From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RPw7G-0006GL-4y for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 12:58:26 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 80C7821C112; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 12:58:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 034CC21C099 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 12:57:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76EB31B4008 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 12:57:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.628 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.628 required=5.5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.164, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.504, T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL=0.01] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ulqVj3wIS8lx for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 12:57:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CA161B4026 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 12:57:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RPw5t-00067s-GK for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:57:01 +0100 Received: from 46.196.248.255 ([46.196.248.255]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:57:01 +0100 Received: from masterprometheus666 by 46.196.248.255 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:57:01 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: masterprometheus Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Another hardware thread Followup-To: gmane.linux.gentoo.user Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:57:19 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20111112005129.003a54d3@digimed.co.uk> <20111112215525.244c7969@digimed.co.uk> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 46.196.248.255 User-Agent: KNode/4.4.11 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: d72b181f-99e9-418d-bed9-830ff551fe55 X-Archives-Hash: e8ccb5767a3e26d954e3518c1e40b599 Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 23:00:15 +0200, masterprometheus wrote: >=20 >> For AMD I'd recommend to go for a 960T : >> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=3DN82E16819103995 >> It's a 95W and as a Zosma it's actually a 6-core. Most of those (not >> all unfortunately) can be unlocked to a 6-core. Has Turbo=20 functionality. >=20 > That sounds like a poor gamble. A 3.0GHz CPu that I may be able to=20 unlock > to 6 cores for =A320 less than a genuine 6 cores 3.2GHz 1090T. I either= =20 get > slightly less for slightly less, or a lot less for slightly less :( >=20 Well when I checked the 960T was $125 at Newegg and 1090T was $170.=20 That's a $45 difference. With $30 of this you can get a good cooler like=20 this one : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=3DN82E16835233082 Then overclock and beat the 1090T easily in most tasks (even with 4=20 cores).=20 But if you're not in a budget get the best you can. An Intel core i7=20 2600K is a great choice if you can afford it. Already fast, easily=20 overclockable and hyperthreading will help with media encoding etc.