary Jennejohn / garyjATjennejohnDOTorg gjATfreebsdDOTorg garyjATdenxDOTde