Am 22. Oct, 2013 schwätzte Kevin Fries so:
moin moin,
> As a general rule...
>
> AMD is generally slower, with more cores. Its by design. Their philosophy
Same number of cores in this case.
> is that the speed of a single core is less important than doing concurrent
> operations. This will not change when they finally release their Seattle
> Fabric.
I like the idea of more concurrent ops. Currently keeping cores fairly
evenly busy :).
> That said, they are right or wrong depending on the application. Some
> applications are more horizontal (can handle lots of concurrent operations
> in issolation) while some are more vertical (lots of processes that depend
> on the output of other processes). If your usage is more vertical, you
> will want those earlier threads finishing faster to get the later threads
> processing. Therefore Intel will beat AMD, badly. On the other hand, lots
> of processes, not having to wait, tips the performance scale more into
> AMD's favor.
>
> Looking at both, I find on the whole, Intel's approach tend to be the
> better one for most individuals.
OK, I'll keep this in mind as I ask about some other options. Danke.
ciao,
der.hans
--
# http://www.LuftHans.com/ http://www.LuftHans.com/Classes/
# "No software design or plan survives contact with reality."
# -- Lars Wirzenius, 2012Feb19 http://identi.ca/notice/90842065
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)