Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Gentoo User (http://www.linux-archive.org/gentoo-user/)
-   -   new machine : CPU : AMD FX-4100 ? (http://www.linux-archive.org/gentoo-user/688782-new-machine-cpu-amd-fx-4100-a.html)

Philip Webb 07-30-2012 02:23 AM

new machine : CPU : AMD FX-4100 ?
 
Thanks for all the comments so far: HTH other users.

I am struck by the huge difference in price between Intel/AMD :
at Canada Computers -- a very reliable store in my experience since 2000 --
Intel's price range is CAD 200 - 240 ,
AMD's CAD 130 - 180 with an outlier FX-8150 at CAD 220 .
For CAD 240 , I can buy an Intel i5-2550K, 4-core, 6 MB cache, 3,4 GHz ;
for CAD 130 , an AMD FX-4100, 4-core, 8 MB cache, 3,6 GHz ;
both are 32 nm & yes, I hear everyone saying that's irrelevant.
CC seems to have much higher demand for AMDs :
they have c 3 Intels of each type in stock, c 7 AMDs of each type
(they're a busy store, which moves stuff quickly).

I've looked at a few reviews, which reveal no special advantage for Intel.
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/1/ says :
"entry level; half an FX-8150; best price; AMD Power Manager noticed
the CPU was idle & put it in a low power state for power-saving;
able to run <= 3,8 GHz when 1 - 2 threads are being used,
but only <= 3,7 GHz if 3 - 4 threads are being used:
running 1 thread can goto 3,8 GHz ;
fully unlocked, so you can easily overclock it".
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-4100+Quad-Core
shows FX-4100 as best value. AMD says it's made in Germany.

Do I need > 4 cores ? i5-2550K & FX-4100 both use 95 W
(some of the more costly AMDs use 125 W ).

I lean towards the FX-4100 : does anyone have further advice ?

Also, some comments implied that Intels have a built-in GPU :
if so, would that save the cost of a graphics card ?
how would it compare to an Nvidia card ? how reliable are the drivers ?

--
========================,,======================== ====================
SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT `-O----------O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca

Nikos Chantziaras 07-30-2012 02:50 AM

new machine : CPU : AMD FX-4100 ?
 
On 30/07/12 05:23, Philip Webb wrote:

Do I need > 4 cores ?


If you do video encoding, run chess analysis or are building software
all day long, a 6 core helps. But you don't "need" them. You only need
1 core.




i5-2550K & FX-4100 both use 95 W
(some of the more costly AMDs use 125 W ).


Note that power savings are not important if you're not using a laptop.
CPU power savings on a desktop don't translate to any relevant amount
of money on your electricity bills. This is because neither of those
CPUs really use 95W. That's just the thermal upper limit.




Also, some comments implied that Intels have a built-in GPU :
if so, would that save the cost of a graphics card ?
how would it compare to an Nvidia card ? how reliable are the drivers ?


Yes, Intel CPUs now have graphics integrated into the CPU itself. The
Intel drivers are top notch and are integrated into the kernel. Of
course this also means that there are no third-party driver packages
like for NVidia, so in order to update your graphics driver, you will
need to update your kernel and X.Org stack.


Note that of course performance is abysmal if you're interested in
running video games. With "video games" I don't mean Tux Racer, I mean
stuff like Assassin's Creed, Skyrim, etc. If that's not your thing,
then Intel graphics will be enough for you.

Alecks Gates 07-30-2012 03:01 AM

new machine : CPU : AMD FX-4100 ?
 
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Philip Webb <purslow@ca.inter.net> wrote:
-snip-
> Also, some comments implied that Intels have a built-in GPU :
> if so, would that save the cost of a graphics card ?
> how would it compare to an Nvidia card ? how reliable are the drivers ?
>
> --
> ========================,,======================== ====================
> SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb
> ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto
> TRANSIT `-O----------O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
>
>

AMD have some CPUs with GPUs as well (APUs, right now you'd look at
the A-series like A4, A6, etc), and they are currently very good. The
drivers aren't as good of quality but the hardware is better, and you
will still get more out of them than Intel. That, and they are also
cheaper.

Still, depends on what you plan on doing with the GPU.

Michael Mol 07-30-2012 03:08 AM

new machine : CPU : AMD FX-4100 ?
 
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30/07/12 05:23, Philip Webb wrote:
>> i5-2550K & FX-4100 both use 95 W
>> (some of the more costly AMDs use 125 W ).
>
>
> Note that power savings are not important if you're not using a laptop. CPU
> power savings on a desktop don't translate to any relevant amount of money
> on your electricity bills. This is because neither of those CPUs really use
> 95W. That's just the thermal upper limit.

To be fair, power savings are relevant if you're concerned about your
electric bill, or if you're concerned about heat management in your
system.

Consider my dual E5345...leaving that on 24x7 appears to cost me about 90USD/mo.

--
:wq

Michael Mol 07-30-2012 03:30 AM

new machine : CPU : AMD FX-4100 ?
 
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Philip Webb <purslow@ca.inter.net> wrote:
> Thanks for all the comments so far: HTH other users.
>
> I am struck by the huge difference in price between Intel/AMD :
> at Canada Computers -- a very reliable store in my experience since 2000 --
> Intel's price range is CAD 200 - 240 ,
> AMD's CAD 130 - 180 with an outlier FX-8150 at CAD 220 .

AMD parts have long, long been generally cheaper than Intel parts. If
you can afford the Intel part, you either get more beef per dollar, or
more beef per watt. (Where 'beef' refers to the CPU's practical
computing power, not some meaty substance.)

Every now and then, AMD manages to upend Intel here. (Usually, by
being able to do either more work per dollar or more work per watt. I
don't think they've ever managed to upend Intel on both fronts at the
same time, but I could be mistaken.) AMD's Hammer core managed to best
Intel by changing the subject of the race to multicore, forcing Intel
to ditch NetBurst and develop Core. With Core2, Intel pulled ahead for
a while, but AMD caught up. Sandy Bridge reflected Intel pulling _far_
ahead of AMD in work-per-watt (not sure about work per dollar), and
Bulldozer is AMD's answer to that; AMD went superscalar on Intel
again, which is the same stunt they pulled back in 1999 with the
Athlon. (Same stunt, but they pulled it a different way.) I think
Athlon was the most recent time AMD pulled ahead in both work-per-watt
and work-per-dollar.

All of this is based on hazy recollection...I welcome any corrections.

> For CAD 240 , I can buy an Intel i5-2550K, 4-core, 6 MB cache, 3,4 GHz ;
> for CAD 130 , an AMD FX-4100, 4-core, 8 MB cache, 3,6 GHz ;
> both are 32 nm & yes, I hear everyone saying that's irrelevant.
> CC seems to have much higher demand for AMDs :
> they have c 3 Intels of each type in stock, c 7 AMDs of each type
> (they're a busy store, which moves stuff quickly).

AMD parts are very popular because they're much cheaper, and because
you can very often upgrade systems in a more incremental fashion than
you can with Intel parts.

>
> I've looked at a few reviews, which reveal no special advantage for Intel.
> http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/1/ says :
> "entry level; half an FX-8150; best price; AMD Power Manager noticed
> the CPU was idle & put it in a low power state for power-saving;
> able to run <= 3,8 GHz when 1 - 2 threads are being used,
> but only <= 3,7 GHz if 3 - 4 threads are being used:
> running 1 thread can goto 3,8 GHz ;
> fully unlocked, so you can easily overclock it".
> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-4100+Quad-Core
> shows FX-4100 as best value. AMD says it's made in Germany.
>
> Do I need > 4 cores ? i5-2550K & FX-4100 both use 95 W
> (some of the more costly AMDs use 125 W ).

As Nikos noted, the 95W and 125W numbers are theoretical limits; the
CPU shouldn't idle anywhere close to those numbers.

Also as Nikos noted, you only "need" one core; that (and some hardware
support) is all that's fundamentally required for the a preemptive
multitasking kernel such as Linux to run properly. That said, having
multiple cores has very real benefit; if one process hangs in a
busyloop, your other processes won't feel that process's competition
quite so badly.

Really, once you get beyond two cores, it doesn't matter a whole lot
if you have three, four or eight cores; what matters in those contexts
is what each of those cores is capable of individually, and what
they're capable of in aggregate. How much each of those matters
depends on what you're using the computer for.

For most use cases, a small number (Say, 3 or 4) of cores running at a
very high GHz number will give you better results than a larger number
of cores at a lower GHz number. Exceptions exist. One such exception
would be parallel compiles.

>
> I lean towards the FX-4100 : does anyone have further advice ?

To my mind, the FX-8120 is the best part on the market right now:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8120+Eight-Core

Compare that to the FX-8150:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8150+Eight-Core

and the FX-4100:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-4100+Quad-Core

Now compare their performance-per-dollar on the larger chart:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html

>
> Also, some comments implied that Intels have a built-in GPU :
> if so, would that save the cost of a graphics card ?
> how would it compare to an Nvidia card ? how reliable are the drivers ?

Nikos responded adequately on this...

--
:wq

Nikos Chantziaras 07-30-2012 03:55 AM

new machine : CPU : AMD FX-4100 ?
 
On 30/07/12 06:08, Michael Mol wrote:

On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com> wrote:

On 30/07/12 05:23, Philip Webb wrote:

i5-2550K & FX-4100 both use 95 W
(some of the more costly AMDs use 125 W ).



Note that power savings are not important if you're not using a laptop. CPU
power savings on a desktop don't translate to any relevant amount of money
on your electricity bills. This is because neither of those CPUs really use
95W. That's just the thermal upper limit.


To be fair, power savings are relevant if you're concerned about your
electric bill, or if you're concerned about heat management in your
system.

Consider my dual E5345...leaving that on 24x7 appears to cost me about 90USD/mo.


CPU power savings will transform that into a 89.9USD/mo ;-) That's what
I mean. It's not worth much. It helps quite a bit with laptop battery
life. But for desktops, it doesn't do anything too useful.

Michael Mol 07-30-2012 04:28 AM

new machine : CPU : AMD FX-4100 ?
 
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30/07/12 06:08, Michael Mol wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30/07/12 05:23, Philip Webb wrote:
>>>>
>>>> i5-2550K & FX-4100 both use 95 W
>>>> (some of the more costly AMDs use 125 W ).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Note that power savings are not important if you're not using a laptop.
>>> CPU
>>> power savings on a desktop don't translate to any relevant amount of
>>> money
>>> on your electricity bills. This is because neither of those CPUs really
>>> use
>>> 95W. That's just the thermal upper limit.
>>
>>
>> To be fair, power savings are relevant if you're concerned about your
>> electric bill, or if you're concerned about heat management in your
>> system.
>>
>> Consider my dual E5345...leaving that on 24x7 appears to cost me about
>> 90USD/mo.
>
>
> CPU power savings will transform that into a 89.9USD/mo ;-) That's what I
> mean. It's not worth much. It helps quite a bit with laptop battery life.
> But for desktops, it doesn't do anything too useful.

If you really want the hard numbers, check out some place like Tom's
Hardware or Phoronix. I forget which does the power consumption
measurements. At some of the hardware review blogs, you can get
numbers on idle vs full-load power consumption, as measured at the
wall. The difference truly is striking.

Now, at least part of the problem with my E5345 setup is that I'm
running two high-performance Xeon processors that only have
operational clock speeds: 2.33 GHz and 2.00GHz. Desktop-targeted CPUs
often will clock down to just a hair over 1GHz, if not a hair under,
if you have proper power management daemons running.

--
:wq

Nikos Chantziaras 07-30-2012 06:16 AM

new machine : CPU : AMD FX-4100 ?
 
On 30/07/12 07:28, Michael Mol wrote:

On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com> wrote:

On 30/07/12 06:08, Michael Mol wrote:


On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com>
wrote:


On 30/07/12 05:23, Philip Webb wrote:


i5-2550K & FX-4100 both use 95 W
(some of the more costly AMDs use 125 W ).




Note that power savings are not important if you're not using a laptop.
CPU
power savings on a desktop don't translate to any relevant amount of
money
on your electricity bills. This is because neither of those CPUs really
use
95W. That's just the thermal upper limit.



To be fair, power savings are relevant if you're concerned about your
electric bill, or if you're concerned about heat management in your
system.

Consider my dual E5345...leaving that on 24x7 appears to cost me about
90USD/mo.



CPU power savings will transform that into a 89.9USD/mo ;-) That's what I
mean. It's not worth much. It helps quite a bit with laptop battery life.
But for desktops, it doesn't do anything too useful.


If you really want the hard numbers, check out some place like Tom's
Hardware or Phoronix. I forget which does the power consumption
measurements. At some of the hardware review blogs, you can get
numbers on idle vs full-load power consumption, as measured at the
wall. The difference truly is striking.


When you have full load, the CPU won't clock down. So nothing saved
there. If you don't have full load, the clock-down doesn't save much
compared to max clocks while idle.


I hope you're getting the logic here :-)

Michael Mol 07-30-2012 02:08 PM

new machine : CPU : AMD FX-4100 ?
 
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30/07/12 07:28, Michael Mol wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30/07/12 06:08, Michael Mol wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 30/07/12 05:23, Philip Webb wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i5-2550K & FX-4100 both use 95 W
>>>>>> (some of the more costly AMDs use 125 W ).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that power savings are not important if you're not using a laptop.
>>>>> CPU
>>>>> power savings on a desktop don't translate to any relevant amount of
>>>>> money
>>>>> on your electricity bills. This is because neither of those CPUs
>>>>> really
>>>>> use
>>>>> 95W. That's just the thermal upper limit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To be fair, power savings are relevant if you're concerned about your
>>>> electric bill, or if you're concerned about heat management in your
>>>> system.
>>>>
>>>> Consider my dual E5345...leaving that on 24x7 appears to cost me about
>>>> 90USD/mo.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> CPU power savings will transform that into a 89.9USD/mo ;-) That's what
>>> I
>>> mean. It's not worth much. It helps quite a bit with laptop battery
>>> life.
>>> But for desktops, it doesn't do anything too useful.
>>
>>
>> If you really want the hard numbers, check out some place like Tom's
>> Hardware or Phoronix. I forget which does the power consumption
>> measurements. At some of the hardware review blogs, you can get
>> numbers on idle vs full-load power consumption, as measured at the
>> wall. The difference truly is striking.
>
>
> When you have full load, the CPU won't clock down. So nothing saved there.

When you're considering full load, the TDP becomes a useful estimation
of relative power consumption between different processors.

> If you don't have full load, the clock-down doesn't save much compared to
> max clocks while idle.

This is where you're wrong.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmark-core-i7-3770k,3181-23.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-power-consumption-efficiency,3060-11.html

--
:wq

James 07-30-2012 04:36 PM

new machine : CPU : AMD FX-4100 ?
 
> > When you have full load, the CPU won't clock down. So nothing saved there.

> When you're considering full load, the TDP becomes a useful estimation
> of relative power consumption between different processors.

> > If you don't have full load, the clock-down doesn't save much compared to
> > max clocks while idle.

> This is where you're wrong.

OK. both sides are well stated.

Amp meters are less than $50 USD. They clamp around the
power cord, or any wires inside the computer you can fit
the "clamp" around.

So make your choice, based on actual measurements?
That's how an EE would make a decision on how
a given processor or software setup actually effects
the power consumption. REAL DATA.

Note, some of the fancier meter's have an integrator function
where measurements are taken frequently over a time period
to get an even more realistic picture of power consumption...

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_6/chpt_2/4.html


hth,
James


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:15 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.