From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IrPpy-0003FC-0N for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 03:19:46 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with SMTP id lAC3HcaA004792; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 03:17:38 GMT Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com (out01.mta.xmission.com [166.70.13.231]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with ESMTP id lAC3HbZL004747 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 03:17:37 GMT Received: from [166.70.13.201] (helo=mgr1.xmission.com) by out01.mta.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1IrPns-0003U1-7o for gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:17:36 -0700 Received: from beolach.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.24.84] helo=mandalor.homelinux.net) by mgr1.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IrPnr-0000C8-4e for gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:17:35 -0700 Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:55:51 -0700 From: "Conway S. Smith" To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: <20071111195551.6c0716d7@mandalor.homelinux.net> In-Reply-To: References: <20071110081152.4065e4db@mandalor.homelinux.net> <20071110095206.7a73544e@mandalor.homelinux.net> <20071111053814.06ce20f3@mandalor.homelinux.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.12.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/LxiBatAtPK3=AiSVR.jbaWV"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 Received-SPF: none (mgr1.xmission.com: 166.70.24.84 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of comcast.net) client-ip=166.70.24.84; envelope-from=beolach@comcast.net; helo=mandalor.homelinux.net; X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 166.70.24.84 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: beolach@comcast.net X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa02 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on sa02.xmission.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=8.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE,T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG,XM_SPF_Neutral autolearn=disabled version=3.2.3 X-Spam-Report: * -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG * -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa02 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 XM_SPF_Neutral SPF-Neutral Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Planning a new box - AMD Opteron or Intel Xeon? X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 (built Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:44:12 +0100) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mgr1.xmission.com) X-Archives-Salt: d35b55a7-79b7-436c-b4c3-25ffe8029bb1 X-Archives-Hash: ef88daa1a4a8ea5798271184eb435b73 --Sig_/LxiBatAtPK3=AiSVR.jbaWV Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 01:43:48 +0000 (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote: > "Conway S. Smith" posted > 20071111053814.06ce20f3@mandalor.homelinux.net, excerpted below, on > Sun, 11 Nov 2007 05:38:14 -0700: >=20 > > Well, I've been looking at the new Barcelona Opteron 2300 series, > > which have 4 cores each & can be used in dual socket motherboards, > > for a total of 8 cores in the system. The 2 or 4 cores in an > > Athlon X2 system really would be sufficient for my needs, but then > > my current box is still pretty much sufficient for my needs. This > > new box I'm planning is more about my wants, and I look at 8 cores > > & think "I want!" >=20 > For general workstation use, including Gentoo, 4 cores should be > about enough for now. Same with 4 gig of memory. I went with 8 gig > memory, but if I had it to do over I'd stick with 4 gig and get the > dual-cores sooner. >=20 The thing is, I'm really not much of an upgrader - at least, not replacement-type upgrades, like CPUs. I'd rather get 4 cores now, instead of getting 2 cores & later upgrading to 4, because then I'd have the 2 core CPUs lying around, and much as I might think that I'd find some use for them, my experience has been that they'd just end up in a box (cardboard, not computer) gathering dust. And as I've been pricing things, I've been rather impressed w/ how the 4 core Barcelonas are priced compared w/ similarly clocked 2 core Santa Rosas. Memory, on the other hand, is easier to upgrade just by adding additional sticks, so I might just start w/ 4 GiB & plan on adding more later. > The more cores you get, the more things have to parallelize in > ordered to use them. It's coming, but really isn't there yet. There > are too many makefiles that haven't been designed with massive > parallelization in mind. >=20 > Of course, there are applications where 8-core is useful. Just not > for general Gentoo desktop/workstation use, IMO. A pair of 30" Apple > Cinema (like 2900x1600 or some such, resolution) or comparable LCDs > and a decent GPU (or set of GPUs) to run them seems better use of > that sort of money, to me, and what I'm looking at for next upgrade > after my eyes (lasik). >=20 I actually already have a Samsung 305T 30" monitor, that's very similar to the Apple Cinema, but slightly cheaper & better response time. And it (just the one) was more expensive than I expect I'll be shelling out for the 2x4 core CPUs + motherboard. Thanks, Conway S. Smith --Sig_/LxiBatAtPK3=AiSVR.jbaWV Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHN8DDGL3AU+cCPDERAjZwAKCzy0dsh3xS3hCiPoF0SzTlKoRzggCfenYi s7nqmHI9JGu6k9HTAeJMjvY= =UOwK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/LxiBatAtPK3=AiSVR.jbaWV-- -- gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list