Re: OT: was: Re: 32 or 64??
- From: Christopher Chan <christopher.chan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:13:02 +0800
I couldn't help but notice recently, much to my cost, that Intel is
removing Virtualization extensions on all their current socket 775
CPU's.. (how are the i5 and i7 faring?). The only reason I can think
for this move is to prevent the low end cpus from competing with the
workstation/server market, since these cpu's are now more than fast
enough for many workloads to be simply io bound.
Go AMD. No surprises whether there is hardware virtualization or not.
--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT: was: Re: 32 or 64??
- From: Rashkae
- Re: OT: was: Re: 32 or 64??
- From: Pastor JW
- Re: OT: was: Re: 32 or 64??
- References:
- Re: 32 or 64??
- From: Dotan Cohen
- Re: 32 or 64??
- From: Chris Jones
- Re: 32 or 64??
- From: anubis
- Re: 32 or 64??
- From: Wybo Dekker
- Re: 32 or 64??
- From: Chris Jones
- Re: 32 or 64??
- From: Wybo Dekker
- Re: 32 or 64??
- From: Odd
- Re: 32 or 64??
- From: Christopher Chan
- Re: 32 or 64??
- From: Odd
- Re: 32 or 64??
- From: Chan Chung Hang Christopher
- Re: 32 or 64??
- From: Odd
- Re: 32 or 64??
- From: Chan Chung Hang Christopher
- Re: 32 or 64??
- From: Smoot Carl-Mitchell
- OT: was: Re: 32 or 64??
- From: Rashkae
- Re: 32 or 64??
- Prev by Date: Re: How to search Launchpad for available PPAs?
- Next by Date: Re: Ubuntu 9.10 Desktop CD booted system could not mount internal harddisks attached to a RAID motherboard
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: was: Re: 32 or 64??
- Next by thread: Re: OT: was: Re: 32 or 64??
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|