I read AnandTech. And many other reviews by now. But since I've been out of hardware buying venture for a long time, I figured I'd read up on the specs directly from the manufacturers' websites first and then the reviews. I can't say I am handy with different relationships between front size bus speeds, system clock, and memory transfer rates. The point that Bob brought up about memory bus limitations was very specific and only appeared in a couple reviews that I could locate when I knew what to look for.
The general spirit seems to proclaim AMD ahead of the game, leaving Intel in the dust. However, there are things where Intel is still ahead - such as areas of specialized scientific computing, for example. For example, I can get a 4-thread capability much cheaper from Intel than from AMD, thanks to their much-criticized HyperThreading technology. Hyperthreading has been excellent for my particular application of computing. So, if I can build a good Intel workstation with will give me 4 threads for around $2,000 instead of a similar AMD workstation with 4 threads for over $3,500 - then I'd rather stick to Intel on my budget. At least for now. Perhaps, in a year or so, I'll migrate to AMD if Intel hasn't come up with something suitable for my computing needs for a reasonable price. I am sure many people will disagree with what I am saying here, and I am not trying to start a flame war over preferences, but in the case of highly multithreaded computing in my case, this solution seems to make sense right now. For people with less specific needs, a dual AMD box with single-core processors would probably make more sense on the same budget. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
