3 ms·
do you need 40ghz with 32 cores or 2 cores at 1.5ghz and the garantee of full control? for personal computing, I'd take the later
by gcb0 10y ago
do you need 40ghz with 32 cores or 2 cores at 1.5ghz and the garantee of full control?
for personal computing, I'd take the later
- marssaxman 10y agoBy far the latter. My computation needs have been satisfied for years now; paternalistic, insecure platform lock-in crap irritates me far more than access to cutting-edge technology would benefit me.
- zeta0134 10y agoFor my actual day to day work? The latter, by far. I can get nearly all of my computing done comfortably on a raspberry pi. Most of what I need to do involves remote terminals via SSH, which I can run on any toaster. I do own a desktop gaming PC though. It's running Windows 10 on a respectable Intel CPU with a highish end nVidia graphics card. On it are my games. On it are only my games. If I need to do any development work, I boot that machine into Arch Linux. That's partly because I don't trust Windows, but it's mostly because the development environment is better on a Linux system anyway, for what I do regularly.
- gpderetta 10y agoI use daily an old core2 laptop. It peaks at 2.4Ghz, but I run it at 800-1.2Ghz when on battery. At 1.2Ghz I can browse the web just fine with JS disabled, but when I need to enable JS it starts to suffer. I can do light coding in emacs, but I wouldn't want to compile large codebases in it. So, yes, it would work fine depending on your needs, but be aware that a core 2 is not exactly a bad CPU. It is a 4-wide aggressively out of order machine with a pretty good memory subsystem. Is any of the open CPU replacements as good?