Quote Originally Posted by savantu View Post
Scaling doesn't matter.

This is a must read :

http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/...79593&roomid=2
http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/...79593&roomid=2
http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/...79593&roomid=2

and the masterpiece :
http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/...79593&roomid=2

Don't know if you've came across this thread ; but it's worth reading .
I don't agree with his conclusions whatsoever, he's clearly talking in a server context (and even on a desktop I still don't agree). He's saying if you add more raw power to a system, it shouldn't scale linearly. That's not very cost-effective is it?

Additionally, he's saying that the CPUs should be matched to the infrastructure. By that logic, we should be back with 386s, since there's no chance a HD will be able to saturate a faster CPU. Even a 386 might be too fast.

I know he's getting at Intel being faster in single-threaded apps is a good thing, and that scaling beyond that, it's still faster than AMD. That's fine, and most definitely true. But trying to pretend that scaling isn't important with multi-CPU server/super-computer situations is a joke. Incidentally in servers Phenom beats Intel handedly, seems that scaling suddenly matters.