| 1 |
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:39 AM, microcai <microcai@×××××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
> 2012/7/26 Philip Webb <purslow@××××××××.net>: |
| 3 |
>> I've listed what's available at the local store, |
| 4 |
>> which I trust to stock reliable items, tho' I wouldn't ask their advice. |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> All the AMD's are 32 nm , while the Intel recommended by one commenter |
| 7 |
>> -- Core i5-3570 4-Core Socket LGA1155, 3.4 Ghz, 6MB L3 Cache, 22 nm -- |
| 8 |
>> is 22 nm : it costs CAD 230 & they have 3 in stock, |
| 9 |
>> which suggests demand, but not the most popular ( 9 in stock). |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Isn't 22 nm going to be faster than 32 nm ? |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> In the same price range, AMD offers Bulldozer X8 FX-8150 (125W) |
| 14 |
>> 8-Core Socket AM3+, 3.6 GHz, 8Mb Cache, 32 nm ( CAD 220 , 2 in stock). |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> How do you compare cores vs nm ? |
| 17 |
>> How far is cache size important ( 6 vs 8 MB )? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> cache size is always the most important thing. cache miss is the top |
| 20 |
> reason your application slows down. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Generally speaking, but it does depend on your workload; if you're |
| 23 |
processing and referencing the same piece of memory over and over, |
| 24 |
cache shines. If you're streaming through a lot of data...not so much. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Certainly, though, the former behavior is far more common. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
:wq |
Archives