Mark Knecht wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 7:35 AM Dale <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > <SNIP> > > Another question. My rig is getting a bit aged. I have a AMD FX-8350 8 > > core CPU running at 4GHz. I also have 32GBs of memory. I've read that > > Intel currently has the best bang for buck on CPUs nowadays. I'm open > > to the idea of switching. As far as speed goes, if I built a new rig > > that is using a reasonably cost CPU and memory, would I see any real > > improvements? > > I think it all depends on what you're going to use the machine for and > whether you really use all your CPU for extended periods of time. > > For all the hours my machines run they are mostly idle, in the sense > that even if I'm keeping the machine busy watching a movie, doing > backups, browsing the web, even on my older machines none of those > use more than 10-15% of my older machines. The only two things I do > which drove the purchase of my new machine were: > > 1) Studio level audio recording using Mixbus32C (the for-pay version > of the Open Source project called Ardour) > > 2) Astrophotography photo processing using the for-pay program > called PixInsight. > > Mixbus32C issues are more based around real-time performance > and use of both the Linux and Windows versions, and being able > to transfer projects back and forth between both platforms. I've > never heard you talk about using Windows, nor doing anything > that takes real-time capabilities so that probably doesn't apply. > > PixInsight is the processor hog. It can use all my 32GB memory > (and more) and it can run for hours using 100% of my CPU so > it's the one that drove my eventual purchase of a Ryzen 9 5950X. > > PixInsight has a benchmark program built in and all the results > are open to look at: > > https://pixinsight.com/benchmark/index.php?sort=cpu&os=all > > Interestingly I didn't find your processor even on the list and > the top says it covers about 3000 CPU models. You might > take a look at this when you boil your processor choices down > to 2 or 3. > > Note that for the specific processor type you can open up the > group and look at individual machines. Most/many include what > motherboard they were running so that can assist you making > choices also. > > Hope this helps, > Mark
One of my concerns isn't just speed, it's the age of things like caps and such on the mobo. This mobo is around a decade old. While it is supposed to be a top of the line board, it's still got caps which tend to be a weak spot. I seem to recall looking when I bought this mobo that it does have Japanese caps which are the best. Thing is, even they go bad sometimes. While this machine is old, it is still pretty fast. I really wish I knew the life expectancy of a Gigabyte mobo like this. It claims to be 'ultra durable' and given it is in a Cooler Master HAF-932 case with those large fans, it does run pretty cool, heat tends to age caps and make the stink get out. The other reason, I'm just curious if I build a new rig if I should be looking to really upgrade by a lot or just get parts that are newer and less likely to fail due to age. When I went from previous rig which was single core to current rig which originally had a 4 core CPU, it was about 6 to 7 times faster. When I upgraded to a 8 core, it speed up some more. It was a noticeable improvement both times over original single core rig. Thing is, it seems CPU frequencies have pretty much maxed out. I think pushing above 4.5GHz or so is difficult to do. Dang, that is fast. Over twice the frequency of a microwave oven for goodness sake. They seem to be making them more efficient, adding cores/threads and such as that. We had a long thread several years back talking about reaching the max on frequency of CPUs and such. It's almost like we need a whole new technology now to make things faster as far as the CPU frequencies go. In the past, I used a list on Tom's Hardware to pick CPUs. I usually started about 4 or 5 CPUs down the list, from fastest to slowest, and started checking prices. Sometimes a CPU that costs $500 can only be just a fraction faster than a $200 CPU. Given that my rig, as you point out, sits here and waits on me to do something most of the time, that's a lot of money for something I won't see much time savings on. I might add tho, I do sometimes convert videos from 1080p to 720p. That makes the CPU max out pretty good. Compiling Libreoffice, Firefox etc also maxes out the CPU but those are what, once a month or so??? I was also wondering what a mobo/CPU/memory combo would cost nowadays. Maybe someone who recently built a decent rig recalls how much they paid for those three. I don't go cheap on power supply but I don't require a lot for a video card or anything. Some spend half their money on a video card alone but I just don't need anything that fancy. I got a Nvidia GeForce GTX 650 that drives both my monitor and my TVs through a splitter and it does just fine. Heck, the video card fan is pretty much at idle and the temps cool most all the time so I can't be pushing it to hard. Usually, mobo and CPU is the main part of my cost. Power supply right behind that. This is some good info tho. Maybe someone who built a rig recently can chime in on costs, US dollar would be nice. ;-) Thanks. Dale :-) :-)
