12 Sep
2006
12 Sep
'06
5:46 p.m.
Wow so much response. I definately am going to get and intel dual
core. Just to fan the flame a little bit, has anyone used the macbook
pros for much linux-audio work. I'm either going to get one of those,
or a laptop from system76.com.
Art
On 9/12/06, carmen <_(a)whats-your.name> wrote:
On Tue Sep 12, 2006 at 08:52:05PM +0200, Alberto Botti
wrote:
Il giorno mar, 12/09/2006 alle 19.41 +0300, Sampo
Savolainen ha scritto:
also note that in the benchmarks, somehow AMD still comes out on top in the
'apache' test. which suggests its possibly good at context switching and
lots of threads, compared to Intel. which bodes well for 'nix in general,
for all its interlocking parts.
at the 200 USD price-point, which is sort of a sweet spot, AMD and Intel's
offerings are pretty comparable. i'd start with a video and wireless chip
you know are supported properly on linux, then pick a CPU that will go with
it. unless you enjoy lockups, and proprietary drivers that won't compile
with your xorg version, running Windows installers and copying over SYS
files and mucking with NDISwrapper and all of that..unfortunately this means
youre stuck with Intel. the joy of vendor lock-in :/
The bottom line: Core 2 Duo beats anything AMD
can offer. Even the more
cheaper not top-of-the-line Core 2 Duo processors kill the fastest AMD
processors in most cases. Oh, and the AMD processors use almost twice
the energy of a Core 2 Duo.
Though. All of this will change eventually, of course. :)
:)
The lower grade AMDs are still competitive with the comparable ones from
Intel, and are available in two low-consumption models, lower than Intel
(ADO, rated at 65W maximum, and ADD, at 35W). They might be useful to
build a near-silent pc (but you'll might run into issues with NVidia and
ATI chipsets, VIA might be a good choice).
At least according to these tests (note: conducted under Windows)
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/low_e/