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 07-25-2012, 08:32 PM
Florian Philipp
 
Default new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm

Am 25.07.2012 22:14, schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann:
> Am Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2012, 16:05:29 schrieb Philip Webb:
>> I've listed what's available at the local store,
>> which I trust to stock reliable items, tho' I wouldn't ask their advice.
>>
>> All the AMD's are 32 nm , while the Intel recommended by one commenter
>> -- Core i5-3570 4-Core Socket LGA1155, 3.4 Ghz, 6MB L3 Cache, 22 nm --
>> is 22 nm : it costs CAD 230 & they have 3 in stock,
>> which suggests demand, but not the most popular ( 9 in stock).
>>
>> Isn't 22 nm going to be faster than 32 nm ?
>
> no
>

Lower transistor size gives you two advantages: Lower current (->
potentially lower power consumption and heat) and more transistors to do
something. The practical effects depend on what the chip maker does with
this.

>>
>> In the same price range, AMD offers Bulldozer X8 FX-8150 (125W)
>> 8-Core Socket AM3+, 3.6 GHz, 8Mb Cache, 32 nm ( CAD 220 , 2 in stock).
>>
>> How do you compare cores vs nm ?
>
> who cares?
>

You cannot really compare this. If you can use more cores, e.g. because
you have an embarrassingly parallel application, by all means, get it.
Otherwise you should probably care more about single core performance.

>> How far is cache size important ( 6 vs 8 MB )?
>
> depends on the architecture.
>

In short, for all three questions: Look at benchmarks and look at the
TDP ratings if that is important to you.

nm numbers don't tell you anything that can be directly translated into
performance or other qualities. They only allow educated guesses. If you
really want to delve so deep into chip design, you could as well look at
pipeline depths, cache associativity and such alike (not that you should).

Regards,
Florian Philipp
 
Old 07-25-2012, 08:49 PM
Michael Mol
 
Default new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Florian Philipp <lists@binarywings.net> wrote:
> Am 25.07.2012 22:14, schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann:
>> Am Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2012, 16:05:29 schrieb Philip Webb:
>>> I've listed what's available at the local store,
>>> which I trust to stock reliable items, tho' I wouldn't ask their advice.
>>>
>>> All the AMD's are 32 nm , while the Intel recommended by one commenter
>>> -- Core i5-3570 4-Core Socket LGA1155, 3.4 Ghz, 6MB L3 Cache, 22 nm --
>>> is 22 nm : it costs CAD 230 & they have 3 in stock,
>>> which suggests demand, but not the most popular ( 9 in stock).
>>>
>>> Isn't 22 nm going to be faster than 32 nm ?
>>
>> no
>>
>
> Lower transistor size gives you two advantages: Lower current (->
> potentially lower power consumption and heat) and more transistors to do
> something. The practical effects depend on what the chip maker does with
> this.

I second this; the feature size limit of the process isn't really
something a consumer should care about at _all_. Its only real impact
is on what architectural options are open to the manufacturer, which
in turn drives how much they can get out of a performance and feature
balance.

What you really care about is what the manufacturer builds, not the
tools and materials they had available to them.

>
>>>
>>> In the same price range, AMD offers Bulldozer X8 FX-8150 (125W)
>>> 8-Core Socket AM3+, 3.6 GHz, 8Mb Cache, 32 nm ( CAD 220 , 2 in stock).
>>>
>>> How do you compare cores vs nm ?
>>
>> who cares?
>>
>
> You cannot really compare this. If you can use more cores, e.g. because
> you have an embarrassingly parallel application, by all means, get it.
> Otherwise you should probably care more about single core performance.

I'll note that emerge -e @world with parallel emerge and parallel make
qualifies.

So does running a browser like Chromium which gives each tab its own process.

>
>>> How far is cache size important ( 6 vs 8 MB )?
>>
>> depends on the architecture.
>>
>
> In short, for all three questions: Look at benchmarks and look at the
> TDP ratings if that is important to you.

Good points.

>
> nm numbers don't tell you anything that can be directly translated into
> performance or other qualities. They only allow educated guesses. If you
> really want to delve so deep into chip design, you could as well look at
> pipeline depths, cache associativity and such alike (not that you should).

Not that that isn't fun. ^^



--
:wq
 
Old 07-26-2012, 12:21 AM
Dale
 
Default new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm

I'll add this. When I buy a CPU, I look at the speed, mine is 3.2Ghz,
and the cache that is on the chip, mine has 512Kb. Sometimes depending
on the process, having more cache can be just as important as the
speed. If I am looking at buying one of two identical CPUs but one has
more cache, I would try to get the one with more cache.

One should keep in mind that some are more efficient than others but
unless you plan to really look under the hood real close, those are two
things to really look at. Given how efficient things are nowadays, the
nm would be the last thing I look at.

The point made about producing less heat with the smaller nm sounds
reasonable tho.

I'm trying to picture a nm. o-o Hmmmm, maybe this is better. O-O
Nope, still can't picture a nm. lol

Dale

:-) :-)

--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
 
Old 07-26-2012, 12:33 AM
Nikos Chantziaras
 
Default new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm

On 25/07/12 23:05, Philip Webb wrote:

Isn't 22 nm going to be faster than 32 nm ?
[...]
How do you compare cores vs nm ?
How far is cache size important ( 6 vs 8 MB )?


You simply ignore all that stuff and look at how fast the CPUs are.
Some 45nm CPUs are faster than some 32nm and 22nm ones. How small the
manufacturing process is does not say much about performance. At least
not directly.


IMO, the best recommendations come from Tom's Hardware. They update
their recommendation every month or two:


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106.html

Ignore the "Gaming" in the title. It's really a recommendation of
performance vs price. The only effect their focus on gaming has is that
they ignore the integrated graphics of Intel CPUs.
 
Old 07-26-2012, 12:53 AM
Alecks Gates
 
Default new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25/07/12 23:05, Philip Webb wrote:
>>
>> Isn't 22 nm going to be faster than 32 nm ?
>> [...]
>>
>> How do you compare cores vs nm ?
>> How far is cache size important ( 6 vs 8 MB )?
>
>
> You simply ignore all that stuff and look at how fast the CPUs are. Some
> 45nm CPUs are faster than some 32nm and 22nm ones. How small the
> manufacturing process is does not say much about performance. At least not
> directly.
>
> IMO, the best recommendations come from Tom's Hardware. They update their
> recommendation every month or two:
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106.html
>
> Ignore the "Gaming" in the title. It's really a recommendation of
> performance vs price. The only effect their focus on gaming has is that
> they ignore the integrated graphics of Intel CPUs.
>
>

Yes, and remember tomshardware doesn't test Gentoo Linux. Look at a
site like openbenchmarking.org.

http://openbenchmarking.org/s/AMD%20FX%20-8150%20Eight-Core
http://openbenchmarking.org/s/Intel%20Core%20i5-3570K

Gentoo results are the most relevant, remember. The bulldozer kind of
sucks outside of Linux, and even Gentoo, and other benchmarks wont
show the results you would get. Highly threaded things kick ass on
the bulldozer, so I imagine updating with it would be fastest.
 
Old 07-26-2012, 01:26 AM
walt
 
Default new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm

On 07/25/2012 05:21 PM, Dale wrote:

> The point made about producing less heat with the smaller nm sounds
> reasonable tho.

From the chip maker's point of view, everything is about battery life
and small size these days. I wonder how many college kids are using
desktops these days. Desktops are only for us dinosaurs who are glued
to our computer chairs. (What fool would try to text from a desktop
machine while driving to school during rush hour on a busy street?)

> I'm trying to picture a nm. o-o Hmmmm, maybe this is better. O-O
> Nope, still can't picture a nm. lol

Have you tried sci-calculators/units? Very useful utility. It defines
1 nm as 1000 times the distance between a campaign promise and a damned
lie.
 
Old 07-26-2012, 01:34 AM
Michael Mol
 
Default new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> The point made about producing less heat with the smaller nm sounds
> reasonable tho.

Less heat with the smaller nm, but only if all other things remain equal!

In reality, manufacturers use additional margin within their TDP to
improve the product otherwise. Perhaps they increase the clock speed
somewhat. Perhaps they increase the amount of on-die cache. Perhaps
they reduce the instruction pipeline.

AMD, for example, has tended to maintain keep something in the market
for a 125W, 95W and 65W TDPs for several years. Each year, the
functionality that used to be in a 125W TDP processor shows up in a
95W TDP processor, and the latest 125W TDP processor beats the pants
off of last years'.

--
:wq
 
Old 07-26-2012, 01:56 AM
Dale
 
Default new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm

walt wrote:
> On 07/25/2012 05:21 PM, Dale wrote:
>
>> The point made about producing less heat with the smaller nm sounds
>> reasonable tho.
> >From the chip maker's point of view, everything is about battery life
> and small size these days. I wonder how many college kids are using
> desktops these days. Desktops are only for us dinosaurs who are glued
> to our computer chairs. (What fool would try to text from a desktop
> machine while driving to school during rush hour on a busy street?)

For a laptop, this could matter. I'm always thinking desktop tho.

>> I'm trying to picture a nm. o-o Hmmmm, maybe this is better. O-O
>> Nope, still can't picture a nm. lol
> Have you tried sci-calculators/units? Very useful utility. It defines
> 1 nm as 1000 times the distance between a campaign promise and a damned
> lie.
>

LOL As Mater says on the movie Cars, 'That's funny right there'. ;-)

Dale

:-) :-)

--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
 
Old 07-26-2012, 02:32 AM
Dale
 
Default new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm

Michael Mol wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The point made about producing less heat with the smaller nm sounds
>> reasonable tho.
> Less heat with the smaller nm, but only if all other things remain equal!
>
> In reality, manufacturers use additional margin within their TDP to
> improve the product otherwise. Perhaps they increase the clock speed
> somewhat. Perhaps they increase the amount of on-die cache. Perhaps
> they reduce the instruction pipeline.
>
> AMD, for example, has tended to maintain keep something in the market
> for a 125W, 95W and 65W TDPs for several years. Each year, the
> functionality that used to be in a 125W TDP processor shows up in a
> 95W TDP processor, and the latest 125W TDP processor beats the pants
> off of last years'.
>


I found this to be plain weird when I built my new rig. My old rig was
a AMD 2500+ single core system with 2Gbs of ram. It pulled about 400
watts or so for normal desktop use. A little more when compiling and
such. My new rig, AMD Phenom II 955 with four cores and 16Gbs of ram.
Heck, just a single core is much faster than my old rig. Thing is, the
new rig pulls less than half of what the old one pulls, WHILE
COMPILING. I can't recall the nm part but I think the CPU I got for my
old rig was supposed to be for laptop use.

AMD sure is getting more efficient as you point out. I still wonder
where we will be in 10 years. Just how fast can they make them?

Dale

:-) :-)

--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
 
Old 07-26-2012, 03:01 AM
Alecks Gates
 
Default new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Mol wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The point made about producing less heat with the smaller nm sounds
>>> reasonable tho.
>> Less heat with the smaller nm, but only if all other things remain equal!
>>
>> In reality, manufacturers use additional margin within their TDP to
>> improve the product otherwise. Perhaps they increase the clock speed
>> somewhat. Perhaps they increase the amount of on-die cache. Perhaps
>> they reduce the instruction pipeline.
>>
>> AMD, for example, has tended to maintain keep something in the market
>> for a 125W, 95W and 65W TDPs for several years. Each year, the
>> functionality that used to be in a 125W TDP processor shows up in a
>> 95W TDP processor, and the latest 125W TDP processor beats the pants
>> off of last years'.
>>
>
>
> I found this to be plain weird when I built my new rig. My old rig was
> a AMD 2500+ single core system with 2Gbs of ram. It pulled about 400
> watts or so for normal desktop use. A little more when compiling and
> such. My new rig, AMD Phenom II 955 with four cores and 16Gbs of ram.
> Heck, just a single core is much faster than my old rig. Thing is, the
> new rig pulls less than half of what the old one pulls, WHILE
> COMPILING. I can't recall the nm part but I think the CPU I got for my
> old rig was supposed to be for laptop use.
>
> AMD sure is getting more efficient as you point out. I still wonder
> where we will be in 10 years. Just how fast can they make them?
>
> Dale
>
> :-) :-)
>
> --
> I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
>
>

Definitely OT but that's surely not because of the CPU, or at least
not only the CPU. Many people highly underestimate the value of a
good and efficient power supply, which can make a huge difference.
This is one of those things that companies such as Dell like to cut
costs on because the average user neither sees the PSU specifications
nor knows enough to ask about it. Of course, efficiency within the
entire computer helps, but a bad power supply can really hurt your
electric bill.

On topic, AMD is definitely getting more efficient but mostly because
that's where the technology is headed in general -- Intel seems to do
a better job at efficiency per core but they also use hyper threading,
whereas AMD is putting their bets into more physical cores. Yes, I'm
going to say it again, but AMD is what you want for multitasking.
They are switching their goals from high-performance cores to
highly-concurrent CPUs, GPUs, and APUs.

Concurrency is the future, it's just hard for a lot of people to think
in such a way (and our technology doesn't leverage it to its full
capacity). Just look at the human brain: "a maximum of 1,000 nerve
impulses per second is possible. However, firing rates of 1 per second
to 300-400 per second are more typical."[1] Basically the average
neuron seems to be about only 300Hz, but there are trillions upon
trillions of synapses within the brain. I don't know about you, but I
am, allegedly, a fully-functioning, self-aware, intelligent being.

[1] http://www.noteaccess.com/APPROACHES/ArtEd/ChildDev/1cNeurons.htm
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:32 AM.

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