| 1 |
On 22/07/12 06:18, Alecks Gates wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 20/07/12 10:24, Philip Webb wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> |
| 5 |
>>> I plan to build a new machine in the next few months: |
| 6 |
>>> it wb for regular desktop use, but performance is as important as price. |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> A quick look at what was available in April suggested |
| 9 |
>>> an Intel Ivy Bridge i7 ( 22 nm ) ; Phoronix said it works with Kernel 3.2 |
| 10 |
>>> + an Intel Z77 mobo (I usually buy ASUS) & that power/watt was excellent. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> The best performance for money is the i5 2550K CPU. If you want the |
| 14 |
>> integrated graphics because you don't have an actual graphics card, you can |
| 15 |
>> go for the 2500K. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> This is a Sandy Bridge CPU. I normally don't recommend the Ivy Bridge ones |
| 18 |
>> because they run hotter, so changing the clock multipliers isn't as fun as |
| 19 |
>> with Sandy Bridge. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Actually according to the link Florian linked here[1], AMD is doing |
| 24 |
> extremely well regarding price/performance. Unless you want a Celeron |
| 25 |
> or a Pentium. i5s do rate up there, though... these tests are also |
| 26 |
> from Windows. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> [1] http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I mean performance that doesn't suck :-P |
Archives