Tough one...
I know that when AMD first started making Pentium-like machines, they
were a lot *faster* then the Intels (at the same clock frequency), and
didn't have the strange bugs that many Intels had. And they were a lot
cheaper then! I put my trust into AMD and never regretted it :). They
only thing that was slightly worrying was that AMD chips needed loads of
extra cooling.
Don't know what the story is now though. Intel seems to have taken most
of the market back from AMD (the pre-built systems almost exclusively
have Intels). Would be nice to have a comparison between an Intel-based
computer and an AMD-based one, at the same clock ferquency (maybe at the
same price would be fairer :) ).
The story gets even more complicated with 64-bit technology and
single-dual processor boards...
Tests between Intel machines and others have been done
(http://imaging.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/imaging/SpmBenchmarks),
which was between different generations of computers, but may serve as a
starting point. Would be interested to hear about more recent tests!
all the best
Alle Meije
Todd Thompson wrote:
> Hi, all. I'm currently putting together a hardware list for a decent
> workstation that'll be used almost exclusively for fMRI analysis using
> SPM2 in linux. (And possibly SPM5, soon.)
>
> I've read the hardware advice section of the SPM-wiki, but I was
> wondering if anyone could give me current advice on using AMD or
> Intel. I know the latest Intel chips (Conroe? Core 2 Duo?) have gotten
> outstanding reviews, but I don't know if there are reasons to choose
> them over Opterons/Xeons in the SPM world.
>
> Any thoughts?
|