Mildly OT: AMD's latest chip(s)

[Alex Beamish]

I think this chip (or pair of chips) is a non-starter, based on the
combination of a) power consumption, b) noise, c) price and d) ho-hum
performance. From what I've seen lately, the best bang for a buck is a P4
2.4 with loads of RAM -- but that's probably only because I'm not convinced
a 64 bit processor is any better than any of the tried-and-true 32 bit
processors around.

I used to wonder at power supplies capable of 1kW loads .. now I understand
what they were being built for.

On 12/1/06, Giles Orr <gilesorr-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ZDM/story?id=2693130
>
> I'm a fan of AMD, although I admit that some of my joy in their
> existence is just contrariness.  I've bought systems with their chips
> before, and for a while before Intel let out the Core Duo processors,
> AMD was producing better chips than Intel.  The above URL contains a
> (poorly formatted) review of the new AMD QuadFX platform: two dual
> core chips on one board, meant to compete with Intel's quad core.
> Apparently it's the loudest system they've ever reviewed, and it draws
> 600w with only one graphics card on board.
>
> --
> Giles
> http://www.gilesorr.com/
> gilesorr-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org
> --
> The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists
>



-- 
Alex Beamish
Toronto, Ontario
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/legacy/attachments/20061201/7059cdee/attachment.html>