Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 20:32:13 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Gary Kline <kline@thought.org> Cc: Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com>, FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ThinkPad 3.0GHz: can anybody verify? Message-ID: <20080904202938.Y1657@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <20080904180332.GB33782@thought.org> References: <20080904015322.GA6544@thought.org> <a9f4a3860809031918i68a007e6vb281ce283b2629e4@mail.gmail.com> <20080904180332.GB33782@thought.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Dumb-question-dept:: is the "dual-core 2.2GHz == 4.4GHz" single > processor? I just bought my daughter a MacBook dual-core 2.4 and if you run at least 2 CPU-intensive processes in parallel - yes it's MORE THAN 4.4Ghz performance equivalent. why more? because when processor gets stalled at memory access (memories are still 45ns at most), throughput is halved not stopped. in unix environment bunch of slower processors are always better than one fast. > I'm not sure what model these 3.0GHz is; but IBM cheaped out on > the memory (256-512M) and they're all 40-60G max drive. So just > wondering how far these used laptops can go. Since I'll be > running 7.1 or Ubuntu, no need for **super** fast. my ONLY home computer is IBM/Lenovo T23 laptop with celeron 1200 and 256MB RAM. it's really enough
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080904202938.Y1657>