So you are telling us that a $203 Athlon 64/3400 will do more WU per day
than a $213 P4/3.2 (Newegg pricing) ????
I don't think so..........
=========================================
"Martin 53N 1W" <ml_news@ddnospamddml1dd.co.uk.dd> wrote in message
news:SUvFd.204$VE5.109@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...

like to know my fellow crunchers opinions and ideas on this subject
what is the most inexpensive but at the same time powerful

cruncher....say

between 40 and 100 wu's a week?

tia

Franco

ytrewq wrote:
 > Is this machine going to be used for anything other than crunching?
 > What OS are you anticipating using? Win XP?
 > The "mainstream $$" HT (Hyper Threading) Pentium 4 CPU's will do more
 > WU/day/$ than Athlon because of their ability to do 2 WU (Work Units)
at the
 > same time.


The real question should be for how many WUs per "$" (or "�" (:-))...

Intel's HT is a good kludge to overcome restrictions in their CPU
architecture. I think that the latest hard benchmark results have blown
Intel's marketed "performance = GHz" myth.

At the moment, AMD seem to still give the best Mflops per unit cost. The
question is more for whether to stay on 32-bits or to go for one of the
newer 64-bit machines.

Stay away from the cache crippled cheapies. The less cost is not worth
the performance hit due to the lack of a good sized on-chip cache.


If this is a dedicated s@h cruncher, then save money by not buying any
OS and use one of the bootable Linux + s@h distros that you can download
from the web. Almost 'plug-n-play'! (And no MS virus overheads or
antivirus needed.)


Good luck,
Martin

-- 
----------   OS? What's that?!
- Martin -   To most people, "Operating System" is unknown & strange.
- 53N 1W -   Mandrake 10.0.1 GNU Linux - An OS for Supercomputers & PCs
----------   http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en-gb/concept.php3