[ubuntu-uk] Quad core CPU for Ubuntu, is it worth it?

[Philip Newborough]

On Dec 17, 2007 9:27 AM, Alan Pope <alan at popey.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 09:13:28AM +0000, Kirrus wrote:
> > The technical stuff behind multi-core processors mean that more processors
> are only really useful if you're going to be running a number of
> cpu-intensive tasks on your computer simultaneously (as each one will use
> just one CPU core, leaving the others free to be used elsewhere).
>
> Not just intensive tasks, anything where you are doing multiple things at
> the same time, which can happen with something as simple as viewing a java
> applet in a web browser.
>
> >
> > >From what you've said, you'd probably find a dual-core sufficient, which would save you some money.
> >
> > Personally, I tend to prefer AMD processors to intel, if just 'cos intel
> is a big evil corporation, who's cpu's tend to get matched with ATI graphics
> chips (when they're done on-board), and ATI graphics chips are aweful for
> linux drivers. :(
>
> Not sure you can say Intel is evil. They are an awful lot better (with
> respect to open sourcing code/drivers) than a number of other vendors such
> as NVidia and ATI.
>
> Of the Intel machines I have, two have NVidia GPUs and five have Intel GPUs.
> None have ATI.
>
> Cheers,
> Al.


I agree, calling Intel evil is a little harsh. Personally I always try
to go with Intel, if possible, as they are so well supported. I have a
couple of Intel only machines, CPU, chipset, GPU, wireless chips etc,
and in my experience they have been the easiest machines to get Linux
up and running on. Support for their wireless cards is probably the
best I have come across. Support for their graphics chips is not too
shabby either, Compiz, not that I use it, works out of the box.

Peace,

Philip