[mdlug] Processors and Thugs

[Aaron Kulkis]

Rich Hughes wrote:
> Hey everyone,
> 
> I don't know that this is appropriate for the list or not, it should be
> okay but just let me know if it isn't. I can take it.
> 
> I'm reviewing a barebones kit for my site. The processor is a Pentium 4
> 3.4GHz. I'm writing the review from the perspective that one benefit to
> using linux is you can use older, thus cheaper, technology and have it
> fly. This kit came with an awesome motherboard, 1 gig of ram, the
> processor that I mentioned, case + 300W power supply (low, but has been
> solid), wireless mouse and kb, cd rom and floppy for $189. I feel that
> this is a powerhouse machine. To get it up and running, I installed
> opensuse 10.3, and everything flies on it. With ram so cheap I can
> easily dump more in and this thing will move even faster.
> 

Sounds like a very capable machine.

> My question to the group is this: am I right that for everyday desktop
> usage that this is a great processor? I'm looking at it related to an
> earlier thread here. Sure, dual and quad core are great, but if you want
> a great system at a low price then this is the way to go. Us linux users
> are a tough bunch, though, and I don't want to post this review and have
> some smart thugs beat me up and getting all "LOL P4". Is there that much
> of a disadvantage using a P4 as oppossed to later dual and quad cores
> when looking at what typical users do (surf the web, burn movies, etc...) ?
> 


Single core verses quad core isn't much of an issue for
desktop machines.

Due to memory contention issues, compared to a quad-core computer
running at N GHz will perform slower than a single-core computer
running at 4*N GHz.

The ideal supercomputer is a single-core machine which runs
at infinite speed with memory that's fast enough to keep up.


To tell you the truth, when I build a new machine (or
upgrade one), my typical purchasing strategy is to buy
a CPU that's in the mid-range to slowest currently
available, and put the money I saved (compared to a
high end CPUs) into memory.  [10 years ago, I would have
said, improved graphics card with lots of memory, but now
even low-end graphics cards are more than adequate for
even the largest displays (in terms of number of pixels)]


> Sorry for the novel. That is why I don't post much here. I'm long winded.
> 

No problem.  Feel free to post whenever you want.
It keeps the boredom-monster away.

> Thanks,
> Rich H