AMD or Intel as well as the memory brand - page 45
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
OK, I agree: in terms of theoretical efficiency of single-core (ff) architecture, Xeon wins (with available statistics; we haven't looked at everything yet).
But in terms of the practical criterion "cost per unit computing speed, Price/Speed ~ Price*Time", the Phenom II X3 720 wins so far.
Probably, Athlon X2 64 will be even better, but their time has already passed: we have to take into account the absolute speed.
By the way, and new Celeron with 1 MB cache may be the first too :)
In principle, I can enter this data into the table as well.
The Phenom II X3 720 is probably not a bad brick, but comparing its price/performance when overclocked by 25% is not quite right. And if you don't overclock, the configuration from Vinin would be very attractive.
It would be interesting to compare a Core i5-750 2.66GHz and an AMD Phenom II X4 Quad-core 810 2.6GHz.
You weren't too lazy to slow down, were you?
On a Phenom II, overclocking is raised/reduced with two mouse clicks in Windows))
:))) machine
Not kidding, but just for fun...
Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme, Socket 775
weight: 790 grams
It's half a brick, but the "leverage" torque is pretty big too.
Doesn't it tear out the socket and a piece of the motherboard with its roots...?
I think I've kept my old Dextop for a reason. I'm convinced it's better to mount such kilos lying down.
(not my photo!)
It would be interesting to compare Core i5-750 2.66GHz and AMD Phenom II X4 Quad-core 810 2.6GHz.
And here' s something about it. The Core i5 750 2.66/3.2 GHz ($256) is just behind the Phenom II X4 Quad-core 865 3.4 GHz ($319) on the final performance score. So everything is clear with your comparison (performance-wise; price-wise I don't know).
As for me, I really like the Core i7 860. Well the Core 2 Quad series Q9x50, which I was dreaming of a few months ago, can be forgotten about.
I, on the other hand, really like the Core i7 860. Well the Core 2 Quad series Q9x50, which I was dreaming of a few months ago, can be forgotten about.
Yep. I'm lusting after it myself.) I'll wait a bit and then I'll probably take it. I don't play games, so I'll save some money on graphics. Why do I need a new Radeon 5870?
And here' s something about it. The Core i5 750 2.66/3.2 GHz ($256) is just behind the Phenom II X4 Quad-core 865 3.4 GHz ($319) on the final performance score. So your comparison is clear (performance-wise; price-wise, I don't know).
I, on the other hand, really like the Core i7 860. Well, you can forget about Core 2 Quad series Q9x50, which I was dreaming about a few months ago.
And this?
http://www.3dnews.ru/video/what_is_faster_gpu_or_cpu/
And this?
http://www.3dnews.ru/video/what_is_faster_gpu_or_cpu/
What's the point of this?It's a bit inconvenient and I have to waste 5 more minutes. But we will gain a real advantage. Well, if you distribute optimization well, the results will be much clearer.
Multithreading in the tester is a good thing. Actually, I have launched n terminals equal to the number of cores. Split optimization between the terminals. The OS spread them across the unoccupied cores.
It's a bit inconvenient and I have to waste 5 more minutes. But we will gain a real advantage. Well, if you distribute optimization well, the results will be much clearer.
Just take into account that with this approach you should also multiply by n the space on HDD for history and necessary amount of RAM. So at n>2 it is almost obligatory to switch to 64-bit OSes. So a single-threaded tester is a serious flaw of Metaquotes, moreover it all should be parallelized just fine.
I will also make a small contribution in the form of a table:
It gives a very good indication of the "cost of the issue".