Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > Am Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 07:26:30AM -0500 schrieb Dale: > >> If you don't play games, then definitely get integrated graphics. >>> I'd add to this, you could still play many games, especially older games >>> using >>> a modern APU. The integrated graphics capability is broadly comparable >>> with >>> the entry level discrete GPUs. For driving a couple of monitors and >>> watching >>> videos an APU is more than adequate, saves money on a graphics card and >>> consumes less power. >>> >> The biggest reason I like a separate video card, I can upgrade if >> needed. > If you don’t play (big) games, then there is no reason to upgrade (except > if you plan on working with AI stuff). > >> Built in video means a new mobo. > No, a new CPU. The mobo only provides the lanes from the iGPU to the > connectors on the back. The only constraint imposed by the motherboard may > be an older version of the display link, like DisplayPort 1.2 instead of > 1.4. Only the latter supports 4K @ 120 Hz, the former tops out at 60 Hz. > >> I'd suspect even the wimpiest video card would do what I need. > In that case, every iGPU would do what you need. 嵐 The only exception may > be some hot new video hardware encoder. RDNA2, as can be found in Ryzen > 7000s, now supports AV1 decoding, which was still lacking in the 5000s. > > -- Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’ “Meow” “Woof” > Jeez, it’s really raining today! It would be my luck, the CPU would stop providing video somehow and take the lanes with it. LOL Still, I plan to go with on board video this time. See how it works out. It does have two ports like I need. As long as I don't need any more ports for something, then it will work fine. Thanks to both for the info. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
On 18/04/2024 13:26, Dale wrote: The biggest reason I like a separate video card, I can upgrade if needed. Built in video means a new mobo. Having a motherboard that supports an apu doesn't preclude adding a separate graphics card later if required (viz a lot of laptops that come so provisioned).
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
Am Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 07:26:30AM -0500 schrieb Dale: > If you don't play games, then definitely get integrated graphics. > > I'd add to this, you could still play many games, especially older games > > using > > a modern APU. The integrated graphics capability is broadly comparable > > with > > the entry level discrete GPUs. For driving a couple of monitors and > > watching > > videos an APU is more than adequate, saves money on a graphics card and > > consumes less power. > > > > The biggest reason I like a separate video card, I can upgrade if > needed. If you don’t play (big) games, then there is no reason to upgrade (except if you plan on working with AI stuff). > Built in video means a new mobo. No, a new CPU. The mobo only provides the lanes from the iGPU to the connectors on the back. The only constraint imposed by the motherboard may be an older version of the display link, like DisplayPort 1.2 instead of 1.4. Only the latter supports 4K @ 120 Hz, the former tops out at 60 Hz. > I'd suspect even the wimpiest video card would do what I need. In that case, every iGPU would do what you need. 嵐 The only exception may be some hot new video hardware encoder. RDNA2, as can be found in Ryzen 7000s, now supports AV1 decoding, which was still lacking in the 5000s. -- Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’ “Meow” “Woof”Jeez, it’s really raining today! signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
Michael wrote: > On Wednesday, 17 April 2024 23:13:40 BST Dale wrote: >> Frank Steinmetzger wrote: >>> Am Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 01:18:39PM -0400 schrieb Rich Freeman: On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 9:33 AM Dale wrote: > Rich Freeman wrote: > If you don't play games, then definitely get integrated graphics. > I'd add to this, you could still play many games, especially older games > using > a modern APU. The integrated graphics capability is broadly comparable with > the entry level discrete GPUs. For driving a couple of monitors and watching > videos an APU is more than adequate, saves money on a graphics card and > consumes less power. > The biggest reason I like a separate video card, I can upgrade if needed. Built in video means a new mobo. I'd suspect even the wimpiest video card would do what I need. The biggest thing, number of ports. I suspect tho, a built in video will outlast any card I buy. I almost always buy a card that has some age on it anyway. The built in video will likely be a LOT newer. >> I do have Nvidia and I use the Nvidia drivers. Thought about using the >> ones in the kernel but just never did. I don't think it is the video >> card tho. I think some of it is all the hard drives I have installed >> and that they are busy. I run torrent software all the time. It stays >> very busy. I actually set the connection speed to a little lower so >> that I have some network speed that isn't being used so that when I do >> something, I get some network bandwidth. Plus, there's that growing >> software problem that always exists. Software rarely shrinks. >> That sounds like RAM but I couldn't say for sure. In any case a modern system will definitely help. > +1 > > In particular it sounds like I/O becomes saturated as swap ramps up. > Also, fstrim, updatedb, rkhunter, etc., running in the background can make > things worse. > I've pretty much disabled swap. The swappiness setting is set to 0 or 1. It will use it but it is really out of memory when it does. My OS and swap is on spinning rust. When it starts to use swap, it really slows down when switching desktops or something. I do believe tho that the torrent software keeps the I/O pretty busy. Maybe I should adjust the nice and ionice for it. Maybe that would help. It's one reason I may let it run on my current rig, when new rig is built, instead of my main rig. Let it slow down a rig I'm not actually using for myself. I can still hook my backup drives to it for updating those. >>> Well, is the RAM full? My 10 years old PC has 32 Gigs and still runs very >>> smooth (with Intel integrated graphics). >> Generally, I use about 20 to 25GBs of RAM. Mostly, Seamonkey, Firefox >> and the torrent software. > An 8-core/thread CPU can eat up to 16G of RAM with -j8 and proportionately > more if a higher job number has been configured. > > Torrent can eat up *a lot* of memory, depending how its caching has been set > up. > > Endless tabs on browsers will also eat up RAM, and/or place demand on swap. > Some addons can make things worse, as can a corrupt content-prefs.sqlite file > - see here: > > https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-uses-too-much-memory-or-cpu-resources > A long time ago, I found that a couple add-ons clashed. Thing is, I needed both. So, I created a new profile. Then came another, and another. I have one for things like placing orders, banking and other stuff I like to be secure. It also has that container thing which separates some random web browsing from things like banking. It has its own set of add-ons. Then I have one for things like watching youtube, grabbing videos from there and other video related sites to watch later or before they get censored and no longer available. It has different add-ons. Then I have another for torrent research. Each of those requires its own set of add-ons. By splitting them up tho, there's less chance of a clash. I like Firefox and the way I have it set up. As you point out tho, it can get memory hungry. Given I'm bad to leave tabs open, that makes it even worse. Sometimes a website causes problems of its own too. Just like recently in this thread, several people posted links about mobos and such. Most of those are still open. I'm trying to push that info into my brain, hoping it will remain there. Never does but I'm trying. ROFL Still, I'd like to be able to use Firefox, check email in Seamonkey and such even while doing OS updates. Right now, that's risky with this amount of memory. >> Either way, the age of my current rig is a big reason I want to build a >> new one. It's getting a lot of gray hairs. >> >> Dale >> >> :-) :-) > IMHO the good ol' FX-8350 with a boost of 4.2 GHz and dual channel memory > access is still a very respectable CPU for day to day desktop computing. > Sure, it is inefficient energy wise and it can't compete with high multicore/ > multithreaded CPUs and DDR4/5 RAM
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
On Wednesday, 17 April 2024 23:13:40 BST Dale wrote: > Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > > Am Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 01:18:39PM -0400 schrieb Rich Freeman: > >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 9:33 AM Dale wrote: > >>> Rich Freeman wrote: > All AM5 CPUs have GPUs, but in general motherboards with video outputs > do not require the CPU to have a GPU built in. The ports just don't > do anything if this is lacking, and you would need a dedicated GPU. [snip ...] > >> If you don't play games, then definitely get integrated graphics. I'd add to this, you could still play many games, especially older games using a modern APU. The integrated graphics capability is broadly comparable with the entry level discrete GPUs. For driving a couple of monitors and watching videos an APU is more than adequate, saves money on a graphics card and consumes less power. > >> Even if the CPU costs a tiny bit more, it will give you a free empty > >> 16x PCIe slot at whatever speed the CPU supports (v5 in this case - > >> which is as good as you can get right now). > > > > Not to mention a cut in power draw. > > > >>> I might add, simply right clicking on the desktop can take sometimes 20 > >>> or 30 seconds for the menu to pop up. Switching from one desktop to > >>> another can take several seconds, sometimes 8 or 10. This rig is > >>> getting slower. > > > > Wut. I am running plasma 6 on a Surface Go 1 whose Pentium Gold was slow > > even when it came out. It is half as fast as your 8350 and does not have > > such problems. > > Benchmark FX 8350: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?id=1780 > > Benchmark Pentium Gold: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?id=3300 > > > > You have NVidia, right? Did you try the other graphics driver (i.e. > > proprietary ←→ foss)? Do those delays disappear if you disable 3D effects > > with Shift+Alt+F12? > > I do have Nvidia and I use the Nvidia drivers. Thought about using the > ones in the kernel but just never did. I don't think it is the video > card tho. I think some of it is all the hard drives I have installed > and that they are busy. I run torrent software all the time. It stays > very busy. I actually set the connection speed to a little lower so > that I have some network speed that isn't being used so that when I do > something, I get some network bandwidth. Plus, there's that growing > software problem that always exists. Software rarely shrinks. > > >> That sounds like RAM but I couldn't say for sure. In any case a > >> modern system will definitely help. +1 In particular it sounds like I/O becomes saturated as swap ramps up. Also, fstrim, updatedb, rkhunter, etc., running in the background can make things worse. > > Well, is the RAM full? My 10 years old PC has 32 Gigs and still runs very > > smooth (with Intel integrated graphics). > > Generally, I use about 20 to 25GBs of RAM. Mostly, Seamonkey, Firefox > and the torrent software. An 8-core/thread CPU can eat up to 16G of RAM with -j8 and proportionately more if a higher job number has been configured. Torrent can eat up *a lot* of memory, depending how its caching has been set up. Endless tabs on browsers will also eat up RAM, and/or place demand on swap. Some addons can make things worse, as can a corrupt content-prefs.sqlite file - see here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-uses-too-much-memory-or-cpu-resources > Either way, the age of my current rig is a big reason I want to build a > new one. It's getting a lot of gray hairs. > > Dale > > :-) :-) IMHO the good ol' FX-8350 with a boost of 4.2 GHz and dual channel memory access is still a very respectable CPU for day to day desktop computing. Sure, it is inefficient energy wise and it can't compete with high multicore/ multithreaded CPUs and DDR4/5 RAM modern architectures, if non-stop 24-7 parallel compiling were a user requirement, but for its age and architecture I would categorise it as a competent package. Most importantly, it comes already assembled and with zero additional cost! ;-) There were/are a lot corporates throwing out workstations and server spec towers, since many employees switched to working from home. It may be worth taking a look at those, if what you are missing at present is a faster/bigger NAS box. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > Am Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 01:18:39PM -0400 schrieb Rich Freeman: >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 9:33 AM Dale wrote: >>> Rich Freeman wrote: >>> All AM5 CPUs have GPUs, but in general motherboards with video outputs do not require the CPU to have a GPU built in. The ports just don't do anything if this is lacking, and you would need a dedicated GPU. >>> OK. I read that a few times. If I want to use the onboard video I have >>> to have a certain CPU that supports it? Do those have something so I >>> know which is which? Or do I read that as all the CPUs support onboard >>> video but if one plugs in a video card, that part of the CPU isn't >>> used? The last one makes more sense but asking to be sure. >> To use onboard graphics, you need a motherboard that supports it, and >> a CPU that supports it. I believe that internal graphics and an >> external GPU card can both be used at the same time. Note that >> internal graphics solutions typically steal some RAM from other system >> use, while an external GPU will have its own dedicated RAM (and those >> can also make use of internal RAM too). > You can usually set the amount of graphics memory in the BIOS, depending on > your need and RAM budget. > >> The 7600X has a built-in RDNA2 GPU. All the original Ryzen zen4 CPUs >> had GPU support, but it looks like they JUST announced a new line of >> consumer zen4 CPUs that don't have it - they all end in an F right >> now. > Yup. > G-series: big graphics for games n stuff, over 3 GFlops > F-Series: no graphics at all > rest: small graphics (around 0.8 GFlops max), ample for desktops and media > > X-Series: high performance > non-X: same as X, but with lower frequencies > > The X series are boosted to higher frequencies which give you a bit more > performance, but at the cost of disproportionally increased power > consumption and thus heat. They are simply run above the sweet spot in order > to get the longest bargraph in benchmarks. You can “simulate” a non-X by > running an X at a lower power target which can be set in the BIOS. In fact > once I have a Ryzen, I thing I might limit its frequency to a bit below > maximum just to avoid this inefficient region. > > But I’ll be buying a G anyways. Its architecture is different, as it is > basically a mobile chip in a desktop package. > > As to the qestion about 5/7/9 in the other mail: it’s just a tier number. > The more interesting is the 4-digit number. 600s and below are 6-core chips, > 700 and 800 have 8 cores, 900s have 12 cores or more. > > The thousands give away the generation. AM5 is denoted by 7xxx. (Though > there is another numbering scheme that does it quite differently, like > 7845H.) Good info. Clears up a little muddy water. >> In any case, if you google the CPU you're looking at it will tell you >> if it supports integrated graphics. > I also recommend Wikipedia. It has tables of all kinds of stuff. Including > all processors and their core features. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_4 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Ryzen_processors > >> If you don't play games, then definitely get integrated graphics. >> Even if the CPU costs a tiny bit more, it will give you a free empty >> 16x PCIe slot at whatever speed the CPU supports (v5 in this case - >> which is as good as you can get right now). > Not to mention a cut in power draw. > >>> I might add, simply right clicking on the desktop can take sometimes 20 >>> or 30 seconds for the menu to pop up. Switching from one desktop to >>> another can take several seconds, sometimes 8 or 10. This rig is >>> getting slower. > Wut. I am running plasma 6 on a Surface Go 1 whose Pentium Gold was slow > even when it came out. It is half as fast as your 8350 and does not have > such problems. > Benchmark FX 8350: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?id=1780 > Benchmark Pentium Gold: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?id=3300 > > You have NVidia, right? Did you try the other graphics driver (i.e. > proprietary ←→ foss)? Do those delays disappear if you disable 3D effects > with Shift+Alt+F12? > I do have Nvidia and I use the Nvidia drivers. Thought about using the ones in the kernel but just never did. I don't think it is the video card tho. I think some of it is all the hard drives I have installed and that they are busy. I run torrent software all the time. It stays very busy. I actually set the connection speed to a little lower so that I have some network speed that isn't being used so that when I do something, I get some network bandwidth. Plus, there's that growing software problem that always exists. Software rarely shrinks. >> That sounds like RAM but I couldn't say for sure. In any case a >> modern system will definitely help. > Well, is the RAM full? My 10 years old PC has 32 Gigs and still runs very > smooth (with Intel integrated graphics). > Generally, I use about 20 to 25GBs of RAM. Mostly, Seamonkey,
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 9:33 AM Dale wrote: >> Rich Freeman wrote: >> >>> All AM5 CPUs have GPUs, but in general motherboards with video outputs >>> do not require the CPU to have a GPU built in. The ports just don't >>> do anything if this is lacking, and you would need a dedicated GPU. >>> >> OK. I read that a few times. If I want to use the onboard video I have >> to have a certain CPU that supports it? Do those have something so I >> know which is which? Or do I read that as all the CPUs support onboard >> video but if one plugs in a video card, that part of the CPU isn't >> used? The last one makes more sense but asking to be sure. > To use onboard graphics, you need a motherboard that supports it, and > a CPU that supports it. I believe that internal graphics and an > external GPU card can both be used at the same time. Note that > internal graphics solutions typically steal some RAM from other system > use, while an external GPU will have its own dedicated RAM (and those > can also make use of internal RAM too). > > The 7600X has a built-in RDNA2 GPU. All the original Ryzen zen4 CPUs > had GPU support, but it looks like they JUST announced a new line of > consumer zen4 CPUs that don't have it - they all end in an F right > now. > > In any case, if you google the CPU you're looking at it will tell you > if it supports integrated graphics. Most better stores/etc have > filters for this feature as well (places like Newegg or PCPartPicker > or whatever). > > If you don't play games, then definitely get integrated graphics. > Even if the CPU costs a tiny bit more, it will give you a free empty > 16x PCIe slot at whatever speed the CPU supports (v5 in this case - > which is as good as you can get right now). > Sounds good. So right now, if I buy a mobo with a couple video ports, any current CPU will make the integrated video work. There is some CPUs in the works that don't so double check first, just to be sure. ;-) >> I might add, simply right clicking on the desktop can take sometimes 20 >> or 30 seconds for the menu to pop up. Switching from one desktop to >> another can take several seconds, sometimes 8 or 10. This rig is >> getting slower. Actually, the software is just getting bigger. You get >> my meaning tho. I bet the old KDE3 would be blazingly fast compared to >> the rig I ran it on originally. > That sounds like RAM but I couldn't say for sure. In any case a > modern system will definitely help. When I first built this rig, it was very quick to respond to anything I did. Some could be all the hard drives I have installed here, 10 I think right now, but I think it just takes longer for the software to do its thing because all that software has gotten larger over the years. The same thing happened to my old original rig, AMD 2500+ single core with I think a few gigabytes of ram. The software just outgrew the ability of the hardware to keep up. I'm thinking of moving my torrent software to the NAS box. That thing takes a good bit of bandwidth itself. It keeps the drives and network busy. That can't help any. >> I'd get 32GBs at first. Maybe a month or so later get another 32GB. >> That'll get me 64Gbs. Later on, a good sale maybe, buy another 32GB or >> a 64GB set and max it out. > You definitely want to match the timings, and you probably want to > match the sticks themselves. Also, you generally need to be mindful > of how many channels you're occupying, though as I understand it DDR5 > is essentially natively dual channel. If you just stick one DDR4 > stick in a system it will not perform as well as two sticks of half > the size. I forget the gory details but I believe it comes down to > the timings of switching between two different channels vs moving > around within a single one. DDR RAM timings get really confusing, and > it comes down to the fact that addresses are basically grouped in > various ways and randomly seeking from one address to another can take > a different amount of time depending on how the new address is related > to the address you last read. The idea of "seeking" with RAM may seem > odd, but recent memory technologies are a bit like storage, and they > are accessed in a semi-serial manner. Essentially the latencies and > transfer rates are such that even dynamic RAM chips are too slow to > work in the conventional sense. I'm guessing it gets into a lot of > gory details with reactances and so on, and just wiring up every > memory cell in parallel like in the old days would slow down all the > voltage transitions. I used a memory finder tool to find what fits that ASUS mobo. It takes 32GB sticks IN PAIRS. Also, according to one manufacturer, they come in matched sets. A 64GB set costs almost $200. Still, I can make it on 64GB for a while. Add another set later. I got the impression that installing only one stick might not work to well. >> I've looked at server type boards. I'd like to have one.
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
Meik Frischke wrote: > Am 2024-04-17 12:33, schrieb Dale: >> I found a benchmark website that compares the two. Link below. It >> claims about 80% faster. In some ways, twice as fast. Sometimes those >> bench tests don't reflect the real world to well. Most of them seem to >> test gaming speeds which isn't of much use anyway for me. I'm more >> about compiling and such. Just wondering how much speed difference this >> would make. Maybe someone reading this did a similar upgrade or has >> seen both in action. If so, post and share your thoughts. >> > > Hi Dale, > > since Moore's Law isn't quite dead yet there is a significant > performance uplift in newer processor generations, especially with the > smaller 5nm process nodes of recent, after some years of stagnation at > 14nm (your FX-8350 was manufactured at 32nm). With each process shrink > (32nm -> 28nm -> 22 nm -> 14nm -> 10nm -> 7nm -> 5nm) new CPUs can > deliver higher performance with the same power consumption or achieve > similar performance levels with lower power consumption. > Looking at the open-benchmarking default configuration kernel compile > benchmark (pts/build-linux-kernel-1.15.0), the Ryzen 5 7600 (slower > non-X) took ~101s to compile the kernel (based on 28 submitted > results) while the FX-8350 took ~422s for the same task (based on 4 > submissions) [1]. Unlike gaming, compiling tends to scale quite well > with core count and for the gentoo use-case the measured performance > difference is in most cases similar for different packages. There are > many influencing factors for benchmarking like running kernel version, > activated options and mitigations so YMMV, but you can test it > yourself: there are ebuilds for the phoronix-benchmark-suite in > various overlays [2]. You can perform the benchmark with > $(phoronix-test-suite benchmark pts/build-linux-kernel-1.15.0) with > the "defconfig" test configuration option. > > Cheers, > Meik > > [1] > https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/build-linux-kernel=9cdcd82c9c47af9df17263e4312f634338dbf476#metrics > [2] https://gpo.zugaina.org/app-benchmarks/phoronix-test-suite > > If one just compares the kernel compile time, about 4 times faster. I'm not expecting the accuracy one needs to build a space ship. ;-) That's a pretty good way to measure because with Gentoo, compiling a kernel is a very common thing. As you said, it scales well. Compiling gcc would be a good one to if they have default USE flags. Obviously if one system has a lot of USE flags enabled and another is the bare minimum, there will be a difference not related to CPU speed. Rich made a good point too. Speed isn't just influenced by the CPU. Memory speed and even the speed of accessing data drive, spinning rust, SSD or whatever, also affects a system. When I get this new rig built and you see me post about it, remind me and I'll install that benchmark test and send in the results. I like doing things like that because it helps others too. I just wish there was a centralized place for them all. Right now, there are likely dozens of them and each with their own method. Thanks for that info. I'm making progress and planning a way to purchase all this. It's still not cheap but cheaper than it was before I found out I could get a cheaper CPU and upgrade later. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
Am Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 01:18:39PM -0400 schrieb Rich Freeman: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 9:33 AM Dale wrote: > > > > Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > > All AM5 CPUs have GPUs, but in general motherboards with video outputs > > > do not require the CPU to have a GPU built in. The ports just don't > > > do anything if this is lacking, and you would need a dedicated GPU. > > > > > > > OK. I read that a few times. If I want to use the onboard video I have > > to have a certain CPU that supports it? Do those have something so I > > know which is which? Or do I read that as all the CPUs support onboard > > video but if one plugs in a video card, that part of the CPU isn't > > used? The last one makes more sense but asking to be sure. > > To use onboard graphics, you need a motherboard that supports it, and > a CPU that supports it. I believe that internal graphics and an > external GPU card can both be used at the same time. Note that > internal graphics solutions typically steal some RAM from other system > use, while an external GPU will have its own dedicated RAM (and those > can also make use of internal RAM too). You can usually set the amount of graphics memory in the BIOS, depending on your need and RAM budget. > The 7600X has a built-in RDNA2 GPU. All the original Ryzen zen4 CPUs > had GPU support, but it looks like they JUST announced a new line of > consumer zen4 CPUs that don't have it - they all end in an F right > now. Yup. G-series: big graphics for games n stuff, over 3 GFlops F-Series: no graphics at all rest: small graphics (around 0.8 GFlops max), ample for desktops and media X-Series: high performance non-X: same as X, but with lower frequencies The X series are boosted to higher frequencies which give you a bit more performance, but at the cost of disproportionally increased power consumption and thus heat. They are simply run above the sweet spot in order to get the longest bargraph in benchmarks. You can “simulate” a non-X by running an X at a lower power target which can be set in the BIOS. In fact once I have a Ryzen, I thing I might limit its frequency to a bit below maximum just to avoid this inefficient region. But I’ll be buying a G anyways. Its architecture is different, as it is basically a mobile chip in a desktop package. As to the qestion about 5/7/9 in the other mail: it’s just a tier number. The more interesting is the 4-digit number. 600s and below are 6-core chips, 700 and 800 have 8 cores, 900s have 12 cores or more. The thousands give away the generation. AM5 is denoted by 7xxx. (Though there is another numbering scheme that does it quite differently, like 7845H.) > In any case, if you google the CPU you're looking at it will tell you > if it supports integrated graphics. I also recommend Wikipedia. It has tables of all kinds of stuff. Including all processors and their core features. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Ryzen_processors > If you don't play games, then definitely get integrated graphics. > Even if the CPU costs a tiny bit more, it will give you a free empty > 16x PCIe slot at whatever speed the CPU supports (v5 in this case - > which is as good as you can get right now). Not to mention a cut in power draw. > > I might add, simply right clicking on the desktop can take sometimes 20 > > or 30 seconds for the menu to pop up. Switching from one desktop to > > another can take several seconds, sometimes 8 or 10. This rig is > > getting slower. Wut. I am running plasma 6 on a Surface Go 1 whose Pentium Gold was slow even when it came out. It is half as fast as your 8350 and does not have such problems. Benchmark FX 8350: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?id=1780 Benchmark Pentium Gold: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?id=3300 You have NVidia, right? Did you try the other graphics driver (i.e. proprietary ←→ foss)? Do those delays disappear if you disable 3D effects with Shift+Alt+F12? > That sounds like RAM but I couldn't say for sure. In any case a > modern system will definitely help. Well, is the RAM full? My 10 years old PC has 32 Gigs and still runs very smooth (with Intel integrated graphics). > > Given the new rig can have 128GBs, I assume it comes in 32GB sticks. > > Consumer DDR5 seems to come as large as 48GB, though that seems like > an odd size. Actually, my product search page finds sticks with up to 96 GB. I believe the 48 size was introduced because for those to whom 32 was too small, 64 was too expensive. DDR5 still is relatively pricey due to its higher electrical requirements. -- Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’ Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network. It’s quiet in the shadow, because you can’t hear the light. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
Am 2024-04-17 12:33, schrieb Dale: I found a benchmark website that compares the two. Link below. It claims about 80% faster. In some ways, twice as fast. Sometimes those bench tests don't reflect the real world to well. Most of them seem to test gaming speeds which isn't of much use anyway for me. I'm more about compiling and such. Just wondering how much speed difference this would make. Maybe someone reading this did a similar upgrade or has seen both in action. If so, post and share your thoughts. Hi Dale, since Moore's Law isn't quite dead yet there is a significant performance uplift in newer processor generations, especially with the smaller 5nm process nodes of recent, after some years of stagnation at 14nm (your FX-8350 was manufactured at 32nm). With each process shrink (32nm -> 28nm -> 22 nm -> 14nm -> 10nm -> 7nm -> 5nm) new CPUs can deliver higher performance with the same power consumption or achieve similar performance levels with lower power consumption. Looking at the open-benchmarking default configuration kernel compile benchmark (pts/build-linux-kernel-1.15.0), the Ryzen 5 7600 (slower non-X) took ~101s to compile the kernel (based on 28 submitted results) while the FX-8350 took ~422s for the same task (based on 4 submissions) [1]. Unlike gaming, compiling tends to scale quite well with core count and for the gentoo use-case the measured performance difference is in most cases similar for different packages. There are many influencing factors for benchmarking like running kernel version, activated options and mitigations so YMMV, but you can test it yourself: there are ebuilds for the phoronix-benchmark-suite in various overlays [2]. You can perform the benchmark with $(phoronix-test-suite benchmark pts/build-linux-kernel-1.15.0) with the "defconfig" test configuration option. Cheers, Meik [1] https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/build-linux-kernel=9cdcd82c9c47af9df17263e4312f634338dbf476#metrics [2] https://gpo.zugaina.org/app-benchmarks/phoronix-test-suite
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 9:33 AM Dale wrote: > > Rich Freeman wrote: > > > All AM5 CPUs have GPUs, but in general motherboards with video outputs > > do not require the CPU to have a GPU built in. The ports just don't > > do anything if this is lacking, and you would need a dedicated GPU. > > > > OK. I read that a few times. If I want to use the onboard video I have > to have a certain CPU that supports it? Do those have something so I > know which is which? Or do I read that as all the CPUs support onboard > video but if one plugs in a video card, that part of the CPU isn't > used? The last one makes more sense but asking to be sure. To use onboard graphics, you need a motherboard that supports it, and a CPU that supports it. I believe that internal graphics and an external GPU card can both be used at the same time. Note that internal graphics solutions typically steal some RAM from other system use, while an external GPU will have its own dedicated RAM (and those can also make use of internal RAM too). The 7600X has a built-in RDNA2 GPU. All the original Ryzen zen4 CPUs had GPU support, but it looks like they JUST announced a new line of consumer zen4 CPUs that don't have it - they all end in an F right now. In any case, if you google the CPU you're looking at it will tell you if it supports integrated graphics. Most better stores/etc have filters for this feature as well (places like Newegg or PCPartPicker or whatever). If you don't play games, then definitely get integrated graphics. Even if the CPU costs a tiny bit more, it will give you a free empty 16x PCIe slot at whatever speed the CPU supports (v5 in this case - which is as good as you can get right now). > That could mean a slight price drop for the things I'm looking at then. > One can hope. Right??? Everything comes down in price eventually... > > I might add, simply right clicking on the desktop can take sometimes 20 > or 30 seconds for the menu to pop up. Switching from one desktop to > another can take several seconds, sometimes 8 or 10. This rig is > getting slower. Actually, the software is just getting bigger. You get > my meaning tho. I bet the old KDE3 would be blazingly fast compared to > the rig I ran it on originally. That sounds like RAM but I couldn't say for sure. In any case a modern system will definitely help. > Given the new rig can have 128GBs, I assume it comes in 32GB sticks. Consumer DDR5 seems to come as large as 48GB, though that seems like an odd size. > I'd get 32GBs at first. Maybe a month or so later get another 32GB. > That'll get me 64Gbs. Later on, a good sale maybe, buy another 32GB or > a 64GB set and max it out. You definitely want to match the timings, and you probably want to match the sticks themselves. Also, you generally need to be mindful of how many channels you're occupying, though as I understand it DDR5 is essentially natively dual channel. If you just stick one DDR4 stick in a system it will not perform as well as two sticks of half the size. I forget the gory details but I believe it comes down to the timings of switching between two different channels vs moving around within a single one. DDR RAM timings get really confusing, and it comes down to the fact that addresses are basically grouped in various ways and randomly seeking from one address to another can take a different amount of time depending on how the new address is related to the address you last read. The idea of "seeking" with RAM may seem odd, but recent memory technologies are a bit like storage, and they are accessed in a semi-serial manner. Essentially the latencies and transfer rates are such that even dynamic RAM chips are too slow to work in the conventional sense. I'm guessing it gets into a lot of gory details with reactances and so on, and just wiring up every memory cell in parallel like in the old days would slow down all the voltage transitions. > I've looked at server type boards. I'd like to have one. I'd like one > that has SAS ports. So, I don't really spend much time looking at them, but I'm guessing SAS is fairly rare on the motherboards themselves. They probably almost always have an HBA/RAID controller in a PCIe slot. You can put the same cards in any PC, but of course you're just going to struggle to have a slot free. You can always use a riser or something to cram an HBA into a slot that is too small for it, but then you're going to suffer reduced performance. For just a few spinning disks though it probably won't matter. Really though I feel like the trend is towards NVMe and that gets into a whole different world. U.2 allows either SAS or PCIe over the bus, and there are HBAs that will handle both. Or if you only want NVMe it looks like you can use bifurcation-based solutions to more cheaply break slots out. I'm kinda thinking about going that direction when I expand my Ceph cluster. There are very nice NVMe server designs that can get 24 drives into 2U or
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 6:33 AM Dale wrote: >> On the AM5 link, I found a mobo that I kinda like. I still wish it had >> more PCIe slots tho. > AM5 has 28 PCIe lanes. Anything above that comes from a switch on the > motherboard. > > 0.1% of the population cares about having anything on their > motherboard besides a 16x slot for the GPU. So, that's what all the > cheaper boards deliver these days. The higher end boards often have a > switch and will deliver extra lanes, and MAYBE those will go into > another PCIe slot (probably not wired for 16x but it might have that > form factor), and more often those go into additional M.2 slots and > USB3 ports. (USB3 is very high bandwidth, especially later > generations, and eats up PCIe lanes as a result.) > > Keep in mind those 28 v5 lanes have the bandwidth of over 100 v3 > lanes, which is part of why the counts are being reduced. The problem > is that hardware to do that conversion is kinda niche right now. It > is much easier to bifurcate a larger slot, but that doesn't buy you > more lanes. > >> It supports not only the Ryzen 9 >> series but also supports Ryzen 5 series. > That is because the 9 and 5 are branding and basically convey no > information at all besides the price point. > > The Ryzen 7 1700X has about half the performance of the Ryzen 5 7600X, > and that would be because the first chip came out in 2017, and the > second came out in 2022 and is three generations newer. > > Likewise the intel branding of "i3" or "i7" and so on also conveys no > information beyond the general price level they were introduced at. > You can expect the bigger numbers to offer more performance/features > than the smaller ones OF THE SAME GENERATION. The same branding keeps > getting re-applied to later generations of chips, and IMO it is > intentionally confusing. > >> I looked up the Ryzen 5 7600X >> and 8600G. I think the X has no video and the G has video support. > Both have onboard graphics. The G designates zen1-3 chips with a GPU > built in, and all zen4 CPUs have this as a standard feature. The > 7600X is zen4. > > See what I mean about the branding getting confusing? > Yep. I see that. It's easy enough to confuse me. Having something that is inherently confusing just makes it worse. I think some manufacturers do this sort of thing on purpose. Not just computer stuff either. >> I >> haven't researched yet to see if the mobo requires the G since it has >> video ports, two to be more precise which is the minimum I need. > All AM5 CPUs have GPUs, but in general motherboards with video outputs > do not require the CPU to have a GPU built in. The ports just don't > do anything if this is lacking, and you would need a dedicated GPU. > OK. I read that a few times. If I want to use the onboard video I have to have a certain CPU that supports it? Do those have something so I know which is which? Or do I read that as all the CPUs support onboard video but if one plugs in a video card, that part of the CPU isn't used? The last one makes more sense but asking to be sure. >> Anyway, those two CPUs are cheaper than the Ryzen 9 I was looking at. I >> could upgrade later on as prices drop. I'm sure a new Ryzen is lurking >> around the corner. > Zen5 is supposedly coming out later this year. It will be very > expensive. Zen4 is still kinda expensive I believe though I haven't > gone looking recently at prices. I have a zen4 system and it was > expensive (particularly the motherboard, and the DDR5 is more > expensive, and if you want NVMe that does v5 that is more expensive as > well). That could mean a slight price drop for the things I'm looking at then. One can hope. Right??? > > > I have a FX-8350 8 core CPU now. Would the Ryzen 5's mentioned above be >> a good bit faster, a lot, a whole lot? > So, that very much depends on what you're doing. > > Single-thread performance of that 7600X is 2-3x faster. Total > performance is almost 5x faster. The 7600X will use moderately less > power at full load, and I'm guessing WAY less power at less than full > load. It will also have much better performance than those numbers > reflect for very short bursts of work, since modern CPUs can boost. > > That's just pure CPU performance. > > The DDR5 performance of the recent CPU is MUCH better than that of the > DDR3 you're using now. Your old motherboard might be PCIe v2 (I think > the controller for that was on the motherboard back then?). If so > each lane delivers 8x more bandwidth on the recent CPU, which matters > a great deal for graphics, or for NVMe performance if you're using an > NVMe that supports it and have a workload that benefits from it. > > Gaming tends to be a workload that benefits the most from all of these > factors. If your system is just acting as a NAS and all the storage > is on hard drives, I'm guessing you won't see much of a difference at > all, except maybe in boot time, especially if you put
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 6:33 AM Dale wrote: > > On the AM5 link, I found a mobo that I kinda like. I still wish it had > more PCIe slots tho. AM5 has 28 PCIe lanes. Anything above that comes from a switch on the motherboard. 0.1% of the population cares about having anything on their motherboard besides a 16x slot for the GPU. So, that's what all the cheaper boards deliver these days. The higher end boards often have a switch and will deliver extra lanes, and MAYBE those will go into another PCIe slot (probably not wired for 16x but it might have that form factor), and more often those go into additional M.2 slots and USB3 ports. (USB3 is very high bandwidth, especially later generations, and eats up PCIe lanes as a result.) Keep in mind those 28 v5 lanes have the bandwidth of over 100 v3 lanes, which is part of why the counts are being reduced. The problem is that hardware to do that conversion is kinda niche right now. It is much easier to bifurcate a larger slot, but that doesn't buy you more lanes. > It supports not only the Ryzen 9 > series but also supports Ryzen 5 series. That is because the 9 and 5 are branding and basically convey no information at all besides the price point. The Ryzen 7 1700X has about half the performance of the Ryzen 5 7600X, and that would be because the first chip came out in 2017, and the second came out in 2022 and is three generations newer. Likewise the intel branding of "i3" or "i7" and so on also conveys no information beyond the general price level they were introduced at. You can expect the bigger numbers to offer more performance/features than the smaller ones OF THE SAME GENERATION. The same branding keeps getting re-applied to later generations of chips, and IMO it is intentionally confusing. > I looked up the Ryzen 5 7600X > and 8600G. I think the X has no video and the G has video support. Both have onboard graphics. The G designates zen1-3 chips with a GPU built in, and all zen4 CPUs have this as a standard feature. The 7600X is zen4. See what I mean about the branding getting confusing? > I > haven't researched yet to see if the mobo requires the G since it has > video ports, two to be more precise which is the minimum I need. All AM5 CPUs have GPUs, but in general motherboards with video outputs do not require the CPU to have a GPU built in. The ports just don't do anything if this is lacking, and you would need a dedicated GPU. > Anyway, those two CPUs are cheaper than the Ryzen 9 I was looking at. I > could upgrade later on as prices drop. I'm sure a new Ryzen is lurking > around the corner. Zen5 is supposedly coming out later this year. It will be very expensive. Zen4 is still kinda expensive I believe though I haven't gone looking recently at prices. I have a zen4 system and it was expensive (particularly the motherboard, and the DDR5 is more expensive, and if you want NVMe that does v5 that is more expensive as well). > I have a FX-8350 8 core CPU now. Would the Ryzen 5's mentioned above be > a good bit faster, a lot, a whole lot? So, that very much depends on what you're doing. Single-thread performance of that 7600X is 2-3x faster. Total performance is almost 5x faster. The 7600X will use moderately less power at full load, and I'm guessing WAY less power at less than full load. It will also have much better performance than those numbers reflect for very short bursts of work, since modern CPUs can boost. That's just pure CPU performance. The DDR5 performance of the recent CPU is MUCH better than that of the DDR3 you're using now. Your old motherboard might be PCIe v2 (I think the controller for that was on the motherboard back then?). If so each lane delivers 8x more bandwidth on the recent CPU, which matters a great deal for graphics, or for NVMe performance if you're using an NVMe that supports it and have a workload that benefits from it. Gaming tends to be a workload that benefits the most from all of these factors. If your system is just acting as a NAS and all the storage is on hard drives, I'm guessing you won't see much of a difference at all, except maybe in boot time, especially if you put the OS on an NVMe. If this is just for your NAS I would not drop all that money on zen4, let alone zen5. I'd look for something older, possibly used, that is way cheaper. > Still, I need more memory too. 32GBs just isn't much when running > Seamonkey, three Firefox profiles and torrent software. Ok, if this is for a desktop you'll benefit more from a newer CPU. RAM is really expensive though these days. Getting something off-lease is going to save you a fortune as the RAM is practically free in those. You can get something with 32GB of DDR4 for $150 or less in a SFF PC. > I'm not running > out but at times, it's using a lot of it. I was hoping for a mobo that > would handle more than 128GB but that is a lot of memory. Any recent motherboard will handle 128GB. You'll just need to use large DIMMs as
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > Am Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 08:04:15AM -0500 schrieb Dale: > > >> I've seen some server type mobos that have SAS connectors which gives >> several options. Some of them tend to have more PCIe slots which some >> regular mobos don't anymore. Then there is that ECC memory as well. If >> the memory doesn't cost to much more, I could go that route. I'm not >> sure how much I would benefit from it but data corruption is a thing to >> be concerned about. >> […] >> The problem with those cards, some of the newer mobos don't have as many >> PCIe slots to put those cards into anymore. I think I currently have >> two such cards in my current rig. The new rig would hold almost twice >> the number of drives. Obviously, I'd need cards with more SATA ports. > Indeed consumer boards tend to get fewer normal PCIe slots. Filtering for > AM4 boards, the filter allowed me to filter up to 6 slots, whereas for AM5 > boards, the filter stopped at 4 slots. > AM4: https://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=mbam4=18869_5%7E20502_UECCDIMM%7E4400_ATX > AM5: https://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=mbam5=18869_4%7E20502_UECCDIMM%7E4400_ATX > > On the AM5 link, I found a mobo that I kinda like. I still wish it had more PCIe slots tho. Still, with m.2 to SATA converter thing or a PCIe card with a LOT of SATA ports or a SAS card, I could handle all the hard drives, I think. Anyway, I found the ASUS Prime X670-P which is quite nice. It has connections I've never heard of. Still, may need them for something. I found the ASUS website and started looking for the specs and such. After I got the noscript thing sorted so the page would work, I noticed something kinda awesome. It supports not only the Ryzen 9 series but also supports Ryzen 5 series. I looked up the Ryzen 5 7600X and 8600G. I think the X has no video and the G has video support. I haven't researched yet to see if the mobo requires the G since it has video ports, two to be more precise which is the minimum I need. Anyway, those two CPUs are cheaper than the Ryzen 9 I was looking at. I could upgrade later on as prices drop. I'm sure a new Ryzen is lurking around the corner. I have a FX-8350 8 core CPU now. Would the Ryzen 5's mentioned above be a good bit faster, a lot, a whole lot? I need to upgrade either way. Mobos tend to last around 10 years or so and I'm pushing that hard. With the new solid capacitors, some say they last a lot longer now. Still, I need more memory too. 32GBs just isn't much when running Seamonkey, three Firefox profiles and torrent software. I'm not running out but at times, it's using a lot of it. I was hoping for a mobo that would handle more than 128GB but that is a lot of memory. I found a benchmark website that compares the two. Link below. It claims about 80% faster. In some ways, twice as fast. Sometimes those bench tests don't reflect the real world to well. Most of them seem to test gaming speeds which isn't of much use anyway for me. I'm more about compiling and such. Just wondering how much speed difference this would make. Maybe someone reading this did a similar upgrade or has seen both in action. If so, post and share your thoughts. This opens a new option that might be easier to accomplish. Still wish that mobo had more PCIe slots tho. Dale :-) :-) https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-5-7600X-vs-AMD-FX-8350/4130vs1489 https://www.asus.com/us/motherboards-components/motherboards/prime/prime-x670-p/helpdesk_qvl_cpu?model2Name=PRIME-X670-P
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > Am Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 08:04:15AM -0500 schrieb Dale: > >>> The physical connector is called M.2. The dimensions of the “sticks” are >>> given in a number such as 2280, meaning 22 mm wide and 80 mm long. There >>> are >>> different lengths available from 30 to 110 mm. M.2 has different “keys”, >>> meaning there are several variants of electrical hookup. Depending on that, >>> it can support SATA, PCIe, or both. NVMe is a protocol that usually runs >>> via >>> PCIe. So for a modern setup, one usually buys NVMe drives, meaning they are >>> connected via PCIe either directly to the CPU or over the chipset. >>> >> >> Ahh, that's why some of them look a little different. I was wondering >> about that. Keep in mind, I've never seen one in real life. Just >> pictures or videos, or people talking about them on this list. > I use one in my 10-year-old PC. The board only provides PCIe 2.0×2 to the > slot, so I only get around 1 GB/s instead of 3 which the SSD can reach. But > I bought the SSD with the intention of keeping it in the next build and I > don’t notice the difference anyways. > >>> There is also the other way around that: an adapter card for the M.2 slot >>> that gives you SATA ports. >>> >> I didn't know that. > I actually thought we mentioned it already in an earlier “NAS thingy” > thread. :) > > https://www.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/comments/s0bf1d/m2_sata_expansion_anyone_use_something_like_this/ > https://www.amazon.de/dp/B09FZDQ6ZB > Maybe you find something if you search for the controller chip (PCIe to > SATA): JMB585. From what I’ve just read though, the cheap chines adapters > don’t seem to be very sturdy. One person advised to put an adapter M.2 → > normal PCIe into the M.2 and then use a normal-formfactor controller card. > After all, an M.2 slot is just a PCIe×4 slot with a different connector. > > BTW: there are also NVMe SSDs in the old 2.5″ format. This formfactor is > called U.2, but beware the enterprise-level prices. It could have came up but slipped my mind. Lots of things slip through nowadays. :/ Those you linked to are nice. There are some PCIe cards that go up to a dozen or so drives and still give pretty good speed. A PCIe card would be better for the new build, given the larger number of sata ports. Either way, I try to spread it across two connection points. Example, I have a data and crypt mount point each having three hard drives. All my data mount point drives are on one card. All my crypt mount point drives are on one card. If one card quits all of a sudden, that whole mount point is gone. If needed, I could move drives to the other card until I can replace the card. >> I've seen some server type mobos that have SAS connectors which gives >> several options. Some of them tend to have more PCIe slots which some >> regular mobos don't anymore. Then there is that ECC memory as well. If >> the memory doesn't cost to much more, I could go that route. I'm not >> sure how much I would benefit from it but data corruption is a thing to >> be concerned about. >> […] >> The problem with those cards, some of the newer mobos don't have as many >> PCIe slots to put those cards into anymore. I think I currently have >> two such cards in my current rig. The new rig would hold almost twice >> the number of drives. Obviously, I'd need cards with more SATA ports. > Indeed consumer boards tend to get fewer normal PCIe slots. Filtering for > AM4 boards, the filter allowed me to filter up to 6 slots, whereas for AM5 > boards, the filter stopped at 4 slots. > AM4: https://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=mbam4=18869_5%7E20502_UECCDIMM%7E4400_ATX > AM5: https://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=mbam5=18869_4%7E20502_UECCDIMM%7E4400_ATX My new build will be a Ryzen 9 7900X which is AM5. I try to stick with known good brands of mobos. I currently use Gigabyte. I'd be happy with ASUS and a couple others. Supermicron I think is a good brand for server type gear. I notice all the ones listed in your link for AM5 is ASUS. I don't recall ever having one but I've read they are good. I wouldn't hesitate to buy one of them. >> One reason I'm trying not to move to fast right now, besides trying to >> save up money, I'm trying to find the right CPU, mobo and memory combo. >> None of them are cheap anymore. Just the CPU is going to be around >> $400. The mobo isn't to far behind if I go with a non server one. > One popular choice for home servers is AM4’s Ryzen Pro 4650G. That’s an APU > (so with powerful internal graphics), but also with ECC support (hence the > Pro moniker). The APU is popular because 1) on AM4 only APUs have graphics > at all, 2) it allows for use as a compact media server, as no bulky GPU is > needed. > > Speaking of GPU: We’ve had the topic before, but keep in mind that if you go > with AM5, you don’t need a dGPU. Unless you go with one of those F > processors. So there is one more slot available. > I prefer to have a
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
Am Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 08:04:15AM -0500 schrieb Dale: > > The physical connector is called M.2. The dimensions of the “sticks” are > > given in a number such as 2280, meaning 22 mm wide and 80 mm long. There > > are > > different lengths available from 30 to 110 mm. M.2 has different “keys”, > > meaning there are several variants of electrical hookup. Depending on that, > > it can support SATA, PCIe, or both. NVMe is a protocol that usually runs > > via > > PCIe. So for a modern setup, one usually buys NVMe drives, meaning they are > > connected via PCIe either directly to the CPU or over the chipset. > > > > > Ahh, that's why some of them look a little different. I was wondering > about that. Keep in mind, I've never seen one in real life. Just > pictures or videos, or people talking about them on this list. I use one in my 10-year-old PC. The board only provides PCIe 2.0×2 to the slot, so I only get around 1 GB/s instead of 3 which the SSD can reach. But I bought the SSD with the intention of keeping it in the next build and I don’t notice the difference anyways. > > There is also the other way around that: an adapter card for the M.2 slot > > that gives you SATA ports. > > > > I didn't know that. I actually thought we mentioned it already in an earlier “NAS thingy” thread. :) https://www.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/comments/s0bf1d/m2_sata_expansion_anyone_use_something_like_this/ https://www.amazon.de/dp/B09FZDQ6ZB Maybe you find something if you search for the controller chip (PCIe to SATA): JMB585. From what I’ve just read though, the cheap chines adapters don’t seem to be very sturdy. One person advised to put an adapter M.2 → normal PCIe into the M.2 and then use a normal-formfactor controller card. After all, an M.2 slot is just a PCIe×4 slot with a different connector. BTW: there are also NVMe SSDs in the old 2.5″ format. This formfactor is called U.2, but beware the enterprise-level prices. > I've seen some server type mobos that have SAS connectors which gives > several options. Some of them tend to have more PCIe slots which some > regular mobos don't anymore. Then there is that ECC memory as well. If > the memory doesn't cost to much more, I could go that route. I'm not > sure how much I would benefit from it but data corruption is a thing to > be concerned about. > […] > The problem with those cards, some of the newer mobos don't have as many > PCIe slots to put those cards into anymore. I think I currently have > two such cards in my current rig. The new rig would hold almost twice > the number of drives. Obviously, I'd need cards with more SATA ports. Indeed consumer boards tend to get fewer normal PCIe slots. Filtering for AM4 boards, the filter allowed me to filter up to 6 slots, whereas for AM5 boards, the filter stopped at 4 slots. AM4: https://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=mbam4=18869_5%7E20502_UECCDIMM%7E4400_ATX AM5: https://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=mbam5=18869_4%7E20502_UECCDIMM%7E4400_ATX > One reason I'm trying not to move to fast right now, besides trying to > save up money, I'm trying to find the right CPU, mobo and memory combo. > None of them are cheap anymore. Just the CPU is going to be around > $400. The mobo isn't to far behind if I go with a non server one. One popular choice for home servers is AM4’s Ryzen Pro 4650G. That’s an APU (so with powerful internal graphics), but also with ECC support (hence the Pro moniker). The APU is popular because 1) on AM4 only APUs have graphics at all, 2) it allows for use as a compact media server, as no bulky GPU is needed. Speaking of GPU: We’ve had the topic before, but keep in mind that if you go with AM5, you don’t need a dGPU. Unless you go with one of those F processors. So there is one more slot available. -- Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’ Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network. Order is one half of your life, but the other half is nicer. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > Am Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 08:23:27AM -0500 schrieb Dale: >> Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 8:11 AM Dale wrote: My biggest thing right now, finding a mobo with plenty of PCIe slots. They put all this new stuff, wifi and such, but remove things I do need, PCIe slots. >>> PCIe and memory capacity seem to have become the way the >>> server/workstation and consumer markets are segmented. >>> >>> AM5 gets you 28x v5 lanes. SP5 gets you 128x v5 lanes. The server >>> socket also has way more memory capacity, though I couldn't quickly >>> identify exactly how much more due to the ambiguous way in which DDR5 >>> memory channels are referenced all over the place. Suffice it to say >>> you can put several times as many DIMMs into a typical server >>> motherboard, especially if you have two CPUs on it (two CPUs likewise >>> increases the PCIe capacity). >> I see lots of mobos with those little hard drives on a stick. I think >> they called NVME or something, may have spelling wrong. > The physical connector is called M.2. The dimensions of the “sticks” are > given in a number such as 2280, meaning 22 mm wide and 80 mm long. There are > different lengths available from 30 to 110 mm. M.2 has different “keys”, > meaning there are several variants of electrical hookup. Depending on that, > it can support SATA, PCIe, or both. NVMe is a protocol that usually runs via > PCIe. So for a modern setup, one usually buys NVMe drives, meaning they are > connected via PCIe either directly to the CPU or over the chipset. > Ahh, that's why some of them look a little different. I was wondering about that. Keep in mind, I've never seen one in real life. Just pictures or videos, or people talking about them on this list. >> For most >> people, that is likely awesome. For me, I think I'd be happy with a >> regular SSD. Given that, I'd like them to make a mobo where one can say >> cut off/disable that NVME thing and make use of that "lane" as a PCIe >> slot(s). Even if that means having a cable that hooks to the mobo and >> runs elsewhere to connect PCIe cards. In other words, have one slot >> that is expandable to say three or four slots with what I think is >> called a back-plane. > There is also the other way around that: an adapter card for the M.2 slot > that gives you SATA ports. > I didn't know that. I looked on ebay, not sure exactly what to search for or what they look like but, I found something that looks like adapter. I only see one SATA connector but more searching could find something else. >> I have considered getting a server type mobo and CPU for my new build. > The only reason I got a server board for my little 4-slot NAS is to get ECC > support. (Plus you don’t get non-server Mini-ITX with more than four SATAs). > But it runs the smallest i3 I could get. It’s a NAS, not a workstation. It > serves files, nothing more. I don’t mind if updates take longer than on a > Desktop, which is why I don’t see a point in speccing it out to the top > CPU-wise. This only adds cost to acquisition and upkeep. > > I just did the profile switch to 23, and it rebuilt 685 packages in a little > over six hours, plus 1½ hours for gcc beforehand. > >> As you point out, they are packed with features I could likely use. > “Could likely”? Which features exactly? As you say yourself: > I've seen some server type mobos that have SAS connectors which gives several options. Some of them tend to have more PCIe slots which some regular mobos don't anymore. Then there is that ECC memory as well. If the memory doesn't cost to much more, I could go that route. I'm not sure how much I would benefit from it but data corruption is a thing to be concerned about. >> Thing is, the price tag makes me faint and fall out of my chair. Even >> used ones that are a couple years old, in the floor I go. -_- I looked >> up a SP5 AMD CPU, pushing $800 just for the CPU on Ebay, used. The mobo >> isn't cheap either. I don't know if that would even serve my purpose. > Exactly. Those boards and CPUs are made to run servers that serve entire > SMBs so that the employees can work on stuff at the same time. As a one-man > entity, I don’t expect you’ll ever really need that raw power. If it’s just > for SATA ports, you can get controller cards for those. > The problem with those cards, some of the newer mobos don't have as many PCIe slots to put those cards into anymore. I think I currently have two such cards in my current rig. The new rig would hold almost twice the number of drives. Obviously, I'd need cards with more SATA ports. >> The biggest thing I need PCIe slots for, drive controllers. I thought >> about buying a SAS card and having it branch out into a LOT of drives. >> Still, I might need two cards even then. > But it would be the most logical choice. > >> It's like looking at the cereal isle in a store. All those choices and >> most of them . . .
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
Am Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 08:23:27AM -0500 schrieb Dale: > Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 8:11 AM Dale wrote: > >> My biggest thing right now, finding a mobo with plenty of PCIe slots. > >> They put all this new stuff, wifi and such, but remove things I do need, > >> PCIe slots. > > PCIe and memory capacity seem to have become the way the > > server/workstation and consumer markets are segmented. > > > > AM5 gets you 28x v5 lanes. SP5 gets you 128x v5 lanes. The server > > socket also has way more memory capacity, though I couldn't quickly > > identify exactly how much more due to the ambiguous way in which DDR5 > > memory channels are referenced all over the place. Suffice it to say > > you can put several times as many DIMMs into a typical server > > motherboard, especially if you have two CPUs on it (two CPUs likewise > > increases the PCIe capacity). > > I see lots of mobos with those little hard drives on a stick. I think > they called NVME or something, may have spelling wrong. The physical connector is called M.2. The dimensions of the “sticks” are given in a number such as 2280, meaning 22 mm wide and 80 mm long. There are different lengths available from 30 to 110 mm. M.2 has different “keys”, meaning there are several variants of electrical hookup. Depending on that, it can support SATA, PCIe, or both. NVMe is a protocol that usually runs via PCIe. So for a modern setup, one usually buys NVMe drives, meaning they are connected via PCIe either directly to the CPU or over the chipset. > For most > people, that is likely awesome. For me, I think I'd be happy with a > regular SSD. Given that, I'd like them to make a mobo where one can say > cut off/disable that NVME thing and make use of that "lane" as a PCIe > slot(s). Even if that means having a cable that hooks to the mobo and > runs elsewhere to connect PCIe cards. In other words, have one slot > that is expandable to say three or four slots with what I think is > called a back-plane. There is also the other way around that: an adapter card for the M.2 slot that gives you SATA ports. > I have considered getting a server type mobo and CPU for my new build. The only reason I got a server board for my little 4-slot NAS is to get ECC support. (Plus you don’t get non-server Mini-ITX with more than four SATAs). But it runs the smallest i3 I could get. It’s a NAS, not a workstation. It serves files, nothing more. I don’t mind if updates take longer than on a Desktop, which is why I don’t see a point in speccing it out to the top CPU-wise. This only adds cost to acquisition and upkeep. I just did the profile switch to 23, and it rebuilt 685 packages in a little over six hours, plus 1½ hours for gcc beforehand. > As you point out, they are packed with features I could likely use. “Could likely”? Which features exactly? As you say yourself: > Thing is, the price tag makes me faint and fall out of my chair. Even > used ones that are a couple years old, in the floor I go. -_- I looked > up a SP5 AMD CPU, pushing $800 just for the CPU on Ebay, used. The mobo > isn't cheap either. I don't know if that would even serve my purpose. Exactly. Those boards and CPUs are made to run servers that serve entire SMBs so that the employees can work on stuff at the same time. As a one-man entity, I don’t expect you’ll ever really need that raw power. If it’s just for SATA ports, you can get controller cards for those. > The biggest thing I need PCIe slots for, drive controllers. I thought > about buying a SAS card and having it branch out into a LOT of drives. > Still, I might need two cards even then. But it would be the most logical choice. > It's like looking at the cereal isle in a store. All those choices and > most of them . . . . are corn. ROFL Nice one. -- Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’ Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network. I’ve been using vi for 15 years, because I don’t know with which command to close it. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
Wols Lists wrote: > On 13/04/2024 14:23, Dale wrote: >> I see lots of mobos with those little hard drives on a stick. I think >> they called NVME or something, may have spelling wrong. For most >> people, that is likely awesome. For me, I think I'd be happy with a >> regular SSD. Given that, I'd like them to make a mobo where one can say >> cut off/disable that NVME thing and make use of that "lane" as a PCIe >> slot(s). Even if that means having a cable that hooks to the mobo and >> runs elsewhere to connect PCIe cards. In other words, have one slot >> that is expandable to say three or four slots with what I think is >> called a back-plane. That way if a user wants to use the NVME thing, >> they can. If they don't, they can disable it and go another route with >> PCIe expansion. Sort of reminds me of that SAS drive thing. You have >> one cable that branches out into several SATA drives or SAS drives >> themselves. I don't know a lot about SAS really. May have to read up >> on that with that new case that holds 18 drives tho. O_o > > Read up on your mobo. > > Certainly on mine, that thing where you can use NVME *OR* OCIe *OR* > Sata is a thing on mine. > > There's a nice table in the mobo manual that tells you which combos > are supported. > > Cheers, > Wol > > That's good to know. I've looked at a few mobos but didn't see that in the list of features. I guess I need to dig deeper. Still, I need slots, either on the mobo or as a option to place elsewhere. My current mobo has all the PCIe slots in use. To add another drive controller to my current rig for example, I'd have to buy a new card that has more ports. Thanks for that info. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
On 13/04/2024 14:23, Dale wrote: I see lots of mobos with those little hard drives on a stick. I think they called NVME or something, may have spelling wrong. For most people, that is likely awesome. For me, I think I'd be happy with a regular SSD. Given that, I'd like them to make a mobo where one can say cut off/disable that NVME thing and make use of that "lane" as a PCIe slot(s). Even if that means having a cable that hooks to the mobo and runs elsewhere to connect PCIe cards. In other words, have one slot that is expandable to say three or four slots with what I think is called a back-plane. That way if a user wants to use the NVME thing, they can. If they don't, they can disable it and go another route with PCIe expansion. Sort of reminds me of that SAS drive thing. You have one cable that branches out into several SATA drives or SAS drives themselves. I don't know a lot about SAS really. May have to read up on that with that new case that holds 18 drives tho. O_o Read up on your mobo. Certainly on mine, that thing where you can use NVME *OR* OCIe *OR* Sata is a thing on mine. There's a nice table in the mobo manual that tells you which combos are supported. Cheers, Wol
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 8:20 AM Dale wrote: >> Right now, I have a three drive setup in a removable cage for the NAS >> box. > If you only need three drives I'm sure you can find cheap used > hardware that will handle that. Odds are it will use way less power > and perform better than whatever you're going to upgrade your system > to. I only run that thing about 1 to 2 hours a week, maybe a couple hours or so more when updating the OS once a month. It doesn't run much but the new systems are very cheap on power usage and they do a ton more work. I recently bought a new A/C for my room. A old A/C unit from a couple decades ago pulled about 12 to 13 amps. One I bought a few years ago, about 7 to maybe 8 on a really hot day, and LOo compiling on top of that. ;-) This new unit, dang thing pulls about 3 amps and still cools really good. All those are the same 12,000BTU rating. Same brand even. A lot of stuff is getting more efficient. To compensate for that, the power companies go up on the KW rate. O_O If I didn't have these old parts laying around that still work, I'd do like you're thinking. Still, you have a good point. It is old. >> I'm not familiar with Ceph but I've seen it mentioned before. > Do NOT deploy Ceph with three drives on one host. > > Ceph is what you think about using when you are tired of stacking HBAs > to cram a dozen SATA ports in a single host. It isn't what you'd use > for backup/etc storage. > > Honestly, if you're just looking for backup drives I'd consider USB3 > drives you just plug into a host and run in a zpool or whatever. > Export the filesystem and unplug the drives and you're done. That is > how I backup Ceph right now (k8s job that runs restic against ceph > dumping it on a zpool). > I like LVM myself. Right now, it serves my needs very well. I tried that NAS OS a while back but I ran into issues with it. I switched the box to Gentoo and LVM. When I get ready to swap drives or something, same commands as my main rig. Nothing new to learn or remember. And it works fine. Still gonna google and see what Ceph is. You've mentioned it before and I think someone else has too. Mostly, curious. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 8:11 AM Dale wrote: >> My biggest thing right now, finding a mobo with plenty of PCIe slots. >> They put all this new stuff, wifi and such, but remove things I do need, >> PCIe slots. > PCIe and memory capacity seem to have become the way the > server/workstation and consumer markets are segmented. > > AM5 gets you 28x v5 lanes. SP5 gets you 128x v5 lanes. The server > socket also has way more memory capacity, though I couldn't quickly > identify exactly how much more due to the ambiguous way in which DDR5 > memory channels are referenced all over the place. Suffice it to say > you can put several times as many DIMMs into a typical server > motherboard, especially if you have two CPUs on it (two CPUs likewise > increases the PCIe capacity). > > IT would be nice if there were switches out there that would let you > take a v5 PCIe slot on newer consumer hardware and break it out into a > bunch of v3/4 NVMe adapters (U.2, M.2, PCIe, whatever). > I see lots of mobos with those little hard drives on a stick. I think they called NVME or something, may have spelling wrong. For most people, that is likely awesome. For me, I think I'd be happy with a regular SSD. Given that, I'd like them to make a mobo where one can say cut off/disable that NVME thing and make use of that "lane" as a PCIe slot(s). Even if that means having a cable that hooks to the mobo and runs elsewhere to connect PCIe cards. In other words, have one slot that is expandable to say three or four slots with what I think is called a back-plane. That way if a user wants to use the NVME thing, they can. If they don't, they can disable it and go another route with PCIe expansion. Sort of reminds me of that SAS drive thing. You have one cable that branches out into several SATA drives or SAS drives themselves. I don't know a lot about SAS really. May have to read up on that with that new case that holds 18 drives tho. O_o I have considered getting a server type mobo and CPU for my new build. As you point out, they are packed with features I could likely use. Thing is, the price tag makes me faint and fall out of my chair. Even used ones that are a couple years old, in the floor I go. -_- I looked up a SP5 AMD CPU, pushing $800 just for the CPU on Ebay, used. The mobo isn't cheap either. I don't know if that would even serve my purpose. I may need something newer and even more expensive. I'd have to be able to put it in a regular case tho. No room for rack mount stuff. The biggest thing I need PCIe slots for, drive controllers. I thought about buying a SAS card and having it branch out into a LOT of drives. Still, I might need two cards even then. It's like looking at the cereal isle in a store. All those choices and most of them . . . . are corn. ROFL Dale :-) :-) P. S. To all: There was a news item recently about grub updates and reinstalling to the hard drive when updating. I just synced and there is a new grub update. Make sure to see if grub updates for you and if so, don't forget to reinstall to the hard drive. For old BIOS users, usually a grub-install /dev/sda will do. You EFI folks, you on your own. Gentoo wiki has the command. I've never had EFI stuff, yet. Hope this heads up helps someone.
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 8:20 AM Dale wrote: > > Right now, I have a three drive setup in a removable cage for the NAS > box. If you only need three drives I'm sure you can find cheap used hardware that will handle that. Odds are it will use way less power and perform better than whatever you're going to upgrade your system to. > I'm not familiar with Ceph but I've seen it mentioned before. Do NOT deploy Ceph with three drives on one host. Ceph is what you think about using when you are tired of stacking HBAs to cram a dozen SATA ports in a single host. It isn't what you'd use for backup/etc storage. Honestly, if you're just looking for backup drives I'd consider USB3 drives you just plug into a host and run in a zpool or whatever. Export the filesystem and unplug the drives and you're done. That is how I backup Ceph right now (k8s job that runs restic against ceph dumping it on a zpool). -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 8:11 AM Dale wrote: > > My biggest thing right now, finding a mobo with plenty of PCIe slots. > They put all this new stuff, wifi and such, but remove things I do need, > PCIe slots. PCIe and memory capacity seem to have become the way the server/workstation and consumer markets are segmented. AM5 gets you 28x v5 lanes. SP5 gets you 128x v5 lanes. The server socket also has way more memory capacity, though I couldn't quickly identify exactly how much more due to the ambiguous way in which DDR5 memory channels are referenced all over the place. Suffice it to say you can put several times as many DIMMs into a typical server motherboard, especially if you have two CPUs on it (two CPUs likewise increases the PCIe capacity). IT would be nice if there were switches out there that would let you take a v5 PCIe slot on newer consumer hardware and break it out into a bunch of v3/4 NVMe adapters (U.2, M.2, PCIe, whatever). -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 3:58 AM Dale wrote: >> Given the FX-6300 has a higher clocks speed, 3.8GHz versus 3.2GHz for >> the Phenom, I'd think the FX would be a upgrade, quite a good one at >> that. More L2 cache too. Both are 6 cores according to what I found. >> Anyone know something I don't that would make switching to the FX-6300 a >> bad idea? > The most obvious issue is that you're putting money into a very obsolete > system. > > Obviously hardware of this generation is fairly cheap, but it isn't > actually the best bang for the buck, ESPECIALLY when you factor in > power use. Like most AMD chips of that generation (well, most chips > in general when you get that old), that CPU uses quite a bit of power > at idle, and so that chip which might cost you $35 even at retail > might cost you double that amount per year just in electricity. > > If your goal is to go cheap you also need to consider alternatives. > You can get used hardware from various places, and most of it is 3-5 > years old. Even commodity hardware of that age is far more powerful > than a 15 year old CPU socket and often it starts at $100 or so - and > that is for a complete system. Often you can get stuff that is > ex-corporate that has a fair bit of RAM as well, since a lot of > companies need to deal with compatibility with office productivity > software that might be a little RAM hungry. RAM isn't cheap these > days, and they practically give it away when they dispose of old > hardware. > > The biggest issue you're going to have with NAS is finding something > with the desired number of drive bays, as a lot of used desktop > hardware is SFF (but also super-low-power, which is something > companies consider in their purchasing decisions when picking > something they're going to be buying thousands of). > > Right now most of my storage is on Ceph on SFF PCs. I do want to try > to get future expansion onto NVMe but even used systems that support > much of that are kinda expensive still (mostly servers since desktop > CPUs have so few PCIe lanes, and switches aren't that common). One of > my constraints using Ceph though is I need a lot of RAM, which is part > of why I'm going the SFF route - for $100 you can get one with 32GB of > RAM and 2-3 SATA ports, plus USB3 and an unused 4-16x PCIe slot. That > is a lot of RAM/IO compared to most options at that price point (ARM > in particular tends to lack both - not that it doesn't support it, but > rather nobody makes cheap ARM hardware with PCIe+DIMM slots). > Right now, I have a three drive setup in a removable cage for the NAS box. The drives sit in my safe except when I'm updating the backups. I update about once a week or so. It doesn't change as fast as it used too. If this main rig were to die, I'd use it as a temporary rig, then focus on building a new rig. The encryption is slow and makes the CPU work hard. You are right, it is throwing money at old hardware. It's just that I have this hardware laying around anyway. I have a old Dell that I've thought about using as a torrent box. I'm not sure it has enough memory for that tho. I think the Dell has the max of 4GBs of memory. Current NAS/backup box has 16GBs. Main rig has 32GBs and I give it a good workout when doing updates. I'm not familiar with Ceph but I've seen it mentioned before. I'll go google it. See what it is. I need a couple new drives to swap out anyway. LVM makes that pretty easy. ;-) Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
Michael wrote: > On Saturday, 13 April 2024 12:12:04 BST Dale wrote: >> Michael wrote: >>> On Saturday, 13 April 2024 08:58:50 BST Dale wrote: Howdy, As most likely know, I have a older box I use for backups. The hard drives are encrypted which likes the CPU to have AES support. The Phenom CPUs don't seam to support AES from what I've seen. The specs for the mobo says the mobo does support the FX-6300 CPU tho which has AES support. Since the biggest thing I use that system for is my backups, would it be better to have the FX-6300 CPU which supports AES or the Phenom 1090T? Mobo only shows it supports the FX-6300 and no other FX series CPU. Could be that it doesn't support anything else, could be the list hasn't been updated. I dunno. Given the FX-6300 has a higher clocks speed, 3.8GHz versus 3.2GHz for the Phenom, I'd think the FX would be a upgrade, quite a good one at that. More L2 cache too. Both are 6 cores according to what I found. Anyone know something I don't that would make switching to the FX-6300 a bad idea? https://www.gigabyte.com/us/Motherboard/GA-770T-USB3-rev-10/support#suppo rt-> cpu You may have to click on CPU support to see it. Sometimes it goes to it directly, sometimes not. :/ Thanks. Dale :-) :-) >>> I can't find where the link you provide mentions FX-6300, an AM3+ socket >>> CPU, being compatible with GA-770T-USB3-rev-10, an AM3 socket MoBo. The >>> FX-6300 would definitely be a noticeable upgrade (higher base and boost >>> frequency, plus AES crypto), assuming you can find a MoBo to fit it on. >>> You'll probably find the cost of buying just the CPU of unknown >>> provenance, which may well have been cooked with overclocking, will more >>> or less equal the cost of buying a suitable MoBo + CPU + RAM already >>> assembled. Or even a whole PC ready to run: >>> >>> https://www.ebay.com/itm/166707210724 >>> >>> You could get a better result if you start with a budget in mind and then >>> fish for the best performance combo you can bag with it. >> Your right. I misread that somehow. Good thing I asked. I could have >> ordered a CPU that won't fit. It's a FX-4130 I should be looking at. >> No idea where I got the FX-6300 from. As you point out, it's not listed >> on the specs page. Still, the FX-4130 shows a faster clock and other >> stuff I mentioned except it has 4 cores instead of 6. I got it right >> except for the model of the CPU. According to this page it supports AES >> for encryption as well. >> >> >> https://www.amd.com/en/support/cpu/amd-fx-series-processors/amd-fx-4-core-bl >> ack-edition-processors/fx-4130#! >> >> >> Now that I got the right model of CPU, still be a improvement? I'm >> mostly wanting to use this mobo I already have. I just wish the >> encryption was faster. The loss of two cores may slow it down a lot, >> despite having AES built in. >> >> Dale >> >> :-) :-) > I think the FX-4130 should give a noticeable improvement on crypto and a > small > improvement on single thread processing (higher frequency and larger cache). > On the other hand it'll suffer on parallel tasks. > > TBH I'd rather spend the $10 or so for a used FX-4130 on a more modern MoBo > plus CPU, than throw good money after bad. I found a CPU for like $20 shipping and all but as you rightly and correctly point out, you don't know what that poor thing has been through. Overclocking, poor cooling and any number of other things. Most people don't build them like I do. I build a tank. Lots of fans, massive CPU cooler etc etc. I might get a perfectly good CPU that hasn't been abused at all, then again I might not. The 1090T in there now is one I bought used. I ran stress-ng on it and it never missed a beat. I think I'll stick with this for now. Once I build a new rig, whenever I can get back on track with that, this current rig will be used sort of like a NAS box and backup rig. It has AES support. It works fairly well. The encryption still slows the speed down some but that's the way it is. Dale :-) My biggest thing right now, finding a mobo with plenty of PCIe slots. They put all this new stuff, wifi and such, but remove things I do need, PCIe slots. First thing I'd do, disable wifi. I just don't need it. Only use wifi for my cell phone and printer. I got my CPU picked out, Ryzen 7900X. Memory will depend on the mobo mostly. I'll get back to it eventually. Maybe they will have what I need by then.
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 3:58 AM Dale wrote: > > Given the FX-6300 has a higher clocks speed, 3.8GHz versus 3.2GHz for > the Phenom, I'd think the FX would be a upgrade, quite a good one at > that. More L2 cache too. Both are 6 cores according to what I found. > Anyone know something I don't that would make switching to the FX-6300 a > bad idea? The most obvious issue is that you're putting money into a very obsolete system. Obviously hardware of this generation is fairly cheap, but it isn't actually the best bang for the buck, ESPECIALLY when you factor in power use. Like most AMD chips of that generation (well, most chips in general when you get that old), that CPU uses quite a bit of power at idle, and so that chip which might cost you $35 even at retail might cost you double that amount per year just in electricity. If your goal is to go cheap you also need to consider alternatives. You can get used hardware from various places, and most of it is 3-5 years old. Even commodity hardware of that age is far more powerful than a 15 year old CPU socket and often it starts at $100 or so - and that is for a complete system. Often you can get stuff that is ex-corporate that has a fair bit of RAM as well, since a lot of companies need to deal with compatibility with office productivity software that might be a little RAM hungry. RAM isn't cheap these days, and they practically give it away when they dispose of old hardware. The biggest issue you're going to have with NAS is finding something with the desired number of drive bays, as a lot of used desktop hardware is SFF (but also super-low-power, which is something companies consider in their purchasing decisions when picking something they're going to be buying thousands of). Right now most of my storage is on Ceph on SFF PCs. I do want to try to get future expansion onto NVMe but even used systems that support much of that are kinda expensive still (mostly servers since desktop CPUs have so few PCIe lanes, and switches aren't that common). One of my constraints using Ceph though is I need a lot of RAM, which is part of why I'm going the SFF route - for $100 you can get one with 32GB of RAM and 2-3 SATA ports, plus USB3 and an unused 4-16x PCIe slot. That is a lot of RAM/IO compared to most options at that price point (ARM in particular tends to lack both - not that it doesn't support it, but rather nobody makes cheap ARM hardware with PCIe+DIMM slots). -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
On Saturday, 13 April 2024 12:12:04 BST Dale wrote: > Michael wrote: > > On Saturday, 13 April 2024 08:58:50 BST Dale wrote: > >> Howdy, > >> > >> As most likely know, I have a older box I use for backups. The hard > >> drives are encrypted which likes the CPU to have AES support. The > >> Phenom CPUs don't seam to support AES from what I've seen. The specs > >> for the mobo says the mobo does support the FX-6300 CPU tho which has > >> AES support. Since the biggest thing I use that system for is my > >> backups, would it be better to have the FX-6300 CPU which supports AES > >> or the Phenom 1090T? Mobo only shows it supports the FX-6300 and no > >> other FX series CPU. Could be that it doesn't support anything else, > >> could be the list hasn't been updated. I dunno. > >> > >> Given the FX-6300 has a higher clocks speed, 3.8GHz versus 3.2GHz for > >> the Phenom, I'd think the FX would be a upgrade, quite a good one at > >> that. More L2 cache too. Both are 6 cores according to what I found. > >> Anyone know something I don't that would make switching to the FX-6300 a > >> bad idea? > >> > >> https://www.gigabyte.com/us/Motherboard/GA-770T-USB3-rev-10/support#suppo > >> rt-> cpu > >> > >> You may have to click on CPU support to see it. Sometimes it goes to it > >> directly, sometimes not. :/ > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> Dale > >> > >> :-) :-) > > > > I can't find where the link you provide mentions FX-6300, an AM3+ socket > > CPU, being compatible with GA-770T-USB3-rev-10, an AM3 socket MoBo. The > > FX-6300 would definitely be a noticeable upgrade (higher base and boost > > frequency, plus AES crypto), assuming you can find a MoBo to fit it on. > > You'll probably find the cost of buying just the CPU of unknown > > provenance, which may well have been cooked with overclocking, will more > > or less equal the cost of buying a suitable MoBo + CPU + RAM already > > assembled. Or even a whole PC ready to run: > > > > https://www.ebay.com/itm/166707210724 > > > > You could get a better result if you start with a budget in mind and then > > fish for the best performance combo you can bag with it. > > Your right. I misread that somehow. Good thing I asked. I could have > ordered a CPU that won't fit. It's a FX-4130 I should be looking at. > No idea where I got the FX-6300 from. As you point out, it's not listed > on the specs page. Still, the FX-4130 shows a faster clock and other > stuff I mentioned except it has 4 cores instead of 6. I got it right > except for the model of the CPU. According to this page it supports AES > for encryption as well. > > > https://www.amd.com/en/support/cpu/amd-fx-series-processors/amd-fx-4-core-bl > ack-edition-processors/fx-4130#! > > > Now that I got the right model of CPU, still be a improvement? I'm > mostly wanting to use this mobo I already have. I just wish the > encryption was faster. The loss of two cores may slow it down a lot, > despite having AES built in. > > Dale > > :-) :-) I think the FX-4130 should give a noticeable improvement on crypto and a small improvement on single thread processing (higher frequency and larger cache). On the other hand it'll suffer on parallel tasks. TBH I'd rather spend the $10 or so for a used FX-4130 on a more modern MoBo plus CPU, than throw good money after bad. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
Michael wrote: > On Saturday, 13 April 2024 08:58:50 BST Dale wrote: >> Howdy, >> >> As most likely know, I have a older box I use for backups. The hard >> drives are encrypted which likes the CPU to have AES support. The >> Phenom CPUs don't seam to support AES from what I've seen. The specs >> for the mobo says the mobo does support the FX-6300 CPU tho which has >> AES support. Since the biggest thing I use that system for is my >> backups, would it be better to have the FX-6300 CPU which supports AES >> or the Phenom 1090T? Mobo only shows it supports the FX-6300 and no >> other FX series CPU. Could be that it doesn't support anything else, >> could be the list hasn't been updated. I dunno. >> >> Given the FX-6300 has a higher clocks speed, 3.8GHz versus 3.2GHz for >> the Phenom, I'd think the FX would be a upgrade, quite a good one at >> that. More L2 cache too. Both are 6 cores according to what I found. >> Anyone know something I don't that would make switching to the FX-6300 a >> bad idea? >> >> https://www.gigabyte.com/us/Motherboard/GA-770T-USB3-rev-10/support#support-> >> cpu >> >> You may have to click on CPU support to see it. Sometimes it goes to it >> directly, sometimes not. :/ >> >> Thanks. >> >> Dale >> >> :-) :-) > I can't find where the link you provide mentions FX-6300, an AM3+ socket CPU, > being compatible with GA-770T-USB3-rev-10, an AM3 socket MoBo. The FX-6300 > would definitely be a noticeable upgrade (higher base and boost frequency, > plus AES crypto), assuming you can find a MoBo to fit it on. You'll probably > find the cost of buying just the CPU of unknown provenance, which may well > have been cooked with overclocking, will more or less equal the cost of > buying > a suitable MoBo + CPU + RAM already assembled. Or even a whole PC ready to > run: > > https://www.ebay.com/itm/166707210724 > > You could get a better result if you start with a budget in mind and then > fish > for the best performance combo you can bag with it. Your right. I misread that somehow. Good thing I asked. I could have ordered a CPU that won't fit. It's a FX-4130 I should be looking at. No idea where I got the FX-6300 from. As you point out, it's not listed on the specs page. Still, the FX-4130 shows a faster clock and other stuff I mentioned except it has 4 cores instead of 6. I got it right except for the model of the CPU. According to this page it supports AES for encryption as well. https://www.amd.com/en/support/cpu/amd-fx-series-processors/amd-fx-4-core-black-edition-processors/fx-4130#! Now that I got the right model of CPU, still be a improvement? I'm mostly wanting to use this mobo I already have. I just wish the encryption was faster. The loss of two cores may slow it down a lot, despite having AES built in. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
On Saturday, 13 April 2024 08:58:50 BST Dale wrote: > Howdy, > > As most likely know, I have a older box I use for backups. The hard > drives are encrypted which likes the CPU to have AES support. The > Phenom CPUs don't seam to support AES from what I've seen. The specs > for the mobo says the mobo does support the FX-6300 CPU tho which has > AES support. Since the biggest thing I use that system for is my > backups, would it be better to have the FX-6300 CPU which supports AES > or the Phenom 1090T? Mobo only shows it supports the FX-6300 and no > other FX series CPU. Could be that it doesn't support anything else, > could be the list hasn't been updated. I dunno. > > Given the FX-6300 has a higher clocks speed, 3.8GHz versus 3.2GHz for > the Phenom, I'd think the FX would be a upgrade, quite a good one at > that. More L2 cache too. Both are 6 cores according to what I found. > Anyone know something I don't that would make switching to the FX-6300 a > bad idea? > > https://www.gigabyte.com/us/Motherboard/GA-770T-USB3-rev-10/support#support-> > cpu > > You may have to click on CPU support to see it. Sometimes it goes to it > directly, sometimes not. :/ > > Thanks. > > Dale > > :-) :-) I can't find where the link you provide mentions FX-6300, an AM3+ socket CPU, being compatible with GA-770T-USB3-rev-10, an AM3 socket MoBo. The FX-6300 would definitely be a noticeable upgrade (higher base and boost frequency, plus AES crypto), assuming you can find a MoBo to fit it on. You'll probably find the cost of buying just the CPU of unknown provenance, which may well have been cooked with overclocking, will more or less equal the cost of buying a suitable MoBo + CPU + RAM already assembled. Or even a whole PC ready to run: https://www.ebay.com/itm/166707210724 You could get a better result if you start with a budget in mind and then fish for the best performance combo you can bag with it. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
