Reply With QuoteSo what's the best value now for a linux machine, all things considered? Gotta be Athlon II X4 620 (Propus 4c), runs at 95w around $100.
The 9150e also quad but runs at 65w and $10 less but 20-25% slower.
Senior Member
When comparing CPUs, you need to compare chips at similar price points. If the 550 costs for example 170$ and it's compared against a 85$ chip, it would do well to win in benchmarks.
The issue is that you can buy quad-cores for the price of the new dual-core 550/551 chips, and these quad-cores are better in all but power consumption. These chips are simply not attractive at this price point.
Senior Member
So what's the best value now for a linux machine, all things considered? Gotta be Athlon II X4 620 (Propus 4c), runs at 95w around $100.
The 9150e also quad but runs at 65w and $10 less but 20-25% slower.
Senior Member
There arent many cpu's actually that cant outperform Atom. Most newer arm products can easily pretty much across the board. At lest 3 SoC PPC products can on overall performance. Most SoC MIPS products can on performance/watt. There is at least one SH SoC that comes damn close.Originally Posted by barbarbaron
YepThe video convinced me that if gpu acceleration be integrated into ARM chips it can match intel atom performance-wise. Which is good news
Atom is nothing special. The only benefit that it has is Intel's fabrication expertise. Besides that it really is a massively narrow -in order- architecture clocked very high relative to other chips targeted at the same form factor. Besides it's relatively high clock it really isnt anything to write home about.
Phoronix Member
Even if atom stays faster than ARM considering the x86 advantage, I think the main concern must be price at this point. ARM + linux = less for hardware + less for software.
Banned
you are only in the wrong time... really..
just wait a little the circle will rotate in the opposite direction.
most of your arguments against the amd gpu's will Dissolve in the next half year.
Posting Permissions
