64 bit cpu

[Ronald K. Wechter]

>From Most of the readings that I've done AMD and Intel are scrambling for
dual core solutions because Micro$oft licenses are based on per processor
and not per core.  The first chip manufacturer that comes out with the right
dual core solution will, in my opinion, come out on top and have a
bargaining chip.

Once again this proves how linux can be superior - Dual proc systems do
perform better and you don't have to pay more per processor :) WOOHOO - The
power of the penguin (*hears faint doobeedoobeedo*)

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nflug at nflug.org [mailto:owner-nflug at nflug.org] On Behalf Of Dave
Andruczyk
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 9:55 AM
To: nflug at nflug.org
Subject: Re: 64 bit cpu


> Dave or anyone,
> 
> How does a dual-core processor system compare with a dual-processor?  
> There are advantages in power consumption and heat generation with the 
> former, but I'm sure there are differences that result in lower 
> performance as well.  L1 and/or L2 cache, bottlenecks?
> 

dual core doesn't give you anything like dual processor will give you.
Lets say you want to run two mpeg video encodes,  on a dual proc, both cpus
will  get max utilization and the encode will take "x" time.  On a dual
core, 
the encode will take about "1.6 x" time as a true dual proc setup.

dual cores have MUCH MUCH more issues of L2 cache contention and thrashing
then
dual proc. (where each has their own cache)  Linux 2.6 is quite good at keep
processes from moving back and forth between cpus now too which improves
efficency and cache hits as well..

Dual cores can be cheaper money wise,  but I'd rather have a lower Mhz dual
processor system instead of a high Ghz simple cpu dual core setup.


Dave J. Andruczyk


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs