On Sun, 2004-08-15 at 05:40 -0700, William Ballard wrote: > I'm totally pavlovian, saw a review of Dual Xeon vs. Dual Opteron on > Infoworld and now I want to buy another computer. Probably won't. > > I currently have P43.2 1GB, and it's overclocked. But video encoding > still takes hours and mozilla compile still takes a while. > > I'd like something with 2-4 CPUs and 2-4 GB of RAM, won't put a fancy > graphics card in it or play games. Might render some 3D. I don't > really want a whole workstation or expect to use it interactively. > > Xeons are just massively overpriced. Athlon 64 seems like the way to > go. I see newegg has 1GBx1 PC3200 at $200 -- do you think I'd ever get > 4 sticks of that in a single motherboard? In theory I could get two not > top-of-the-line Athlon 64s and 4GB of PC3200 and a case and a hard drive > for a bit over $2000, would this suit me? > > Would it be worth it?
Yes. For a computing machine. The Dual and Quad Opteron system usually have either 8 or 16 Memory slots. Recently, I setup a Quad Opteron fastest available speed. Infiniband, Dual 1000Mbit Ethernet, 10GB of Memory, 3Ware Sata local storage... MY $DEITY, I could feel the earth shaking from Pennsylvania in Michigan. No, seriously, even in 32-bit mode it ROCKED. Literally, faster than anything I have ever used that was x86* based. I can only imagine a system like that with a Dual Quad Monitor (PCI-X) Video cards with 8 - 23" Apple Displays... /me drools... -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] The technology that is Stronger, better, faster: Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
