Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Sat 28th Feb 2009 20:29 UTC
Permalink for comment 351313
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-01-27
I think differently.
AMD needs to integrate the northbridge, southbridge and 3D graphic chips into the CPU, getting closer to the "system on a chip" design. "
We're past the point where one size fits all, so actually both of you are right and it depends on the application which processor or system-on-chip you choose.
For my development server/workstation I'd like to have as many cores, as much memory and hard drive capacity and speed as I could reasonably afford. For a mobile computing device such as a (mini)notebook I could live with much less computing power.
As a matter of fact I'm using my current notebook with an Intel Pentium IV at 2 GHz containing 512 MB of RAM and 60 GB hard drive to connect to my development "server" with an AMD Phenom Q9650, 8 GB of RAM and terabytes of hard drive space. The combination works fine so it's not "either/or" anymore, it's "both/and".