Wow so much response. I definately am going to get and intel dual core. Just to fan the flame a little bit, has anyone used the macbook pros for much linux-audio work. I'm either going to get one of those, or a laptop from system76.com. Art On 9/12/06, carmen <_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue Sep 12, 2006 at 08:52:05PM +0200, Alberto Botti wrote: > Il giorno mar, 12/09/2006 alle 19.41 +0300, Sampo Savolainen ha scritto: > > The bottom line: Core 2 Duo beats anything AMD can offer. Even the more > > cheaper not top-of-the-line Core 2 Duo processors kill the fastest AMD > > processors in most cases. Oh, and the AMD processors use almost twice > > the energy of a Core 2 Duo. > > > > Though. All of this will change eventually, of course. :) > > :) > > The lower grade AMDs are still competitive with the comparable ones from > Intel, and are available in two low-consumption models, lower than Intel > (ADO, rated at 65W maximum, and ADD, at 35W). They might be useful to > build a near-silent pc (but you'll might run into issues with NVidia and > ATI chipsets, VIA might be a good choice). also note that in the benchmarks, somehow AMD still comes out on top in the 'apache' test. which suggests its possibly good at context switching and lots of threads, compared to Intel. which bodes well for 'nix in general, for all its interlocking parts. at the 200 USD price-point, which is sort of a sweet spot, AMD and Intel's offerings are pretty comparable. i'd start with a video and wireless chip you know are supported properly on linux, then pick a CPU that will go with it. unless you enjoy lockups, and proprietary drivers that won't compile with your xorg version, running Windows installers and copying over SYS files and mucking with NDISwrapper and all of that..unfortunately this means youre stuck with Intel. the joy of vendor lock-in :/ > > At least according to these tests (note: conducted under Windows) > > http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/low_e/ >
