Re: 10 year old machines are slow (was: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
On 2023-06-02, Bret Busby wrote: > > Whoever posted the message to which the above message is a reply, is An enduring mystery to know why Monnier refuses the convention of attributions. Then again, one of the smaller mysteries.
Re: 10 year old machines are slow (was: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
Bret Busby wrote: > > Whoever posted the message to which the above message is a reply, is showing > a lack of knowledge of computers; the "speed" of a computer, involves more > components than simply the CPU - an i9 with 2GB of RAM, will probably not be > as "fast" as in i3 with 32GB of RAM. The context of the discussion is that there is a specific feature -- virtualization support -- which means that for people running VMs, an old computer produced with that feature is much faster than its twin produced six months earlier. Thanks for telling me that I lack knowledge of computers. I shall keep that in mind. -dsr-
Re: 10 year old machines are slow (was: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
On 6/2/23 12:19, Stefan Monnier wrote: The most recent general-purpose Intel CPU without VT-X is from 2012. [...] *everything* on processors that old is slow. Actually, for many (most?) single-threaded applications, I wouldn't be surprised if some 2010 CPUs end up within a factor 3 of the most badass desktop you can find today. I do Perl development and like to run my module test suites in parallel to shorten the develop-test cycle. Tuned correctly, I can keep all 8 threads busy on my quad-core Hyper-Threading processors for the majority of the run time. These are the test platforms (all have SATA 6 Gbps SSD's and enough memory to avoid swapping): * Dell Latitude E6520 laptop with Core i7-2720QM (Q1'11) * Homebrew Antec tower with Intel DQ67SW desktop board and Core i7-2600S processor (Q1'11) * Dell Precision 3630 with Xeon E-2174G (Q3'18) I will look up the PassMark CPU Mark scores for the various processors, gather Perl module test suite run time data, and do a Power Regression analysis with LibreOffice Calc: https://help.libreoffice.org/6.1/en-US/text/scalc/01/statistics_regression.html?DbPAR=CALC https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php Here is the data table for the regression analysis: x y CPU MarkTest Time (dim) (seconds) Core i7-2720QM 406824.033 Core i7-2600S 459422.985 Xeon E-2174G971216.544 Here is the resulting equation: y = exp(6.779011065)*(x^-0.43266897) Here are the predicted Test Time values for a Core i7-2600 (Q1'11) and a Core i7-13700 (Q1'23): x y CPU MarkTest Time (dim) (seconds) i7-2600 533021.461 i7-13700389959.072 So, the Core i7-13700 is predicted to be faster than the Core i7-2600 by a factor of 21.461 / 9.072 = 2.366. David
Re: 10 year old machines are slow (was: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
On 3/6/23 03:19, Stefan Monnier wrote: The most recent general-purpose Intel CPU without VT-X is from 2012. [...] *everything* on processors that old is slow. Actually, for many (most?) single-threaded applications, I wouldn't be surprised if some 2010 CPUs end up within a factor 3 of the most badass desktop you can find today. Stefan Since the above message refers to "10 year old" computers, if a person searches the list archives, I had posted to this, and, other operating system lists, regarding a computer that I bought in 2013 (which is ten years ago, this year), which was so advanced, that only two non-MS operating systems had drivers for the CPU; it had an Intel i7 CPU, with 32GB RAM, and, until it stopped working last year or this year, due to a grid electricity failure, which, I think, wrecked the power supply for the computer (an Acer Aspire "laptop"; - a V3-772G), that computer never gave me cause to think it slow. Whoever posted the message to which the above message is a reply, is showing a lack of knowledge of computers; the "speed" of a computer, involves more components than simply the CPU - an i9 with 2GB of RAM, will probably not be as "fast" as in i3 with 32GB of RAM. .. Bret Busby Armadale West Australia (UTC+0800) ..
Re: 10 year old machines are slow (was: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
Stefan Monnier wrote: > > The most recent general-purpose Intel CPU without VT-X is from 2012. > [...] > > *everything* on processors that old is slow. > > Actually, for many (most?) single-threaded applications, I wouldn't be > surprised if some 2010 CPUs end up within a factor 3 of the most badass > desktop you can find today. In 2010, Intel released the i7-930. The i7-975 was released in June of 2009. In March of 2010, the flagship for speed was the Xeon X7542, but that's a server CPU. In 2010, AMD was not competitive with Intel per-core, so we can ignore them. PassMark's single thread benchmark is currently won by the Intel i9-13900ks - score 4796. The i7-930 gets a 1271 The i7-975 gets a 1489 The Xeon X5698 -- not releases until 2011, but I can't find a benchmark for the X7542 -- gets a 1922. It's also a server CPU, not a desktop. 4796 / 1489 = 3.22 I will admit that this is a synthetic benchmark. It is not my synthetic benchmark, and a mistake I made earlier led me to write up an admission that you were right -- until I realized that I had been looking at the multicore benchmarks of all the older CPUs, not the single thread. 3.22 is pretty close to 3x, though. It seems likely that if you had a single-threaded task that didn't rely on RAM bandwidth or disk latency or bandwidth, you would actually see just a 3x difference by 2 years later in fairly mainstream CPUs - an i5-2550, for example. -dsr-
10 year old machines are slow (was: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
> The most recent general-purpose Intel CPU without VT-X is from 2012. [...] > *everything* on processors that old is slow. Actually, for many (most?) single-threaded applications, I wouldn't be surprised if some 2010 CPUs end up within a factor 3 of the most badass desktop you can find today. Stefan
