On 5/01/2014 04:48, jhu wrote:
> I could theoretically spend $37k for a 64 core machine or would $10k for a 32
> core machine be better if the 64 core machine isn't actually twice as fast?

Even if it is twice as fast, it doesn't sound cost-effective to spend
$37k for 64 cores if you can get an equivalent system but with 32
cores for $10k, because you could get three of the 32 core ones (and
still have cash to spare) for that price. So instead of 64 cores you
then have 96.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message