suggestions for new computer

I'm running Windows 2003 server at home. I need fast processor support for
running multiple OS with vmware workstation. Sometimes I'd like to have
Fedora and Windows XP up and running. I'm using Vmware to get rid of
multiple pc's in the house.

Will I see performance increase with a dual core processor with the type of
work I do or is a fast single core still the best way to go?

I'm more into buying for the best value than paying for something that I
really won't benefit from.

"Joe" wrote in message
...
I'm running Windows 2003 server at home. I need fast processor support for
running multiple OS with vmware workstation. Sometimes I'd like to have
Fedora and Windows XP up and running. I'm using Vmware to get rid of
multiple pc's in the house.

Will I see performance increase with a dual core processor with the type
of work I do or is a fast single core still the best way to go?

I'm more into buying for the best value than paying for something that I
really won't benefit from.


This is an easy one....

AMD Dual-Core X2 4000+ or 4200+...nothing else will come close to it.
Don't waste time looking at Intel dual-cores as the current crop is not yet
true dual core...
no crossbar so the two cores cannot communicate or see each other
directly..they have to communicate through the Northbridge chip...which is
another problem...all Intel chips are still based
on P4 technology and still use a Northbridge for IO. The AMD has crossbar,
on-die memory controller (Intel? NOT!), L1 (data) and L2 are exclusive, DCA,
and the hypertransport bus.

Seriously...AMD takes the cake in dual-core.

(note to Intel lovers...the one benchmark that every Intel fanatic spouts
about video encoding is useless...the app used in that benchmark was a
P4/Hyperthreading optimized benchmark. When the Intel dual core had
hyperthreading disabled, the AMD beat it's encoding time by over 60%).


Bobby

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 09:13:41 +0000, NoNoBadDog! wrote:


"Joe" wrote in message
...
I'm running Windows 2003 server at home. I need fast processor support for
running multiple OS with vmware workstation. Sometimes I'd like to have
Fedora and Windows XP up and running. I'm using Vmware to get rid of
multiple pc's in the house.

Will I see performance increase with a dual core processor with the type
of work I do or is a fast single core still the best way to go?

I'm more into buying for the best value than paying for something that I
really won't benefit from.


This is an easy one....

AMD Dual-Core X2 4000+ or 4200+...nothing else will come close to it.
Don't waste time looking at Intel dual-cores as the current crop is not yet
true dual core...
no crossbar so the two cores cannot communicate or see each other
directly..they have to communicate through the Northbridge chip...which is
another problem...all Intel chips are still based
on P4 technology and still use a Northbridge for IO. The AMD has crossbar,
on-die memory controller (Intel? NOT!), L1 (data) and L2 are exclusive, DCA,
and the hypertransport bus.

Seriously...AMD takes the cake in dual-core.

(note to Intel lovers...the one benchmark that every Intel fanatic spouts
about video encoding is useless...the app used in that benchmark was a
P4/Hyperthreading optimized benchmark. When the Intel dual core had
hyperthreading disabled, the AMD beat it's encoding time by over 60%).


Bobby

I'll modify this slightly. The dual core of choice is the Athlon X2 4400+.
The 4400+ has 1M caches and it's still reasonably priced for a dual core.
The 3800+, 4000+, 4200+ and 4600+ have 1/2M caches which hurts there
performance. The 4800+ is overpriced vis a vis the 4400+, it's only 10%
faster but it's nearly twice as expensive.

General Schvantzkoph wrote:

" The 3800+, 4000+, 4200+ and 4600+ have 1/2M caches which hurts there
performance. "


There isn't an X2 4000+. If there was, it would be 2.0GHz with 2x 1MB
L2 cache.

Also, the cache difference doesn't hurt performance half as much as
people seem to make out.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q3...0/index.x?pg=1

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:51:45 +0100, Cuzman wrote:

General Schvantzkoph wrote:

" The 3800+, 4000+, 4200+ and 4600+ have 1/2M caches which hurts there
performance. "


There isn't an X2 4000+. If there was, it would be 2.0GHz with 2x 1MB
L2 cache.

Also, the cache difference doesn't hurt performance half as much as
people seem to make out.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q3...0/index.x?pg=1

It's huge, in my tests a 754 pin 3400+ with a 1M cache almost always out
runs a 3800+ which has a faster clock and dual memory channels, somethings
the difference is two to one.

http://www.polybus.com/linux_hardware/index.htm

I haven't put the numbers for the 4400+ up but it behaved as you would
expect. Each core in the 4400+ runs at the same clock speed as the 3400+
and also has the same cache size, 1M. However the 4400+ has dual memory
channels so that on single threaded applications it outruns the 3400+ by
about 10%. On multiple threaded applications it really is twice as fast.