[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 16/03/11 15:52, tom wrote:
On 16/03/11 14:36, Gordon Henderson wrote:Anyone have any preferences/experiences? I've a client on a tight budget (as usual )-: Trying to get the best general purpose performance for their money - looking for a quad core processor to run mostly LAMP type stuff (although it's a specific application rather than some off the shelf thing) (And power and cooling is a concern too as it'll be in an office with minimal AC) I used AMD processors for a long time, but have been using Intel recently - just wondering if the Phenoms are any better in terms of power (watts) per bang ... Cheers, GordonThe question I ask myself is: Has either producer used illegal anticompetitive tactics in its business and as such should be shunned at all costs: AMD not that I'm aware of Intel Yes so even for a large price differential ( and I think AMD tends to work out as a slightly better bang for buck) I'd buy AMD. I'd prefer to by ARM for power reasons but until I can find one of these http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14/calxeda_arm_server/ I'm on beg borrow and stealing old machines Tom te tom te tom
If it was me I'd choose the Phenom II, mainly because it's cheaper than a Core 2 Quad and for not much more than a Core 2 Quad you can pick up a Phenom II X6 (6 cores all running at 2.8GHz with 9MB Cache for about £140).
But on the other hand I guess you could look at the lower speed Phenom X4 910e which is 65 watts with 2MB L2 cache and 6MB L3 cache and runs at 2.6GHz.
Sadly it looks like AMD haven't released any of their new Fusion APU's with anything more than 2 cores as it looks like they cut the power consumption even more.
If money was no object then I'd have suggested a Core i5 or Core i7 but they seem to be pretty pricey at the moment.
Rob -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq