__/ [ Larry Qualig ] on Sunday 07 May 2006 15:18 \__
> Bob Hauck wrote:
>> On 6 May 2006 19:40:20 -0700, Larry Qualig <lqualig@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > For $39 you can get a 1.5Ghz xeon. (AMD processors are even less
>> > expensive).
>>
>> Yes, but. The 266 MHz PowerPC in the KuroBox is probably one of the
>> microcontroller variants. Those have serial, ethernet, usb, IDE, PCI,
>> and a memory controller all built-in to the chip. They are nearly a
>> single-chip solution _and_ they sell for under $40 in quantity.
>
> I read the original article fast and missed the "PowerPC" part. I just
> saw the 266Mhz spec. (Working with the 266Mhz non-PPC assumption) - my
> point is that if you're building an entire system already it's just a
> small incremental cost to get a much, much better CPU for just slighly
> more money.
>
>
>> The Xeon price is just for the CPU, you will also need some external
>> glue chips in order to make a system. The price and heat output of that
>> chipset is comparable to the CPU itself, plus you end up with a more
>> complex and more expensive motherboard due to having to run high-speed
>> signals around between chips.
>
> But this "external glue" to make a complete system is needed regardless
> of what CPU is used. I
>
>
>> > It would take more than 5 blades to get the CPU performance of asingle
>> > xeon 1.5Ghz machine.
>>
>> Sure, but if your design criteria include factors other than performance
>> (low power, low heat, fanless, etc) then the Xeon may not be the right
>> choice. You also have to take those factors into account along with the
>> amount of engineering required to get to the final product.
>
> I used the xeon only as a pricing example. The same could apply to
> Sempron, PPC, Sparc, Pentium-M (low power laptop) or any other
> processor. The point is that the newest "cutting edge" processors are
> expensive but CPU's that are 1-2 years old are very cheap now days. It
> seems that a 266Mhz is extremely cheap and for only a few more dollars
> a much more capable CPU could be used. For those trying to get a
> computer as cheap as humanly possible the extra $25 in costs could be a
> deal breaker. But for a one-time fee of $25 one could get a much better
> system.
Have ever taken into consideration those who would rather grab a dozen for
roughly a grand and a half and then deploy these across sites to endure
network outages, system failures, server spikes and maybe even use these
as proxies for greater speed? Not all services require a high-performing
unit in a _single location_. What's more, here you talk about a system
with less dependencies and better portability traits.
The desktop which I currently have at home is used for about half an hour
per day (not for work). Its low cost made it an affordable front-end to an
external, large-capacity storage unit, as well as a music player and an
SSH terminal (i.e. grab display, but do little or no processing). Why
spend money on high-end machines that remain in one single place the
entire time?
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Spam enchanted evening..."
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
3:45pm up 9 days 22:42, 12 users, load average: 1.05, 1.31, 0.79
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
|
|
