On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 13:39 +0200, Michal Varga wrote: > On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 12:23 +0200, Karel Rous wrote: > > Mark Powell wrote: > > > On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Dmitry Marakasov wrote: > > > > > > Intel CPU Pentium DualCore E2140 > > > > > > They are similar price to the cheapest AMD and are really just a > > > Core2Duo with just 1MB cache and offical 800MHz FSB. However, they are > > > the same silicon as C2D. As such these run easily at ~3GHz with > > > 350-400MHz FSB all with no voltage increases, if you're into such things. > > > It's a shame AMD have fallen behind Intel. Corporate crime does pay > > > it seems :( > > Personally I don't see any evidence about this statement in low > > price solution. I use AMD for a long time and it has never as > > overclockable as Intel. The first one I have found is A64 3000 which I > > bought two weeks ago... > > > > > >> > > >> Though Core 2 Duo CPUs are more expensive, > > > > > > See above. Possibly not as low power as an AMD solution, but a lot > > > more for your money, me thinks. > > I think overclocking shoudn't be understood as a feature you pay > > for. It's mainly a matter of luck. Reliability (probability of crash) > > and lifetime of such machines could be worse. > > > > Karel > > > When someone asks me for differences between Core 2 and AMD/64/FX/etc, I > wont bother to argue anymore, I simply link this: > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118296441702631 > > ..and let them decide on their own. (well, maybe I sometimes add that > buying C2D today is a suicide, but *that* is a highly personal opinion). > > > m. > Sigh. Yes, lets all be scared by Theo de Raadt's scaremongering and over exaggeration. See the original thread on current_at_ for full explanations of why everything he says in that email is largely irrelevant. Tom
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:20 UTC