[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Advice on system purchase

Am Freitag, 2. November 2012 schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
> On 11/1/2012 11:42 AM, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > Am Montag, 29. Oktober 2012 schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
> >>> For powerful laptops and power saving desktops I think Intel
> >>> Sandybridge/Ivybridge is best bet currently - except for the
> >>> political  dimension.
> >> 
> >> Sure, but 90% of users don't need "powerful".  All the cores sit
> >> idle most of the time, and a faster CPU doesn't make Thunderbird or
> >> Firefox, IE or Outlook express, go any faster.  Nor any of the
> >> standard desktop apps.  90% of users would benefit more from a low
> >> wattage dual or even single core CPU, with an SSD instead of a rust
> >> drive.
> >> 
> >> But it's hard to sell people on the truth after you've been lying to
> >> them about the benefits of 4-8 core CPUs for many years...
> > 
> > Yeah, as you pointed out its about peak performance.
> No, it has nothing to do with peak performance.  What I said was that,
> in a nut shell, a 2.5-3GHz dual core CPU from AMD or Intel is more
> powerful than what 99.99% of users need.  Yet AMD/Intel are only
> selling 4/6/8 core desktop CPUs today.  It's a waste of cores and a
> waste of money.

Hmmm, then I misunderstood you.

I do think that a bigger peak performance on *one* core can make a 
difference. If using a…

> > Whether thats noticable? Well, one would have to test it.
> > 
> > I think to see any difference during application load times tough you
> > need to have a good SSD alongside.
> CPU performance has little to do with app load times, with most
> productivity apps anyway.  Load time is dictated by disk latency.  If
> the application's binary and libraries have been cached then CPU makes
> more difference, but it's a small difference.

… SSD and lots of RAM… and that this is why…

> > But I do believe that the kernel pings
> > between 800 MHz and turbo mode not for nothing.
> I have no idea what point you're making here.

"ondemand" scheduler tends to do it by give-me-everything-you-got or the-

As I experience the Linux kernel is using that turbo mode quite a lot. So 
something has to benefit from it. How noticable it is? I think it can be 
noticable with fast SSD and lots of RAM.

Thus I do think that it potentially gives the following benefits:

1) faster execution / lower latency on peak loads

2) less power consumption due to longer sleep periods.

And thus I say, that I better use a dual core CPU with higher peak 
performance for typical desktop workloads, than a quad core CPU with lower 
peak performance. A quad core CPU with as high peak performance might be 
in order if something compiles software a lot.

And thats my case for using Intel CPUs at the moment. Given the additional 
thing that at least from my perception anything Post-Nehalem from Intel 
has really good power consumption to computing power ratio. Well already 
Pentium-M has been quite good, while Pentium 4 was a joke.

That Intel i5 Sandybridge CPU on this ThinkPad T520 is really, really fast 
together with that Intel SSD 320 + 8 GiB of RAM.

I had a machine with i7 Quadcore, but probably a bit slower SSD, for a 
week and subjectively I did not notice a difference.

That said, in order to support the smaller company, an AMD CPU is an 
option as well. I do think the difference won´t be that big. But I think 
it needs to be one with a good power consumption versus processing power 
ratio. And I did not follow AMD´s recent development there, in order to 
really judge whether they have anything competitive in that field 
meanwhile. Back then when I looked they had not.

So my question would be: What AMD CPU do you see as alternative to say:

Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2520M CPU @ 2.50GHz

dual core CPU or say the Ivybridge equivalent in its desktop variant (as 
its a desktop machine being talked over here in this thread and no 
laptop). Which one could compete?

Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7

Reply to: