Re: [gentoo-user]Computer build, was PCIe x1 or PCIe x4 SATA controller card
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 6:01 AM Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > > Gamer boards tend to skimp on ports, because those people generally care > mostly for their GPU (plus design and RGB). Well, that, and the CPU only has so many PCIe lanes and adding ports beyond that requires a switch. Also, if they have two 16x slots to allow for dual graphics cards those eat up quite a few of the lanes (even if one isn't actually 16x). > > Here, Linus is showcasing an 8-drives storage machine in a Fractal Define R4: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpJViwtct5g > And here a system with 18 drives 浪 in a Fractal Define 7XL: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAy9N1vX76o I think a lot of the consumer cases have been moving away from accommodating hard drives and making more room for gigantic GPUs. All that said, I have largely abandoned the crusade of trying to squeeze a dozen hard drives into one host, in favor of distributed filesystems. If you're only putting a few drives per host and having more hosts then it becomes pretty easy to find hardware that works. Finally, for any system that will be running 24x7 I'd suggest optimizing for power use per unit of computation (which is a hard figure to find), and idle power use (unless you actually do something that keeps the server busy 24x7). Usually newer processors will do better here. The up-front costs of a CPU are likely to be dwarfed by the cost of powering it. ARM is of course advantageous if you don't need too much horsepower or RAM. Unfortunately ARM boards with lots of RAM are crazy-expensive so it isn't a great option if you need more than a few GB. There has been interest in using mini PCs from corporate used sales as servers, and I'm thinking about building storage around a solution like this. The drives would need to be external of course, but USB3 is plenty fast for hard drives. However, it is hard to find easy to lookup metrics on power use and stats like USB3/etc - most filters on used product sale sites just have filters for RAM and maybe CPU. You do need to be careful as some of those systems could have high power draw or lack USB3 or even gigabit LAN, making them unsuitable for 24x7 storage. The price and form factor can be very attractive though, and power use still tends to be low since large companies do think about those costs. -- Rich -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user]Computer build, was PCIe x1 or PCIe x4 SATA controller card
Am Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 05:36:16PM -0500 schrieb Dale: > Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > > If you want to save money and aim for a low-cost AMD APU (processor with > > integrated graphics), you can get an older 3000-series Ryzen for a > > two-digit > > price. It’ll still be much faster than your old FX at a fraction of the > > power consumption. Like the 4300G, which is twice as fast for half the > > electricity. With today’s processors, basically none of the socktetable > > models are too slow unless you have specific performance requirements. > > […] > > Here are some benchmark comparisons from cpubenchmark.net: > > […] > > You can see the increase in performance. My old i5-4590, at half the cores, > > can keep up with your FX, even though it is only 1½ years younger. Ryzens > > used to be more efficient in multi workloads (look at the 2020 entries). > > But > > I’m not too sure about current generations due to Intel’s big-little > > concept. > >> I was also wondering what a mobo/CPU/memory combo would cost nowadays. > >> Maybe someone who recently built a decent rig recalls how much they paid > >> for those three. I don't go cheap on power supply but I don't require a > >> lot for a video card or anything. Some spend half their money on a > >> video card alone but I just don't need anything that fancy. > > Any current Intel non-F CPU (F means no graphics) can cover your graphics > > need. Finally, AMD caught up and started shipping a minimal graphics chip > > in > > all of their processors with Zen 4, but as I said, that platform is still > > expensive. > > > >> I got a Nvidia GeForce GTX 650 that drives both my monitor and my TVs > >> through a splitter and it does just fine. > > How cute. This should be about twice as fast as the integrated graphics in > > my 8-year-old i5. So you’ll be fine with *any* integrated graphics (which > > will also cut down on idle consuption, compared with a dGPU). > > […] > > This is all good info. I went to Tom's Hardware and found their list by > computing power. I try to find a generic power rating since what I use > my rig for is more generic. No need looking at a chart for gaming. > ;-) Anyway, I was looking at a somewhat costly Ryzen 7 5800x3d or a > Ryzen 7 7700. The 5800x3d got a huge boost from its cache. It may be the most powerful AM4 socket processor around. But it is aimed mostly at gamers, because that’s where the cache mostly shines. > Plus, if the video stops working, replace card instead of whole mobo. Onboard graphics sits in the CPU. The mobo just routes the signal. And if any of that breaks, you can still fall back to a slot-in GPU. > I also have to have two outputs. One for desktop, one for TV. Most boards have at least two outputs, nowadays usually one HDMI and DP. > One other thing, the mobos I keep finding have few PCIe slots. Some > have 2 maybe 3. That's getting to be to few for me. Gamer boards tend to skimp on ports, because those people generally care mostly for their GPU (plus design and RGB). I believe you use ATX boards, right? Here is a list of AM4 ATX boards with at least four PCIe slots, totalling to 70 models (and still 31 with five slots): https://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=mbam4=18869_4. Feel free to play with the filters yourself. > Then my next thing, a case. The cases I find have a ton of lights, which > I hate, but as far as layout and such, they suck. Some cost a arm and leg > and they are worthless to me. Unilluminated ATX cases for at least five 3.5″ drives: https://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=gehatx=17572_ohne%7E536_5%7E9691_ATX Or for eight drives: https://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=gehatx=17572_ohne%7E536_8%7E9691_ATX There are some nice bland black boxes among them, notably the Fractal Define series. > I found one the other day that is fairly plain, holds 8 or 10 hard drives > and has reasonably good cooling. I'm hoping I can get it. Here, Linus is showcasing an 8-drives storage machine in a Fractal Define R4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpJViwtct5g And here a system with 18 drives 浪 in a Fractal Define 7XL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAy9N1vX76o > Usually I look forward to building a new rig. Trying to find things I > like takes the fun out of it. I'll get there tho. Eventually. I’ve been thinking for two years now. But my old PC keeps on running. I even play some Cities Skylines with its 8-year-old intel iGPU. I just can’t bring myself to discard that or to dosh out the money. And I can’t decide for a form factor. I want to have all at once and use them depending of the mood of the day. :D -- Grüße | Greetings | Qapla’ Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network. Win a Google Nexus! Scratch here ▒▒ with a key or any other sharp object to reveal your winning code! signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user]Computer build, was PCIe x1 or PCIe x4 SATA controller card
Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > Am Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 07:45:25AM -0500 schrieb Dale: >> Mark Knecht wrote: Another question. My rig is getting a bit aged. I have a AMD FX-8350 8 core CPU running at 4GHz. I also have 32GBs of memory. I've read that Intel currently has the best bang for buck on CPUs nowadays. I'm open to the idea of switching. As far as speed goes, if I built a new rig that is using a reasonably cost CPU and memory, would I see any real improvements? >>> I think it all depends on what you're going to use the machine for and >>> whether you really use all your CPU for extended periods of time. > This! My mini PC with its passive 10 W Celeron N5100 is enough for desktop > use, including encrypted storage. But maybe not for Gentoo. :) > >>> […] >>> PixInsight has a benchmark program built in and all the results >>> are open to look at: >>> >>> https://pixinsight.com/benchmark/index.php?sort=cpu=all >>> >>> Interestingly I didn't find your processor even on the list > That’s probably because the FX processors are old. Old and hungry. ^^ > >> Sometimes a CPU that costs $500 can only be just a fraction faster than a >> $200 CPU. > That’s still the case today for those impatient gamer enthusiasts who are > after the “longest bars” [in benchmarks]. The same goes for power > consumption. With Zen 4, AMD of course launched the fastest X-processors > first with a gargantuan power demand. A few months later the non-X were > released. They used 40 % or so less power at a performance cost of maybe 10 > % (not actual numbers, but figuratively speaking from memory). > >> Given that my rig, as you point >> out, sits here and waits on me to do something most of the time, that's >> a lot of money for something I won't see much time savings on. I might >> add tho, I do sometimes convert videos from 1080p to 720p. That makes >> the CPU max out pretty good. Compiling Libreoffice, Firefox etc also >> maxes out the CPU but those are what, once a month or so??? > Intel and AMD are giving themselves quite a race these days about who offers > more bang for the buck, or rather, more bang. In the past, Intel used to > have more to offer at the lower end (below 100 € CPUs, like Pentiums and > i3’s, while AMD was milking the market with high-end chips due to their > limited manufacturing capacities). > > If you want to save money and aim for a low-cost AMD APU (processor with > integrated graphics), you can get an older 3000-series Ryzen for a two-digit > price. It’ll still be much faster than your old FX at a fraction of the > power consumption. Like the 4300G, which is twice as fast for half the > electricity. With today’s processors, basically none of the socktetable > models are too slow unless you have specific performance requirements. > > With each generation, the architecture becomes more efficient, meaning more > instructions per cycle, lower consumption and so on. The max frequency is > not really the driving force behind performance increase anymore due to > efficiency issues at higher frequencies. > > Here are some benchmark comparisons from cpubenchmark.net: > > Processor year power cores single-core score multi-core score > FX-83502012 125 W 8/8 1580 6026 > i5-4590201484 W 4/4 2086 5356 > i5-10400 202065 W 6/12 2580 12258 > R3 4300G 202065 W 4/8 2557 11017 > R5 5600G 202165 W 6/12 3185 19892 > R5 7600X 2022 145 W 6/12 4213 28753 > > Sources: > https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html#desktop-thread > https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8350+Eight-Core=1780 > https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-4590+%40+3.30GHz=2234 > https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-10400+%40+2.90GHz=3737 > https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+3+4300G=3808 > https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+5+5600G=4325 > https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+5+7600X=5033 > > You can see the increase in performance. My old i5-4590, at half the cores, > can keep up with your FX, even though it is only 1½ years younger. Ryzens > used to be more efficient in multi workloads (look at the 2020 entries). But > I’m not too sure about current generations due to Intel’s big-little > concept. > DDR5 and PCIe5 have higher requirements at signal quality, making the boards > and components much more expensive (and, again, more power hungry). That’s > why, even though DDR4 platforms are on their way out technologically, they > are still an economically sound choice. > >> I was also wondering what a mobo/CPU/memory combo would cost nowadays. >> Maybe someone who recently built a decent rig recalls how much they paid >> for those three. I don't go cheap on power supply but I don't require a >> lot for a video
