×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AMD Launches Budget Processor Refresh

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the low-end-oomph dept.

AMD 209

MojoKid writes "AMD has again launched a bevy of new processors targeted squarely at budget-conscious consumers. Though Intel may be leading the market handily in the high-performance arena, AMD still provides a competitive offering from a price/performance perspective for the mainstream. HotHardware has a performance quick-take of the new 3.2GHz Phenom II X2 555 and 2.9GHz Athlon II X4 635. For $100 or less, bang for the buck with AMD is still relatively high."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

209 comments

I agree... (5, Informative)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912062)

I agree, I have a Phenom x2 and my whole system cost me a mere €300, - including sound, HDD and good enough video to have a 3d gnome desktop.

And this is where the money in processors is (3, Insightful)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912112)

The standard whitegood market, where everything is cheap and disposable.

The standard pleb doesn't really give a damn whether it can crunch a billion petaflops in under a nanosecond, or heat a cup of water standing on the desk by its sheer awesomeness.

All they care about is whether they can chat to their friends, write a letter, browse the intert00bs and lose the last bit of their privacy by posting everything on facebook.

Re:And this is where the money in processors is (1)

wrencherd (865833) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912204)

You left out "post rants and screeds on /."

(Of which, this is most definitely not one, BTW.)

Don't be so cautious with describing video (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912360)

It's fast enough for any usual non-gaming usage...and also for most games, if you're fine with mostly ignoring latest gen ones (and really, with so many great older ones that's easy). Plus it is consistantly passively cooled.

Re:Don't be so cautious with describing video (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912618)

Hell most of the "latest gen" games are just console ports anyway, and run quite well on PCs that are 5 years old. Sometimes the console port is of especially poor quality and requires a beefy CPU (Grand Theft Auto for example), but even old 2.4Ghz Core2Duos are well above what you need for most modern games.

Re:Don't be so cautious with describing video (2, Insightful)

TikiTDO (759782) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912654)

Also, if the majority of the public has these slower CPUs, what sane game maker is going to make games that do not at least run on these machines? That sounds like a good way to lose 90% of your profit.

Re:Don't be so cautious with describing video (4, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30913538)

Games almost never require high end systems. There are a few that come along that won't run on anything less than the latest greatest but it is extremely rare. Most games will run on mid rangish hardware, and not have a problem with things a couple generations out of date. They won't let you max all the detail in that case, but they'll run just fine.

Most people do not have high end systems. Many systems are older, after all not everyone upgrades all the time, and even when they do they often don't buy the high end parts. As such game makers support that. They usually also have higher detail settings for people with higher end systems, since those people often also spend more money, but they don't usually cut out the more mid range market.

Right now most games run quite well on a dual core in the 2GHz+ range with a $100ish current graphics card or a $200ish older graphics card. By well I mean with details turned up a reasonable amount and smooth gameplay.

Re:Don't be so cautious with describing video (3, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912782)

I would also be glad to see the term "console port" go away. It's nonsensical, implies there was some amount of "porting" being done...while that's not really true nowadays, not after efforts of MS. Same dev tools, same team, same engine, similar art assets; there's no porting taking place, only two parallel and largely common efforts. Not exploiting the strenghts of both platforms (do you think console side of such game is really optimised for hardware?)

But the term must be convenient for publishers, with players pointing fingers at those "evil consoles" instead of pointing them at...publishers.

Re:Don't be so cautious with describing video (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30913188)

I would also be glad to see the term "console port" go away. It's nonsensical, implies there was some amount of "porting" being done...while that's not really true nowadays, not after efforts of MS. Same dev tools, same team, same engine, similar art assets; there's no porting taking place, only two parallel and largely common efforts.

There's more than Windows and XBox, fanboy.

Re:Don't be so cautious with describing video (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#30913508)

For the vast majority of console games the point stands. Most games are playable on all three major console platforms. Of the games that aren't available for all three platforms, most of those are either Wii/Xbox only, or Xbox/PS3 only. The games that exclude the Xbox are few and far between.

Since the Xbox is simply a specialized PC with an OS created to handle Microsoft's standard graphics API, and since Microsoft's graphics API is far and away the dominant API in the PC market, the line between PC and console is seriously blurred.

It's hard to call it a "console port" when a game that hits 90% of the console market only requires a few minor tweaks and a re-compile to hit 90% of the PC market.

Now, any console game being ported to Linux or Mac is definitely still a "console port", and anything that is not available for Xbox but is being ported to Windows is definitely still a console port. The latter rarely ever happens any more, usually if it wasn't planned for at the start it doesn't happen, and the former I don't know if it has ever happened. Maybe once or twice.

It's been a while since I considered AMD (-1, Troll)

Blappo (976408) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912078)

Mostly, the poor performance (subjectively, save the benchmarks) of the 64 bit processors made me balk. I had two of them, and they were garbage, IMO.

And this is from a long time supporter of AMD.

Now I have to ask, what's the market for this?

Is it going to compete against Atom?

It seems from the article, it's actually going to compete against the higher/mid range of intel processors, at which point I have to wonder, if they burned me with their 64 bit processors, why would I consider 100 bucks a good deal when I fully expect to get burned again?

Re:It's been a while since I considered AMD (5, Informative)

Yold (473518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912226)

Would you please elaborate on the "poor performance". What are/were you doing? Gaming, video encoding, or what? I have a 64-bit X2 dual in a system I built for $300. The only reason I considered a 64-bit processor was so I could stick 4gb of RAM into it, so please further elaborate on how "they burned (you) with their 64 bit processors". What additional benefit were you expecting from 64-bit architecture? I've used this machine for some CPU-heavy statistical/programming work (Natural Language Processing), and it performed adequately. It even handles high-detail Civ4 games well, despite using only onboard video.

The Atom is FAR inferior in terms of performance, so to answer your question, no. The Atom is designed for mobile computing, so it sacrifices performance for power-saving gains. This is meant to compete with intels low priced desktop-orientated CPUs.
 

Why do you feel I owe you an explanation? I don't (-1, Troll)

Blappo (976408) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912408)

"Would you please elaborate on the "poor performance"."

Why? I don'thave to explain/justify anything, so why would I?

"so please further elaborate on how "they burned (you) with their 64 bit processors"."

No, I won't.

"What additional benefit were you expecting from 64-bit architecture?"

Where did I say I "expected an additional benefit"? Why are you putting words in my mouth?

I don't get why you think a) I have to justify my experience to you, and b) you think I said something I clearly didn't.

I used them they were slow, nuff said.

And by that I mean

I paid for a product which , IN MY OPINION, underperformed. AS A CUSTOMER, MY OPINION IS SUFFICIENT TO DETER ME FROM BUYING AMD AGAIN

And no other explanation is necessary, for you or anyone else.

However, before you assume I'm trolling, I will say I used them in a professional capacity, and daily, and they were not up to the task.

Re:Why do you feel I owe you an explanation? I don (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30912476)

Um, of course you are entitles to your opinion. However, if you want to air your opinion in the public square and are not willing to share any details to back it up, you're no better then the crazy dude on the corner talking about the faeries that visit him at night..

Re:Why do you feel I owe you an explanation? I don (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30912502)

that's like saying you bought a 318i expecting the performance of a M3, and then claiming the 318i under performs. It's only under performing to your unrealistic expectations, but performs where it should for the money.

Re:Why do you feel I owe you an explanation? I don (1)

derspankster (1081309) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912560)

"I paid for a product which , IN MY OPINION, underperformed. AS A CUSTOMER, MY OPINION IS SUFFICIENT TO DETER ME FROM BUYING AMD AGAIN" That is sufficient for me and all that needs said.

Re:Why do you feel I owe you an explanation? I don (4, Insightful)

TikiTDO (759782) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912738)

Just to join in the fun; if you post your opinions on a public forum you are expected to back up your claims with examples and logic. If you cannot do so, either because of personal beliefs, or other restrictions such as NDAs, then do not post them.

Of course, while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, that alone worth little on a discussion board. The merit of this system comes from the fact that others may examine your arguments, and either adjust their own beliefs, or reply to your data with their own data. Saying you believe something and not backing it up adds little to the discussion; none of us know you, so we cannot judge if your opinion really has merit. And do not be too surprised when people start trying to interpret your post and "putting words in your mouth." That just means you didn't explain things well enough, so they had to draw their own conclusions.

While I do not believe you are trolling, I do think you completely missed the point of the comment system, at least for this topic.

Re:Why do you feel I owe you an explanation? I don (2, Insightful)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912896)

You don't *have* to justify your opinion, but no one *has* to listen to it or give it any relevance.

By posting here it can be assumed that you want your opinion to be heard and considered and thus probably do care about people listening to it. Thus it would be assumed that you would justify your opinion and not respond in like a flaming mule.

Re:Why do you feel I owe you an explanation? I don (2, Insightful)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30913002)

And the person who asked for more information said please! Imagine that. He was pleasant, and Blappo or whatever was rude in response.

Re:Why do you feel I owe you an explanation? I don (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30913130)

Yay, you're a total douche. Surprise surprise.

clean out all those unneeded startup processes (-1, Troll)

DABANSHEE (154661) | more than 4 years ago | (#30913160)

All those background proceeses really clog things up.

My Athon X2 3800+ beats the shit out of every Intel core2 whatever processor PC I've used, simply because the average Dick, Tom or Harry is ignorant in regards the gazillion startup processes running in the background clogging up their computers. Or they don't know how 2 turn off Limewire &/or their security setup's grinding thing down, etc.

If U R getting poor performance from a contemporary AMD proccesor U must B doing something wrong or have bugger all memory.

Re:Why do you feel I owe you an explanation? I don (4, Insightful)

plague911 (1292006) | more than 4 years ago | (#30913214)

You are right you don't have to justify anything you say on here. But unless your a complete moron you realize that you are on a website and seemingly engaging in some kind of conversation. During conversations you explain things.

Re:Why do you feel I owe you an explanation? I don (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#30913414)

Well if all you can come up with is variations of "IT SUX!" then don't be surprised if most of us out here think you are full of shit, okay?

After building a couple of budget AMD boxes for customers this lifelong Intel+Nvidia man couldn't be happier when he switched. For less than $750 after rebate I got a 925 Quad with 8Mb of total cache, 8Gb of DDR2 800MHz RAM, a nice 780V board that supports up to 32Gb, 1Tb of HDD, a 4650HD 1Gb, and dual DVD burners along with Windows 7 HP X64. And you know what? I could NOT be happier! This bitch chews through video transcoding like nothing, World in Conflict, Bioshock, HL2, Far Cry 2, all play nice and pretty with nary a slowdown, Windows 7 plays really nice with the new AMD quads and my boot and shutdown times are lightning quick, the quad is only 95watts and doesn't turn my apartment into a space heater, in fact it rarely gets over 105f and that is under full load for hours with stock cooling, under normal use it sits right at 83f, yeah this baby is nice and didn't break my wallet.

So I don't know what your problem with AMD chips was/is, especially since you won't actually bother to elaborate other than "IT SUX!" but I can say my customers can't be happier with the new AMD line. The bang for the buck is incredible, with $50 duals, $70 triples, and $99 quads, the new IGPs support just about every format for hardware acceleration out of the box so video is nice and smooth no matter how big a monitor they buy, much lower heat and power usage which helps keep the electric bills down, motherboards for AMD are less expensive for really good boards, all around it is just a really good buy.

So unless you are one of those that just has to have the largest ePeen, which in that case you shouldn't have been looking at anything less than a $1000 Core I7 chip anyway, I just don't see what the problem could be. I could add an AMD 5xxx to my PC and play any game I want with out a problem, and for a PC that cost less than $750 that is saying a lot. I could easily see myself still using this machine 5 years from now simply because it has room to grow if I need to, but frankly everything I have thrown at the 925 has just gone off without a hitch, so I really don't see the need for any bigger. And many of my customers are "Joe Average" and are quite happy with their new AMD duals and Triples, and just rave to their friends about "how fast" everything is and how nice it all runs.

Lets be honest here-for most folks PCs passed "good enough" quite a few miles back and with $99 quads anybody can have ludicrous speed at their fingertips. Even my 67 year old dad is running AMD quad right now, and couldn't be happier. While he didn't really need all that power I figured at that price it was better to give him room to grow, and with this he can watch videos and chat and do whatever he wants and never even hit the chips hard. All that for a PC that cost less than $600 after rebate. Man you just can't beat that!

Re:Why do you feel I owe you an explanation? I don (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30913522)

If you can't back up your trash talk, then the rest of us can just assume it's mindless noise.

If you make a claim, then expect to be called out it.

Your complete inability to articulate why exactly the AMD gear isn't fast enough is a pretty good indication that any objective speed difference is moot. ...and yes there is an objective difference. Some of us can even give firsthand accounts of those differences and actual numbers. However, I don't think it matters so much for the vast vast majority of consumers. The cheaper AMD gear is going to an equally effective choice.

Re:It's been a while since I considered AMD (2, Insightful)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912364)

I too refuse to use AMD processors anymore, but I can see why someone would want one of these. It's a processor fast enough to do anything you're likely to want to do for less than you can get any Intel processor for. I didn't look too closely at the benchmark results, but it looks like the Intel processors win every time, but not by enough to be noticeable unless you're running benchmarks or playing this year's Crysis.

Re:It's been a while since I considered AMD (5, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912414)

Intel processors in lower-end price brackets might often score a win, but only if you consider the price of CPU alone. Intel GFX is crappy. There's Nvidia integrated GFX available...but for some reason the motherboards with them are usually quite a bit more expensive than AMD ones. Cheap AMD CPU with cheap integrated GFX offers best all-around performance - as good as any other setup for "daily" tasks, definatelly more 3D oomph than comparatively priced alternatives.

Re:It's been a while since I considered AMD (1)

TBoon (1381891) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912834)

Intel processors in lower-end price brackets might often score a win, but only if you consider the price of CPU alone.

Odd... Looking at a major webshop around here, there are 6 AMD CPUs to chooce from before you get to the 2nd cheapest option from Intel. And that includes a QuadCore from AMD.

Re:It's been a while since I considered AMD (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#30913532)

EXACTLY!!! You really have to look at the total picture. I'm not really a hardcore gamer (between playing music, working, and my GF, I just don't have the time) but I do like to break out some games on a lazy Sunday when I get a chance, so I went ahead and ordered a 4650HD when I built my 7550 dual (when the quads got so cheap I went ahead and upgraded to a 925, but that's another story) but wouldn't you know it, because the 1Gb model was like $35 after rebate it was back-ordered.

So I figured fine, I'd just go ahead and install my games and set them up when the card came. I didn't get the baddest board, just a 780VM due to the fact that it supported 32Gb of RAM. After dealing with Intel IGPs I figured what the hell, I could use a laugh, I'll fire up one of my games just to watch it stutter....but it didn't! Bioshock, HL2, Swat 4, all played with nary a stutter or skip! Now granted I wasn't playing in HD, but considering every Intel IGP I'd ever dealt with was lucky to play any slightly modern game in more than slideshow mode I was impressed. It also had hardware accelerated video built in for all the popular formats, making video smooth as butter.

By the time the card got here I had actually forgotten I was playing on an IGP! I was too busy blasting bad guys in Bioshock or killing mercs in Far Cry to even think about the fact that I was running an IGP. And quiet, talk about quiet! Even with the quad in here it is so quiet and stays under 100f on the stock cooler! So I have to agree, as a former Intel + Nvidia man you really have to look at the overall bang for the buck. You can get a LOT better quality AMD board for less money than what you spend on an Intel board, and for those like my dad that simply watch video and do video conferencing the built in IGP is smooth as butter and gives them more than enough power for their day to day. And at less than $650 for his quad, with 4Gb of RAM and Win7 HP X64 it has so much room to grow I can seeing him keeping this computer for a decade easily.

You really have to compare the "whole smash" between the two companies, and I think that time will show that buying ATI was a damned smart move on the part of AMD. It really gives them a total solution that is much more compelling, at least to my customers and myself, than the slightly faster budget CPUs but MUCH worse GPUs and more expensive boards of the Intel camp. I never thought I would switch, but now that I have I just can't see shelling out the bucks for an Intel anymore, only to have to shell out again for a GPU just to do anything more than draw the desktop. I wouldn't wish an Intel IGP on my worst enemy after actually seeing what having a decent budget IGP is like.

Re:It's been a while since I considered AMD (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30912372)

Actually I think with Intel you can get burned more easily. Phenom II X2 3.2GHz tells you really all you have to now. If you are buying higher numbers you get a better CPU.

On the other hand with a Core2 the case is not that clear. Is a Core2 Duo 3000 MHz better than a Core2 Duo 2833 MHz? Nope, the former one is an E6850, the latter an E8300. And even those numbers won't tell you much. Higher model numbers are often better, but not always. For example the Q6xxx models have Intel VT, the Q8xxx don't.

That is not a big problem for us enthusiasts who get and understand every information about that CPU. But to less tech savy people I will always suggest AMD. Even if Intels good chips are better than AMDs chances are they pick a bad one and would be better served with AMD.

Re:It's been a while since I considered AMD (1)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912600)

On the other hand with a Core2 the case is not that clear. Is a Core2 Duo 3000 MHz better than a Core2 Duo 2833 MHz? Nope, the former one is an E6850, the latter an E8300.

And the wildly different model numbers - the things they're sold by - tell me right off they're fundamentally different and need to be looked at closer. Without even looking, one's 65nm and one's 45nm. I pull up the specs and the cache sizes are also different.

Maybe it's just me, but that the difference between AM2 and AM3 was that the AM3 had a 2 after the name (Athlon II and Phenom II) didn't strike me as the most obvious way to advertise that change.

Conclusion: Buying parts because of a single number will eventually get you burned no matter who you buy from.

Re:It's been a while since I considered AMD (5, Informative)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912394)

What are you talking about? AMD64, also known as x86_64 or EMT64T was invented by AMD.

The performance is absolutely stellar.

AMD did this so well, Intel decided to try to copy them, and came up with Intel 64T.

As a whole, there is barely a noticeable performance difference between the two platforms.

Of course there are some low-performing 64-bit procs for budget users, just like there are slow Intel procs for budget users.

But overall, Intel 64-bit procs are no better than AMD 64-bit procs.

Also, when it comes to hardware virtualization and IOMMU, AMD has a very significant edge.

Don't blame AMD because you bought the wrong proc model for your system, or misconfig'ed it. Processor is definitely not the only thing that impacts performance. There are many other ways you can screw your system's performance in picking hardware components -- not all procs are ideal for all configurations.

Hell, i'm very often getting better performance with Linux and Windows (dual boot) out of my AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+ Windsor 2.6GHz than with my Intel Core2 Quad Core Q9400 2.66Ghz, and much better benchmarks for certain types of workloads.

Even though the Quad Core machine has 8gb of RAM, and my dual-core machine only has 4gb...

I blame it on the Linux and Windows kernels' poor support for multi-processing and seedy memory management.

Re:It's been a while since I considered AMD (-1, Troll)

Blappo (976408) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912442)

"The performance is absolutely stellar."

Not for me it wasn't, which is the only thing that matters, much more than your assertions.

Re:It's been a while since I considered AMD (4, Interesting)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912550)

So say you, but can you prove it was an issue with the processor, and that it was a design issue, do you have information backing this up?

I think slashdot readers might be interested in the remarks of someone more experienced with both AMD and Intel processors, rather than someone who tried an AMD CPU once, didn't do due their due dilligence, and just assumed all AMD procs were broken because their system was.

It's happened too many times to count that I got a defective Intel processor that had the thermal monitor "broken" in some way that caused the proc to always throttle its clock down.

Chips were replaced under warranty, and then all was well. Every manufacturer had bad batches, that's why you do burn-in testing on CPUs, memory, and motherboards, before deployment.

I've dealt with different systems totalling a few hundred different AMD CPUs, and not run into any defective ones yet, or caveats to 32-bit or 64-bit AMD procs.

I'm not saying Intels are unreliable or anything, and I hope i'm not jinxing myself: but so far, all (perhaps) 10 DoA or otherwise defective CPUs i've seen in my life were Intel processors.

Speaking of"readers" and "due diligence" (-1, Troll)

ifwm (687373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912594)

"I think slashdot readers might be interested in the remarks of someone more experienced with both AMD and Intel processors, rather than someone who tried an AMD CPU once, didn't do due their due dilligence, and just assumed all AMD procs were broken because their system was"

Speaking of due diligence,if you'd actually read his post, you'd realize your claims in that quote are addressed, specifically,where he said he had TWO of them.

That's ok, you can go ahead and flame him without know WTF you're talking about, this is slashdot and you're a fanboi, you're entitled.

Seriously though, you look pretty silly flaming him when you have to openly lie about the situation.

I mean, why ask him anything when you don't intend to debate accurately, or even attempt to? You just overtly lied, and the proof is in the posts you were responding to.

Re:Speaking of"readers" and "due diligence" (3, Insightful)

TikiTDO (759782) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912794)

Are you honestly arguing that a poster's choice of "an" vs "some" disqualifies his entire argument? Getting into semantics much? The point still stands that he tried a very small number of CPUs, and by virtue of that small number, his opinion is not likely to be worth much.

Perhaps if the original poster said he ran a cluster of a thousand AMD CPUs, or even just tried several different generations of AMD CPUs your point would have merit. However, a person is not a fanboi for pointing out obvious inconsistencies, regardless if he mis-remembered a not particularly significant number.

I see, you like being wrong cause you can't read (1)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912980)

"Are you honestly arguing that a poster's choice of "an" vs "some" disqualifies his entire argument? "

Nope, he's arging that gp is lying about the situation, and thus is not credible.

Gp's claim is in direct opposition with OP's post, so he's either lying or ignorant, and neither makes him credible.

However, specifically op said he had TWO AMD 64 processors, which he used in a professional capacity,thud belying the assumptions made in gp's reply.

"However, a person is not a fanboi for pointing out obvious inconsistencies, regardless if he mis-remembered a not particularly significant number."

No, but their credibility suffers when OP says "I had two different systems, both of which I used in a professional capacity" which is what he DID say, versus GP's lie that he is" someone who tried an AMD CPU once, didn't do due their due dilligence, and just assumed all AMD procs were broken because their system was."

THAT difference IS significant, despite your clearly incorrect assertion that it isn't.

In short, you replied to something you didn't bother to totally understand and got it wrong.

Re:I see, you like being wrong cause you can't rea (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#30913244)

I never said the OP was such a person. I'm leaving it to the OP to clarify the details, if he cares to post more; the OP could probably add a lot of useful info for readers, like 'details of the slowness', observations, etc, which would increase the usefulness of the anecdotal info.

As it stands the OP hasn't chosen to provide better details that could be useful, but instead made a vague remark about trying AMD64 procs once (or twice).

To be clear: trying two AMD64 processors twice or once is _NOT_ significantly different from trying just one AMD64 processor once, the sample size is still very low, especially if the two procs were of the same generation, stepping, or batch of CPUs.

Or if the CPU was not fully singled out... Trying one AMD64 proc in a system, deciding it's too slow, then getting another AMD64 proc, doesn't identify the proc itself as an issue, if the choice of cooling, PSU/bus/MB/dip switch settings/etc was at issue.

Another observation would be that it's unfair to compare a 1st gen AMD64 proc vs a 2nd gen or later Intel EM64T proc. Even if the GHz happen to be the same. There were also some times when the most comparable CPU (at the high end) was not brought to market by both vendors at the same time.

Many procs of even the same Ghz and cores have different performance characteristics. Many purchasers of CPUs forget things other than GHz that are important, such as L1, L2, L3 cache sizes, FSB, and certain features such as Hyperthreading.

Re:Speaking of"readers" and "due diligence" (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30912886)

Ifwm : Your response contains false specious claims such as "You just overtly lied", quoting you. Your response is clearly defamatory, and malicious, or so negligent as to rise to the level of malice. I hereby request and strongly urge you to be more careful in the future.

Speaking of due diligence,if you'd actually read his post, you'd realize your claims in that quote are addressed, specifically,where he said he had TWO of them.

Ok.. then.. so he had two of them, I misread that. So frickin' what? I would have to say that having touched 2 64-bit procs doesn't tell you much about the performance of the AMD 64 processors, let-alone the current generation of AMD processor.

The means of measurement and validity/scope of the benchmark are questionable. Of course the OP will not use AMD processors, that's his choice, but other readers are interested in whether that choice really holds any water, and is based on a valid foundation.

you're talking about, this is slashdot and you're a fanboi, you're entitled.

You have the wrong idea here. As in most cases I prefer and recommend Intel procs. But due to heat output, not performance.

I mean, why ask him anything when you don't intend to debate accurately, or even attempt to? You just overtly lied, and the proof is in the posts you were responding to.

You are misconstruing my post as a flame, and you are misconstruing true statements as "overt lie".

Re:It's been a while since I considered AMD (4, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912516)

As a whole, there is barely a noticeable performance difference between the two platforms.

A couple of years ago I ran two very similar five day long geophysical jobs (pre-stack time migration) on an 8 CPU AMD system and an 8 CPU Xeon system of equivalent speeds. All CPUs were at 100% over that time with the exception of some disk access at the start and disk writes every twelve hours for checkpoints. There was a five minute difference over that week and the margin of error was probably more than twice that.
I haven't been able to tell the difference since then either.

I'd just like to say FUCK YOU to the "troll" mods (-1, Troll)

Blappo (976408) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912464)

I state my honest opinion, and SAY IT'S MY OPINION, and the AMD fan trolls come in here and nuke me into oblivion.

There wasn't ANYTHING "troll" about my honest discussion of my experience,and you people who modded me down are fucking idiots.

Re:I'd just like to say FUCK YOU to the "troll" mo (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30912552)

From one who modded you down, I did so for the following reasons:

1. Screaming and yelling at a poster for being a idiot because they do not agree with you,
2. Failing to recognize that the commenting system on /. is to be a meaningful, intelligent, mature discussion of a particular article, and
3. Not understanding that capitalization of words is to be done in accordance with proper rules of grammer, and not as a means to yelling louder over your percieved persecution.

Thank you, the AC who burned 3 mod points on one poster in one article. Posting as AC, obviously, to preserve my moderation.

Re:I'd just like to say FUCK YOU to the "troll" mo (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912658)

Posting as AC, obviously, to preserve my moderation.

Yea, it frustrate me too that you can't post and mod using the same account on slashdot.

I get it, you're a fucking idiot (0, Troll)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912728)

"1. Screaming and yelling at a poster for being a idiot because they do not agree with you,
2. Failing to recognize that the commenting system on /. is to be a meaningful, intelligent, mature discussion of a particular article, and
3. Not understanding that capitalization of words is to be done in accordance with proper rules of grammer, and not as a means to yelling louder over your percieved persecution."

In other words, you abused you mod points and used them incorrectly.

Nice job douche, you should quit modding posts until you learn how to do it without abusing it.

And it's "GRAMMAR" you fucking twat.

Re:I'd just like to say FUCK YOU to the "troll" mo (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30912592)

You were modded down because your comment provided no useful information for Slashdot readers.

As far as I'm concerned, you said AMD CPUs were "garbage" while refusing to back up these claims with supporting evidence. I and a lot of others visitors know from personal experience that AMD products aren't garbage. If you're going to make this claim, you'd better back it up with meaningful performance metrics.

And by that I mean

The moderators read your comment which , IN THEIR OPINION, underperformed.

Re:I'd just like to say FUCK YOU to the "troll" mo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30912700)

"As far as I'm concerned, you said AMD CPUs were "garbage" while refusing to back up these claims with supporting evidence"

That's funny, when I read it, it seemed he was saying, "100 bucks isn't enough of a price advantage to coax me into buying", which is a claim that in no way involves anything other than his opinion,and thus needs no "backing it up".

I guess you need to work on your reading comprehension, cause you're just making shit up out of thin air, and modding people down because you can't read worth a damn is pretty shitty.

Re:I'd just like to say FUCK YOU to the "troll" mo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30912992)

Nice try, Blappo.

Re:I'd just like to say FUCK YOU to the "troll" mo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30913066)

After a tirade like that where you basically tell everyone to fuck off and let you live in ignorance, I'd say it was a well deserved mod. In fact, next time I get mod points, I'll keep an eye out for you...

watts of boom (-1, Troll)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912080)

For $100 or less, bang for the buck with AMD is still relatively high

The Phenom II draws 187 watts under full load, so yeah -- a pretty big bang actually, if you aren't careful. You get less "bang" with a E6300.

Re:watts of boom (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30912160)

i know we're not to rtfa, but you're off by ~100w
for both phenom ii processors in the review
which are 80w and 95w.

Re:watts of boom (-1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30913394)

i know we're not to rtfa, but you're off by ~100w for both phenom ii processors in the review which are 80w and 95w.

You're quoting TDP, I quoted max output. I rtfa, I just don't consider TDP a valid metric, because 'typical load' is subjective.

FUCK YOU RACIST (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30912174)

Re:FUCK YOU RACIST (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30912608)

Maybe you should reflect on what you are implying... nowhere in those posts did I see mention of race. Only jurisdiction. You are the one placing the race of the inhabitants on the pedestal.

(Anon 'cause it's off topic, but I felt like someone should explain to you why you are wrong.)

Re:FUCK YOU RACIST (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30912836)

Quite the opposite, reading the posts. They talk of equality regardless of color.

Re:watts of boom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30912294)

Not really. For a while, I had the highest-end Phenom II 965 (the 140 W one), and it never drew anywhere nearly as much as you said. I switched to the 125 W model after I was tired of having a space heater running during the Summer, though.

Re:watts of boom (1)

Penguinoflight (517245) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912384)

AMD and Intel rate their processors differently, they can't be compared. FWIW, the E6300 is nowhere near as powerful either.

All the hardware in the world... (1, Flamebait)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912110)

...will not matter if their energy consumption gets too expensive. We need more energy, and cheaply. I swear, it's like The Little Shop of Horrors. Only this time, it's the computers screaming, "Feeeed me!!!"

Re:All the hardware in the world... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30912410)

Amd's athlon ii "e" models are sweet if you can find them.

thank you AMD (2)

CHRONOSS2008 (1226498) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912192)

very cool
and when i see one near me i am gonna grab it getting these features will allow me at least to even consider the odd purchase and yes im on a low income. :)

anyone recommend a good AMD mobo for a hackintosh? (1, Offtopic)

SethJohnson (112166) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912320)

Would like to get one of these discount quadcore AMD processors, don't know which is the best option for a Hackintosh, though. Any recommendations? My current hackintosh is Intel-based and I don't know how tricky it might be to configure a working AMD--based hackintosh. Links appreciated.

Seth

Re:anyone recommend a good AMD mobo for a hackinto (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30912388)

Hackintosh, go Intel. Stop being an AMD faggot fanboy. They're rubbish. First you are too cheap to buy a Mac and still wanna steal Mac OSX, second you are too cheap to buy a proper CPU.

Re:anyone recommend a good AMD mobo for a hackinto (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912562)

Yes, something with an intel processor. Save yourself the headaches, its not worth the savings.

Re:anyone recommend a good AMD mobo for a hackinto (1)

Penguinoflight (517245) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912576)

Despite the above comment being made by an intel troll you will need an intel system to run osx. Most any of the cheap intel chipsets (like the g31) will work with osx.

Re:anyone recommend a good AMD mobo for a hackinto (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30913560)

The Hackintosh has to look as much like a real Mac as you can manage.

Of course that means Intel only for the CPU.

An alternate ATI or Nvidia GPU (beyond what's in actual shipping Macs) might even be a problem.

Re:anyone recommend a good AMD mobo for a hackinto (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30912596)

Honestly there is a very big learning curve you're going to need to overcome in order to get a reliable hackintosh build on an AMD platform. To be honest, your best bets are an intel (socket 775) based platform. Various motherboards there will have issues (usually audio), not to mention video cards. AMD chipsets tend to have more issues still. If you want to go with a Mac, I'd just suggest starting with a mini, if that doesn't suit your needs bump up to an intel based hackintosh.

Don't get me wrong, imho the AMD 785G motherboards with a nice Athlon X2/X4 are a great starter platform, just not a great hackintosh platform. I've built 4 780/785 based setups in the past year and a half, they run great for mom, grandma, my media center etc. What does seem like it *should* be promising would be an nvidia 9300 series board with a core2 quad. Note: if you're into heavy gaming at a higher resolution than say 1650x1024 or so, then you won't be happy with onboard graphics.

Re:anyone recommend a good AMD mobo for a hackinto (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912802)

So, would there really be any difference if Nvidia board similar to Intel 9300 ones was the variant...for AMD?

Re:anyone recommend a good AMD mobo for a hackinto (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30912840)

Yes, it doesn't have a Intel processor in it and isn't "GenuineIntel". OS X looks for some hardware chip flags. It won't install on a AMD CPU.

Re:anyone recommend a good AMD mobo for a hackinto (2, Interesting)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 4 years ago | (#30913280)

Please visit the OSx86project wiki page to have those questions answered. I'll tell you off the bat that you will have to patch the kernel, which already puts you at risk for a world of hurt if your other components don't play nicely either.

AMD=Awful Macro Devices For A reason (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30912328)

People I have known have used a computer using an Awful Macro Devices processor and had almost nothing but lockups and crashes. On the other hand I have a Genuine Intel Processor and no problems. This is why Apple has chosen Intel over AMD. BTW, Intel supports open source while AMD is an M$ lapdog. INTEL FTW!

Re:AMD=Awful Macro Devices For A reason (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30912354)

hurr durr imma retard

Re:AMD=Awful Macro Devices For A reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30912466)

We already know you are Willie Hill and repeating the fact will not make it any less true.

Re:AMD=Awful Macro Devices For A reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30912508)

did dey durk yur jebs two?

Re:AMD=Awful Macro Devices For A reason (2, Insightful)

vxice (1690200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912522)

and Ford backwards is Driver Returns On Foot. congratulations you have invented a backronym that happens to support your prejudice, don't do too big dance in celebration it is only slightly harder than inventing the acronym in the first place. FUCK Fornication Under Consent of the King

Re:AMD=Awful Macro Devices For A reason (1)

TwiztidK (1723954) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912938)

It's great that you have somehow managed to venture out of your mother's basement to meet these people who have told you about their experiences with AMD processors. I have been using AMD processors for years and the only time my computers have ever had a problem with locking up or crashing was when I was running Vista. I suspect these people you know were mistaken. Furthermore, how does Intel support open source more than AMD? Although I'm not familiar their "open-ness", I've never had a problem running any open source software on my AMD sporting computers.

Plus, AMD actually outperforms Intel in some areas (3, Interesting)

judolphin (1158895) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912488)

For example, AMD outperforms Intel pound-for-pound in graphics and video rendering (which would make sense since they acquired ATI). If you're building a media center, get a computer with an AMD processor. It's one of the few things in life where cheaper is better.

Re:Plus, AMD actually outperforms Intel in some ar (0)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912580)

Uhm, media centers require little processing power really, not particularly sure why you seem to think they are special.

I've got a 3800 that handles 4 incoming tv streams at a time, in HD, streams to two televisions at a time, and re-encodes for my iphone. The heaviest part is re-encoding, everything else is done in silicon elsewhere, incoming streams are already mpeg or the card encodes analog streams to mpeg so thats just disk IO, streaming TV or displaying it doesn't require much, its just disk IO again as the video card does the decoding ...

Media center PCs just aren't processor intensive devices.

Re:Plus, AMD actually outperforms Intel in some ar (1)

nomel (244635) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912674)

Some of us like the higher fidelity from the unsmoothed pixels that software rendering masters!

Damn kids with your fancy bicubicly stretched pixels and anti-aliased edges. Get off my screen!

Re:Plus, AMD actually outperforms Intel in some ar (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912816)

Flash, sure it barely makes a dent in my Q8300 but my old p4 could never run any of the popular flash sites fullscreened.

Re:Plus, AMD actually outperforms Intel in some ar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30913094)

Flash is supposed to be hardware-accelerated but I have to say from first-hand experience, I just retired by AMD Athlon XP 2600+ / GeForce 4 Ti4200 128MB, with an Intel i7 920/6GBRAM/2GBGTX285 and now I can actually play Flash in HD or even HQ for that matter!

Re:Plus, AMD actually outperforms Intel in some ar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30913654)

Intel graphics seem to have three major advantages for Media Center PCs: power consumption, L5.1 h264 is possible, and open source drivers. I didn't check but AMD graphics might be faster with non-realtime low level h264 decoding on Windows, which is a bit of a stretch. So I don't quite understand your assertion that AMD graphics are superior for this situation, especially since performance is all but irrelevant for media playback (assuming it meets the minimum required).

Would the quad cores work in a small case? (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912590)

I've been out of the PC building loop for years since I moved to a mac, and while I still plan to keep a mac laptop, I am studying scientific computing in grad school starting in April and was looking to buy a beefy linux machine. These CPUs look really interesting, but I was hoping not to have to buy a tower to house it in. Do these things run alright in a mini-case? Any suggestions on a good small case to house one of these in?

Just make sure the hot air gets out - fans (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912780)

The case size doesn't matter so long as you can pull enough air through it. I look after a few 1U sized servers with 2 twin quad core machines in each fed by the same power supply in between the motherboards. You could almost use the things as a hair dryer.

Re:Would the quad cores work in a small case? (4, Informative)

WuphonsReach (684551) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912790)

Go with a microATX motherboard (preferably one that only uses heat pipes and no moving fans, like the Asus boards). Use one of the 45W TDP AMD chips - which are dead easy to cool, even in confined spaces and the stock fan runs pretty much silently.

As for the case... I don't have a suggestion for that at the moment.

(Best place to pickup the AMD CPU & MB is over at MWave since they'll bundle it, assemble the CPU and RAM onto the MB, and test it for you. So you're never left holding a bag full of incompatible parts.)

Re:Would the quad cores work in a small case? (4, Informative)

JanneM (7445) | more than 4 years ago | (#30912946)

Like you I need a Linux machine for work-related computing-intensive work, so I assembled one last fall. I use a decent quality MicroATX case with the Gigabyte MA785GPMT motherboard and the Phenom 2 X4 955. Add 8Gb of memory, a drive and you're set. I was going to add a separate graphics card at one point but so far I actually use the on-board graphics, with the 2d-only free drivers. I don't need speedy graphics for showing terminal output and static graphs after all.

The system came in cheap, it's really quiet and it's surprisingly speedy. True, it's barely half the speed of the 8-core Xeon machine I have at work - but at only an eighth of the cost.

My only advice is, don't go too cheap on the case. That's the single most important part for determining the noise level, and there's nothing so irritating as having a constant high-pitched whine from under your desk all day long.

Re:Would the quad cores work in a small case? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30913138)

Get a 785G based Micro ATX motherboard, I personally recommend the Gigabyte versions.

Pair that either with a Phenom II X4 620 or the refresh, 4Gb of DDR3 a 640Gb drive,
a 500-600w PSU and maybe a low profile Nvidia card (for the Linux Driver Support).

That methinks would be a sufficiently beefy linux box. Just be carefull if you buy a full
sized card. A good friend of mine paired the above combo with a GTX260, after I told him
to buy an HD5770 and he ended up blocking off half of his SATA ports. If you want to go
the full sized card route either get an ATX 790 series board, or you can find ATX 785g boards.

Also Apevia has a mid tower desktop that called like the XServer gaming case, I bought one
for 30$ for black friday. Its pretty sleek and the PSU is held underneath the drive cages, makes
one helluva case (and its pretty small). Otherwise I have heard good things about the Silverstone SUGO.

Re:Would the quad cores work in a small case? (1)

Cornelius the Great (555189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30913542)

My HTPC has an Athlon II X4 620 running pretty well in a small antec HTPC case [newegg.com] on a 785G mATX motherboard on a 350W PSU- probably wouldn't handle a discrete graphics card (integrated ATI GPUs handle 1080p h264 playback fine), but it wouldn't fit anyway. Also, my work PC is an intel core i7 920 housed inside a shuttle. Quad-cores are now being squeezed into laptops too. Needless to say, there's hardly any need for a large tower with loud cooling, unless you need the space and/or want to overclock.

Re:Would the quad cores work in a small case? (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#30913590)

A half-height discreet card will fit in that case just fine, and you'd see a nice graphics boost if you like your HTPC to do double duty.

Intel v AMD (4, Informative)

m.dillon (147925) | more than 4 years ago | (#30913084)

I build new boxes every 6-8 months or so and rotate them into production boxes to make room for the next set. Until recently the Intel chipsets were ahead of the game vs the AMD chipsets with regards to things like E-SATA, AHCI, and PCI-e. AMD has caught up in the last 8 months, though. High-end Intel cpus tend to be a bit faster than high-end AMD cpus and you can also stuff more memory into small form-factor Intel boxes vs small form-factor AMD boxes.

On the flip-side, AMD boxes tend to be cheaper all-around and aren't quite so gimicky when it comes to managing cpu speed vs heat dissipation. Whole systems based on AMD seem to eat less power and from a cost standpoint when running systems 24x7. Power is getting to be quite important.

If you are trying to create the fastest, highest-performance box in the world Intel is probably your game (and for graphics you are going to be buying a 16x PCI-e card anyway with that sort of setup).

If you ratchet down your expectations just a bit, however, you can slap together a very good box with AMD at its core for half the price and 85% of the performance, and that is going to be plenty good enough for just about anything considering how overpowered machines have gotten in the last few years vs what people actually run on them.

Personally speaking I see no point purchasing the absolute bleeding edge when it is just going to become non-bleeding edge in 8-months when I can instead purchase two of something just slightly behind the bleeding edge at a much lower price.

These are just my observations.

-Matt

Re:Intel v AMD - You're an Optimist (0, Redundant)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 4 years ago | (#30913314)

Personally speaking I see no point purchasing the absolute bleeding edge when it is just going to become non-bleeding edge in 8-months

How about in 3 months?

Re:Intel v AMD - You're an Optimist (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#30913576)

3 is a bit optimistic if you're calling it bleeding-edge.

High-end, sure, heck even ultra high-end, but as soon as a slightly better version comes out you're not bleeding-edge any more, and that often happens in less than 3 months.

The problem I've had (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30913622)

Is that AMD chipsets have been buggy in my experience. Well, for the most part it seems like there haven't been actual chipsets made by AMD, they've always been third party like nVidia, VIA or ATi. At any rate they seem to have bugs, sometimes minor, sometimes severe. The worst was back with the original Athlons, I got one and could not make it work with my GeForce 256. I found out this was because the AGP bus was out of spec and didn't work the GFs at all.

That is one of the main reasons I've stuck with Intel. I find that Intel chips on Intel chipsets, and particularly with both on an Intel board are rock solid. To me, that's extremely important. I spend all day fixing computer problems of one sort or another, I want mine to just work.

At some point I'll have to give AMD another look, though probably at work not with my own money initially.

Also I've got to disagree on the power/heat thing. Modern Intel CPUs are really efficient and throttle very well. They also do quite a bit of work per watt when run to full power. Their 45nm Core 2s are quite amazing and their 32nm Core i7s are supposedly 50% better.

Less Garbage From AMD (3, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 4 years ago | (#30913290)

There are less "garbage processors" from AMD. Less intentionally crippled varieties that are missing little bits of this and little bits of that compared to what Intel offers. With Intel I always have to read the fine print on every processor to see if it supports virtualization extensions, for only one example.

Funny... slashdotters hate M$ with a passion.... (0, Offtopic)

KillShill (877105) | more than 4 years ago | (#30913304)

Yet suck Inte£'s tiny corporate dick even after 3 convictions for monopoly abuse.

Dumb hypocritical dipshits.

Remember... WIntel?

They were anti-competitive from way back in the 80's and 90's... talk to some OEMs and resellers... they were the microsoft of the chip world yet they got free pass after pass back then and it's even worse now.

Do the right thing... stop supporting monopolist scum!

It's the hard drive stupid (5, Interesting)

cenc (1310167) | more than 4 years ago | (#30913350)

You know, 1 core, 2 cores, 3 cores, 1,000000 cores I have realize means exactly jack if the data they need to crunch is still sitting on frigen hard drive.

My processors and I would do flips and flops, if we could just get some dam data off our drives. Come on? We have basically not had a real leap in hardrive speeds or technology in how many years?

I mean solid states and all are great, but they still have a long way to go. What happens when we need to start pushing terabytes like megabytes?

We got a ram and catch arms race going on because, the hard drives suck and no one seems to be doing anything about it.

The best we can do are raid tricks to get any more performance (or reliability for that matter), and that has well known limits and problems.

Re:It's the hard drive stupid (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30913594)

+...when video processing is no longer a highly CPU bound activity, you will have a point there.

Until then... not so much.

You may be hard pressed to stress the network with a number of clustered multi-core machines. Nevermind overwhelming disks or HBAs.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...