FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-21-2012, 04:06 AM
Michael Mol
 
Default new machine : (1) which CPU ?

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Alecks Gates <alecks.g@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Philip Webb <purslow@ca.inter.net> wrote:
>> 120720 Dale wrote to me as OP:
>>> If you need help with this, i'd be glad to help you pick parts
>>> for your build. The biggest thing is to make sure things work together.
>>
>> Thanks for the offer & the other advice from everyone so far.
>> I built machines successfully in 2000 2003 2007
>> & am still using the last 2 , tho' the 2007 mobo failed (ASUS)
>> & its replacement is showing minor bugs (glad I got in-store warranty).
>> Therefore, I'm not looking for basic advice how to put a box together.
>>
>> I'm also willing to pay for a fast upto-date CPU,
>> but not of course whatever came out just last week,
>> which will soon drop in price & will still need some bugs sorting out.
>> I don't have to choose between a good CPU & a good SSD
>> & expect to get a competitive price from Canada Computers, as before.
>>
>> Any further thoughts re Intel vs AMD wb very welcome.
>>
>> --
>> ========================,,======================== ====================
>> SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb
>> ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto
>> TRANSIT `-O----------O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
>>
>>
>
> You'd definitely get more bang for your buck out of AMD, especially
> with Gentoo. It might even be worth waiting for AMD's piledriver-core
> CPUs depending on how much of an improvement they actually give,
> though I'm not sure when those are supposed to be out. And paying for
> a top-of-the-line AMD CPU is still much cheaper than Intel.
>
> This is a very broad generalization of course, but a lot of it comes
> down to multi-threaded (lean towards AMD) vs single-threaded (lean
> towards Intel). Honestly I don't think you'd notice the difference
> anyway on a general desktop. I'd pick AMD, and very likely one of
> their APUs if you don't need intense graphics, as they seem to be able
> to handle most things well and even some light gaming.

I love AMD for the historical ladder upgrades; all of my AMD systems
are comprised of components (RAM, CPU, and other pieces) which mostly
came from previous systems or newer systems' replaced components.

That's nice, and wonderfully cheap.

That said, right now Intel gives the best performance per watt...and
perhaps the best performance per dollar. I'm a few months out of date
on my research, though.

Wander around on cpubenchmark.net (Thanks, Florian, I'd lost my
bookmark to that site) and find the processor that fits your price and
performance level. Both Intel and AMD make excellent processors, so
you'll have to do your own research for a good decision.


--
:wq
 
Old 07-21-2012, 05:55 AM
 
Default new machine : (1) which CPU ?

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 08:49:32PM -0500, Alecks Gates wrote

> I'd pick AMD, and very likely one of their APUs if you don't need
> intense graphics, as they seem to be able to handle most things well
> and even some light gaming.

How do AMD's and Intel's open source video drivers compare?

--
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
 
Old 07-21-2012, 08:44 AM
Florian Philipp
 
Default new machine : (1) which CPU ?

Am 21.07.2012 07:55, schrieb waltdnes@waltdnes.org:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 08:49:32PM -0500, Alecks Gates wrote
>
>> I'd pick AMD, and very likely one of their APUs if you don't need
>> intense graphics, as they seem to be able to handle most things well
>> and even some light gaming.
>
> How do AMD's and Intel's open source video drivers compare?
>

Last time I tried to use AMD's open source driver, it worked well for
office applications and minor OpenGL (glxgears, desktop effects, etc.)
but it couldn't play a DVD on full screen (1920 * x) without frame
drops. (Yes, I tried tuning parameters with mplayer2).

Intel's driver works well enough for this but it doesn't have much head
room, either.

ATI's closed source driver works pretty well, too, nowadays. I had
trouble with xorg-server-1.12 but haven't investigated it, yet.

Regards,
Florian Philipp
 
Old 07-21-2012, 09:59 AM
 
Default new machine : (1) which CPU ?

Hello!

On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 10:44:11 +0200
Florian Philipp <lists@binarywings.net> wrote:

> Am 21.07.2012 07:55, schrieb waltdnes@waltdnes.org:
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 08:49:32PM -0500, Alecks Gates wrote
> >
> >> I'd pick AMD, and very likely one of their APUs if you don't need
> >> intense graphics, as they seem to be able to handle most things
> >> well and even some light gaming.
> >
> > How do AMD's and Intel's open source video drivers compare?
> >
>
> Last time I tried to use AMD's open source driver, it worked well for
> office applications and minor OpenGL (glxgears, desktop effects, etc.)
> but it couldn't play a DVD on full screen (1920 * x) without frame
> drops. (Yes, I tried tuning parameters with mplayer2).
>
> Intel's driver works well enough for this but it doesn't have much
> head room, either.
>
> ATI's closed source driver works pretty well, too, nowadays. I had
> trouble with xorg-server-1.12 but haven't investigated it, yet.
>
> Regards,
> Florian Philipp
>
One of my friends uses ATI video card both on desktop and laptop
machines and he told me recently that the free driver for ATI video
chips ( http://xorg.freedesktop.org/wiki/ati ) is very good nowadays
and is being actively developed.
He also said that the performance of his video card with open-source
driver in different modes is almost the same as with the proprietary
driver. I just don't remember the exact video card model, unfortunately.

And according to this article:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTA3NDE
AMD releases the code for some newer chips as well. Which gives more
chance for the new hardware to work good with GNU/Linux.

Regards,
Vladimir

-----
<v_2e@ukr.net>
 
Old 07-21-2012, 12:33 PM
Nikos Chantziaras
 
Default new machine : (1) which CPU ?

On 20/07/12 10:24, Philip Webb wrote:

I plan to build a new machine in the next few months:
it wb for regular desktop use, but performance is as important as price.

A quick look at what was available in April suggested
an Intel Ivy Bridge i7 ( 22 nm ) ; Phoronix said it works with Kernel 3.2
+ an Intel Z77 mobo (I usually buy ASUS) & that power/watt was excellent.


The best performance for money is the i5 2550K CPU. If you want the
integrated graphics because you don't have an actual graphics card, you
can go for the 2500K.


This is a Sandy Bridge CPU. I normally don't recommend the Ivy Bridge
ones because they run hotter, so changing the clock multipliers isn't as
fun as with Sandy Bridge.
 
Old 07-21-2012, 12:56 PM
microcai
 
Default new machine : (1) which CPU ?

2012/7/21 Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com>:
> On 20/07/12 10:24, Philip Webb wrote:
>>
>> I plan to build a new machine in the next few months:
>> it wb for regular desktop use, but performance is as important as price.
>>
>> A quick look at what was available in April suggested
>> an Intel Ivy Bridge i7 ( 22 nm ) ; Phoronix said it works with Kernel 3.2
>> + an Intel Z77 mobo (I usually buy ASUS) & that power/watt was excellent.
>
>
> The best performance for money is the i5 2550K CPU. If you want the
> integrated graphics because you don't have an actual graphics card, you can
> go for the 2500K.

For those don't want an integrated graphics, buy Xeon E3-123? serise
CPU. the same price as i5 2500K , but you got 8 thread

>
> This is a Sandy Bridge CPU. I normally don't recommend the Ivy Bridge ones
> because they run hotter, so changing the clock multipliers isn't as fun as
> with Sandy Bridge.
>
>
 
Old 07-21-2012, 01:07 PM
Frank Steinmetzger
 
Default new machine : (1) which CPU ?

Am Samstag, 21. Juli 2012, 15:33:05 schrieb Nikos Chantziaras:

> On 20/07/12 10:24, Philip Webb wrote:

> > I plan to build a new machine in the next few months:

> > it wb for regular desktop use, but performance is as important as price.

>

> > A quick look at what was available in April suggested

> > an Intel Ivy Bridge i7 ( 22 nm ) ; Phoronix said it works with Kernel 3.2

> > + an Intel Z77 mobo (I usually buy ASUS) & that power/watt was excellent.

> > […]

> > I don't want to pay a premium price for a bleeding-edge device

> > which wb available at a more normal price a few months later.

*

Those two statements are a bit contradicting.

Generally, I wouldn’t buy an i7. First, those high-end components tend to be comparatively more expensive than their smaller siblings (regarding bang for the buck). Okay, it’s a quad with HT instead of “just a quad” (oh my, the times we live in), but secondly, if it’s *mostly* a desktop and occasionally performance-critical, I think it is also a waste of power. More power means more heat means more fan noise.

*

> > I wb buying it from the local store (Canada Computers), not on-line.

>

> > Does anyone have thoughts or advice ?

*

A friend of mine built a new machine recently. I too am planning on doing this once I got the bucks (hopefully) in a few months. So we picked components together, based on recommendations of an “efficient home-brew PC” article in computer magazine c’t.

We know that Intel is more expensive, but also less power-hungry and known to work excellent both with Linux and with other components. And my friend believes that the Intel graphics drivers are still superior from a FOSS standpoint (he had an ATI in his old system).

*

Using the comprehensive Wikipedia articles on Ivy Bridge¹ and LGA1155², we decided for the biggest i5 (3570K, ~220€), as it has the bigger of the two HD Graphics chips (external Graphics were not on the shoping list). This new baby built GCC in 12 minutes and a bit. First he wanted an Intel board, but because those don’t have VGA anymore, he went for Gigagybe. He was building a big tower ATX system, and so chose the Z77 (around 100€).

*

I, however, am planning for something more modest, a cute mATX system with medium power. Right now I’m planning on a B75 board. It has all *I* need and is considerably cheaper (70€). I think I may also take the smaller i5 that comes with HD4000, the 3475S, which is around 25€ cheaper. But even then, it is still a beast when compared to my Core 2 Duo laptop which has to run permanently throttled due to its ageing heat spreader.

*

> This is a Sandy Bridge CPU. I normally don't recommend the Ivy Bridge

> ones because they run hotter, so changing the clock multipliers isn't as

> fun as with Sandy Bridge.

*

Yeah, according to the aforementioned Wikipedia article¹, they changed the heat spreader material inside. However, the 2550K you recommended has a TDP of almost 100W, whereas Ivy Bridge maxes at 77W. How much those figues are to be taken as real-world values is of course something else.

*

A nice improvement of Ivy Bridge in my view is its integrated USB3 controller, which, according to some tests, is considerably better than the patched-on solutions of Sandy Bridge boards. And if you don’t want a dedicated graphics card but still want some GPU power, that’s of course another plus for Ivy.

*

Hm... perhaps one can use the best of both worlds and use a Sandy CPU ond an Ivy board? The other way around would work with a BIOS upgrade.

*

*

*

Footnoty stuff

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Bridge_(microarchitecture)

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGA_1155

*

--

Gruß | Greetings | Qapla'

Please do not share anything from, with or about me with any Facebook service.

*

“Microsoft isn't evil, they just make really crappy operating systems.”

– Linus Torvalds
 
Old 07-22-2012, 03:13 AM
Alecks Gates
 
Default new machine : (1) which CPU ?

On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 12:55 AM, <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 08:49:32PM -0500, Alecks Gates wrote
>
>> I'd pick AMD, and very likely one of their APUs if you don't need
>> intense graphics, as they seem to be able to handle most things well
>> and even some light gaming.
>
> How do AMD's and Intel's open source video drivers compare?
>
> --
> Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
>

I've never used an Intel chip actually (well not in ages, and not on
Linux), but they tend to have the best open source drivers. Their
graphics chips aren't nearly as good, though.

AMD radeon open source drivers are getting better with every kernel.
Apparently there was a huge performance increase with 3.5 alone. They
are catching up and as long as you don't have something brand new the
support is pretty good (and apparently even this is getting better,
too).

Funny enough, there are some things I've actually had run faster using
radeon than fglrx, mostly with wine games. But the radeon driver
still does not have full support and even some things will simply not
work with them.
 
Old 07-22-2012, 03:18 AM
Alecks Gates
 
Default new machine : (1) which CPU ?

On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20/07/12 10:24, Philip Webb wrote:
>>
>> I plan to build a new machine in the next few months:
>> it wb for regular desktop use, but performance is as important as price.
>>
>> A quick look at what was available in April suggested
>> an Intel Ivy Bridge i7 ( 22 nm ) ; Phoronix said it works with Kernel 3.2
>> + an Intel Z77 mobo (I usually buy ASUS) & that power/watt was excellent.
>
>
> The best performance for money is the i5 2550K CPU. If you want the
> integrated graphics because you don't have an actual graphics card, you can
> go for the 2500K.
>
> This is a Sandy Bridge CPU. I normally don't recommend the Ivy Bridge ones
> because they run hotter, so changing the clock multipliers isn't as fun as
> with Sandy Bridge.
>
>

Actually according to the link Florian linked here[1], AMD is doing
extremely well regarding price/performance. Unless you want a Celeron
or a Pentium. i5s do rate up there, though... these tests are also
from Windows.

[1] http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html
 
Old 07-22-2012, 01:14 PM
Nikos Chantziaras
 
Default new machine : (1) which CPU ?

On 22/07/12 06:18, Alecks Gates wrote:

On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com> wrote:

On 20/07/12 10:24, Philip Webb wrote:


I plan to build a new machine in the next few months:
it wb for regular desktop use, but performance is as important as price.

A quick look at what was available in April suggested
an Intel Ivy Bridge i7 ( 22 nm ) ; Phoronix said it works with Kernel 3.2
+ an Intel Z77 mobo (I usually buy ASUS) & that power/watt was excellent.



The best performance for money is the i5 2550K CPU. If you want the
integrated graphics because you don't have an actual graphics card, you can
go for the 2500K.

This is a Sandy Bridge CPU. I normally don't recommend the Ivy Bridge ones
because they run hotter, so changing the clock multipliers isn't as fun as
with Sandy Bridge.




Actually according to the link Florian linked here[1], AMD is doing
extremely well regarding price/performance. Unless you want a Celeron
or a Pentium. i5s do rate up there, though... these tests are also
from Windows.

[1] http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html


I mean performance that doesn't suck :-P
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:58 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org