Prev: IBM PC AT missing PALs
Next: "TLB parity error in virtual array; TLB error 'instruction"?
From: Bill Davidsen on 10 Jul 2010 15:47
Robert Myers wrote:
> On Jul 9, 6:56 pm, Bill Davidsen <david...(a)tmr.com> wrote:
>
>> That's one of the reasons I'm looking at an i7-930 and Asus m/b for a hosting
>> system, I can get to 12GB with cheap memory. On the other hand, the i7-875
>> unlocked is cheap and allows o/c by use of multiplier. But no cheap memory
>> there, need 4GB parts. I'm tempted to build a host machine with Xeons and ECC
>> memory, slightly more reliable and all, but I think slower.
>>
>> Lots of ways to go, each with a drawback. :-(
>
> I was just as happy that the i-7 920 slipped through the oddities of
> Intel's market segmentation strategies. When the chip had just come
> out, I saw a geek buying the parts to build a computer for a chess
> competition. Who else buys machines with these chips? I can use the
> memory bandwidth, but, for most, the triple channel arrangement is
> overkill. All you really want is the extra memory slots. Just glad
> to have it, wish 4GB sticks weren't so expensive.
>
It's relative, Newegg has a sale on three channel memory, ddr3 1600, 12GB/$500.
I can remember not having 12GB of disk, so that's not all that expensive. They
have the i7-930 and Asus board for $500 also, TB drives for $68, I paid millions
for that kind of capacity "back when." ;-)

But the memory isn't that crazy, I was thinking that for $1k I could move from
one old core2-6600 w/ 4GB to enough to make the VMs dance a little faster.
From: Robert Myers on 10 Jul 2010 16:36
On Jul 10, 3:47 pm, Bill Davidsen <david...(a)tmr.com> wrote:

> But the memory isn't that crazy, I was thinking that for $1k I could move from
> one old core2-6600 w/ 4GB to enough to make the VMs dance a little faster..

I haven't gushed about a chip since the 130nm Tualatin. Mostly, I've
wondered why the chip couldn't deliver what I expected.

Core i7-920 is an exception. Virtualization works well enough so
that, except for Linux and the sound card, I don't notice that I'm
using a virtual machine, which is noticeably faster than a 3GHz
Pentium 4 for Linux. Windows XP on Windows Vista even makes the sound
card transparent. I'm using all vmware, so I don't know how other
solutions might work. I haven't yet succeeded in overloading it.

I'll admit, I've become so cynical about computers and software that
just seeing a gnome-terminal pop when I ask for it seems like a
miracle, never mind that it's on a virtual box. Admittedly, the core
2 duo E8xx almost seem like overkill for a single user, but I haven't
tried to virtualize anything on them (yet).

Robert.
From: chrisv on 14 Jul 2010 15:22
Bill Davidsen wrote:

>chrisv wrote:
>>
>> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>>
>>> Except for gamer machines, vendors expect the cover to stay on.
>>
>> Nonsense. Any PC must be expected to have memory and/or PCI cards
>> added.
>>
>Could you note the source of that opinion?

Err, that's why the slots are there.

Your foolishness regarding 200W video cards does not disprove my
point.

The usual memory and/or PCI card addition is handled just fine in
almost every situation.

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: IBM PC AT missing PALs
Next: "TLB parity error in virtual array; TLB error 'instruction"?