Re: [gentoo-user] new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm
On Jul 28, 2012 8:03 AM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 8:30 PM, microcai micro...@fedoraproject.org wrote: --- 8 Major Snippage As far as I can tell, AMD chip suffered with a lot of I/O. Their Hyper-transport seems not competitive with Intel's ring bus Wasn't Intel's answer to HyperTransport is the QuickPath bus? IIRC, the ring bus is internal to a processor. (I could be wrong, though). (please don't top-post, especially if the thread's already been primarily organized as bottom-post) I hadn't read that, but remember that HyperTransport is intended for a mesh architecture. In single-CPU systems, you'll only have one HT link, the link between your CPU and your north bridge. In multi-CPU systems, you'll have additional links between the CPUs. In systems with many CPUs, you may even have a fully-connected mesh. The I/O characteristics will greatly depend on the topology of your network. That said, HyperTransport may just be getting old; when it came out, it (and AMD's crossbar switch for memory management) beat the pants off of Intel's SMP solution. Intel's solution ran at lower and lower clock rates the more CPUs you added, and their first pass at multicore gave each core its own port onto the memory bus, with predictably poor results. Intel's had plenty of time to catch up, but with their price-per-part, it's taken me a long time to pay much attention. Again, I might be mistaken, but IIRC HyperTransport's throughput depends on how many channels are provided, so there's no theoretical limitation to its throughput, just practical considerations. (E.g., tracing issues). (It also doesn't help that Jon Hannibal Stokes stopped writing detailed technical articles for Ars Technica; I sincerely miss him and the precision and clarity of his writing on such arcane subjects.) That makes the two of us bro... BTW, my handle there's pepoluan, just in case you see it in the forums. Rgds,
Re: [gentoo-user] new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm
CPU speed does not matter. what matters most is the I/O speed. As far as I can tell, AMD chip suffered with a lot of I/O. Their Hyper-transport seems not competitive with Intel's ring bus 2012/7/26 Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com: On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Евгений Пермяков permea...@gmail.com wrote: On 07/26/2012 05:50 PM, Michael Mol wrote: On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Евгений Пермяков permea...@gmail.com wrote: On 07/26/2012 12:05 AM, Philip Webb wrote: I've listed what's available at the local store, which I trust to stock reliable items, tho' I wouldn't ask their advice. All the AMD's are 32 nm , while the Intel recommended by one commenter -- Core i5-3570 4-Core Socket LGA1155, 3.4 Ghz, 6MB L3 Cache, 22 nm -- is 22 nm : it costs CAD 230 they have 3 in stock, which suggests demand, but not the most popular ( 9 in stock). Isn't 22 nm going to be faster than 32 nm ? In the same price range, AMD offers Bulldozer X8 FX-8150 (125W) 8-Core Socket AM3+, 3.6 GHz, 8Mb Cache, 32 nm ( CAD 220 , 2 in stock). How do you compare cores vs nm ? How far is cache size important ( 6 vs 8 MB )? When I built my current machine 2007, the CPU cost CAD 213 , so both look as if they're in the right ballpark. If you're building new, performance-oriented box, you should take latest intel with AVX because of AVX. As I recall, recent gcc has support for avx, so some performance gain may be achieved. If you want home box, you may be interested in AMD A8 and similar chips, as they are reasonably fast and very chip AMD parts have had AVX since the Bulldozer core release in Q3 2011. Are they already available in reasonable numbers on market? http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8120+Eight-Core At $150, fitting into existing Socket AM3+ boards, that looks like the best part for my money right now. In any case, I'd put most of my money in 2-4 big 3Tb HDD's for media and 8+ Gb fast memory, as modern browsers eat memory like crazies and CPU is usually fast enough. Decoding HDTV mkv's should occur on gpu block in any case, so general performance for most uses is irrelevant, as it was fast enough four yesrs earlier. Simply check, that you can offload HDTV decoding to GPU in your config. Here, you're talking about either VDPAU or VAAAPI support. VDPAU is only offered by nVidia cards, and even then you need to run the proprietary driver. VAAPI is supported by Intel graphics and ATI's proprietary driver. I do not see any problems with this. A blob in system is not best practice, of course, but it does not need any configuration and is not a performance bottle-neck, so there is no reason to care. I only bring it up because some people do care. I'm running fglrx at home right now. When I run nVdia, I run the nVidia drivers. In part because I like accelerated video decoding (which a Geforce 210 does wonderfully), in part because the nv, nouveau and radeon drivers historically worked very poorly for me in 2D performance when faced with multiple 1080p displays. They're always getting better, of course. I personally would prefer AMD A8 if I can offload decoding to GPU unit there (not sure if I can, so won't change my box till next summer), but discrete video card will not be the most costly part in good non-gaming box, hard drives will, so again, what the matter? Computer usage breaks down into more than gaming and non-gaming. My non-gaming boxes at home tend to have their CPU, RAM or NICs as their most expensive components, because that's where I need them to perform better. -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm
Alecks Gates wrote: On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Michael Mol wrote: On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: The point made about producing less heat with the smaller nm sounds reasonable tho. Less heat with the smaller nm, but only if all other things remain equal! In reality, manufacturers use additional margin within their TDP to improve the product otherwise. Perhaps they increase the clock speed somewhat. Perhaps they increase the amount of on-die cache. Perhaps they reduce the instruction pipeline. AMD, for example, has tended to maintain keep something in the market for a 125W, 95W and 65W TDPs for several years. Each year, the functionality that used to be in a 125W TDP processor shows up in a 95W TDP processor, and the latest 125W TDP processor beats the pants off of last years'. I found this to be plain weird when I built my new rig. My old rig was a AMD 2500+ single core system with 2Gbs of ram. It pulled about 400 watts or so for normal desktop use. A little more when compiling and such. My new rig, AMD Phenom II 955 with four cores and 16Gbs of ram. Heck, just a single core is much faster than my old rig. Thing is, the new rig pulls less than half of what the old one pulls, WHILE COMPILING. I can't recall the nm part but I think the CPU I got for my old rig was supposed to be for laptop use. AMD sure is getting more efficient as you point out. I still wonder where we will be in 10 years. Just how fast can they make them? Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Definitely OT but that's surely not because of the CPU, or at least not only the CPU. Many people highly underestimate the value of a good and efficient power supply, which can make a huge difference. This is one of those things that companies such as Dell like to cut costs on because the average user neither sees the PSU specifications nor knows enough to ask about it. Of course, efficiency within the entire computer helps, but a bad power supply can really hurt your electric bill. On topic, AMD is definitely getting more efficient but mostly because that's where the technology is headed in general -- Intel seems to do a better job at efficiency per core but they also use hyper threading, whereas AMD is putting their bets into more physical cores. Yes, I'm going to say it again, but AMD is what you want for multitasking. They are switching their goals from high-performance cores to highly-concurrent CPUs, GPUs, and APUs. Concurrency is the future, it's just hard for a lot of people to think in such a way (and our technology doesn't leverage it to its full capacity). Just look at the human brain: a maximum of 1,000 nerve impulses per second is possible. However, firing rates of 1 per second to 300-400 per second are more typical.[1] Basically the average neuron seems to be about only 300Hz, but there are trillions upon trillions of synapses within the brain. I don't know about you, but I am, allegedly, a fully-functioning, self-aware, intelligent being. [1] http://www.noteaccess.com/APPROACHES/ArtEd/ChildDev/1cNeurons.htm It may not be JUST the CPU but the CPU is a big part of it. I might add, I moved one hard drive from the old system to the new one. The ones in my new rig that were new are about the same power wise, same brand too. I actually have the same number of drives in my new rig as was in my old rig. So that balances out. I might also add I have 16Gbs of ram in my new rig but only 2Gbs of ram in the old one so that doesn't fit either. As to the power supply, I build my own rig and I always pick a good power supply that is efficient. The power supply is larger in my new rig. I was thinking that the new rig would pull a bit more power so I actually got a power supply that is really a little bit to big. If anything, that would be a negative on my new rig not a positive. The mobo is the only thing different other than the CPU itself. Oh, let's not forget that my new case has those large 230mm fans. Three of them to be exact. I wouldn't be surprised if they pull about the same power tho. The CPU fan is larger on my new CPU tho. It may pull a small amount more but not enough to really worry about much. My video card is faster in the new rig too. So, all in all, one would expect the new rig to pull more power not less. It is a more powerful machine compared to my old rig. I did some math, my new rig is overall 7 times faster than my old rig. I plan to upgrade to a newer, faster CPU with more cores when prices come down a bit more. Dale :-) :-) P.S. I don't have a store bought system. I build mine from scratch. While I would recommend Dell to someone who can't build their own, I wouldn't buy one myself. -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
Re: [gentoo-user] new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 8:30 PM, microcai micro...@fedoraproject.org wrote: 2012/7/26 Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com: On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Евгений Пермяков permea...@gmail.com wrote: On 07/26/2012 05:50 PM, Michael Mol wrote: On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Евгений Пермяков permea...@gmail.com wrote: On 07/26/2012 12:05 AM, Philip Webb wrote: I've listed what's available at the local store, which I trust to stock reliable items, tho' I wouldn't ask their advice. All the AMD's are 32 nm , while the Intel recommended by one commenter -- Core i5-3570 4-Core Socket LGA1155, 3.4 Ghz, 6MB L3 Cache, 22 nm -- is 22 nm : it costs CAD 230 they have 3 in stock, which suggests demand, but not the most popular ( 9 in stock). Isn't 22 nm going to be faster than 32 nm ? In the same price range, AMD offers Bulldozer X8 FX-8150 (125W) 8-Core Socket AM3+, 3.6 GHz, 8Mb Cache, 32 nm ( CAD 220 , 2 in stock). How do you compare cores vs nm ? How far is cache size important ( 6 vs 8 MB )? When I built my current machine 2007, the CPU cost CAD 213 , so both look as if they're in the right ballpark. If you're building new, performance-oriented box, you should take latest intel with AVX because of AVX. As I recall, recent gcc has support for avx, so some performance gain may be achieved. If you want home box, you may be interested in AMD A8 and similar chips, as they are reasonably fast and very chip AMD parts have had AVX since the Bulldozer core release in Q3 2011. Are they already available in reasonable numbers on market? http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8120+Eight-Core At $150, fitting into existing Socket AM3+ boards, that looks like the best part for my money right now. In any case, I'd put most of my money in 2-4 big 3Tb HDD's for media and 8+ Gb fast memory, as modern browsers eat memory like crazies and CPU is usually fast enough. Decoding HDTV mkv's should occur on gpu block in any case, so general performance for most uses is irrelevant, as it was fast enough four yesrs earlier. Simply check, that you can offload HDTV decoding to GPU in your config. Here, you're talking about either VDPAU or VAAAPI support. VDPAU is only offered by nVidia cards, and even then you need to run the proprietary driver. VAAPI is supported by Intel graphics and ATI's proprietary driver. I do not see any problems with this. A blob in system is not best practice, of course, but it does not need any configuration and is not a performance bottle-neck, so there is no reason to care. I only bring it up because some people do care. I'm running fglrx at home right now. When I run nVdia, I run the nVidia drivers. In part because I like accelerated video decoding (which a Geforce 210 does wonderfully), in part because the nv, nouveau and radeon drivers historically worked very poorly for me in 2D performance when faced with multiple 1080p displays. They're always getting better, of course. I personally would prefer AMD A8 if I can offload decoding to GPU unit there (not sure if I can, so won't change my box till next summer), but discrete video card will not be the most costly part in good non-gaming box, hard drives will, so again, what the matter? Computer usage breaks down into more than gaming and non-gaming. My non-gaming boxes at home tend to have their CPU, RAM or NICs as their most expensive components, because that's where I need them to perform better. CPU speed does not matter. what matters most is the I/O speed. As far as I can tell, AMD chip suffered with a lot of I/O. Their Hyper-transport seems not competitive with Intel's ring bus (please don't top-post, especially if the thread's already been primarily organized as bottom-post) I hadn't read that, but remember that HyperTransport is intended for a mesh architecture. In single-CPU systems, you'll only have one HT link, the link between your CPU and your north bridge. In multi-CPU systems, you'll have additional links between the CPUs. In systems with many CPUs, you may even have a fully-connected mesh. The I/O characteristics will greatly depend on the topology of your network. That said, HyperTransport may just be getting old; when it came out, it (and AMD's crossbar switch for memory management) beat the pants off of Intel's SMP solution. Intel's solution ran at lower and lower clock rates the more CPUs you added, and their first pass at multicore gave each core its own port onto the memory bus, with predictably poor results. Intel's had plenty of time to catch up, but with their price-per-part, it's taken me a long time to pay much attention. (It also doesn't help that Jon Hannibal Stokes stopped writing detailed technical articles for Ars Technica; I sincerely miss him and the precision and clarity of his writing on such arcane subjects.) -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm
2012/7/26 Philip Webb purs...@ca.inter.net: I've listed what's available at the local store, which I trust to stock reliable items, tho' I wouldn't ask their advice. All the AMD's are 32 nm , while the Intel recommended by one commenter -- Core i5-3570 4-Core Socket LGA1155, 3.4 Ghz, 6MB L3 Cache, 22 nm -- is 22 nm : it costs CAD 230 they have 3 in stock, which suggests demand, but not the most popular ( 9 in stock). Isn't 22 nm going to be faster than 32 nm ? In the same price range, AMD offers Bulldozer X8 FX-8150 (125W) 8-Core Socket AM3+, 3.6 GHz, 8Mb Cache, 32 nm ( CAD 220 , 2 in stock). How do you compare cores vs nm ? How far is cache size important ( 6 vs 8 MB )? cache size is always the most important thing. cache miss is the top reason your application slows down. When I built my current machine 2007, the CPU cost CAD 213 , so both look as if they're in the right ballpark. -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto TRANSIT`-O--O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
Re: [gentoo-user] new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm
Am Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2012, 16:24:42 schrieb Philip Webb: 120725 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: Am Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2012, 16:05:29 schrieb Philip Webb: I've listed what's available at the local store, which I trust to stock reliable items, tho' I wouldn't ask their advice. All the AMD's are 32 nm , while the Intel recommended by one commenter -- Core i5-3570 4-Core Socket LGA1155, 3.4 Ghz, 6MB L3 Cache, 22 nm -- is 22 nm : it costs CAD 230 they have 3 in stock, which suggests demand, but not the most popular ( 9 in stock). Isn't 22 nm going to be faster than 32 nm ? no In the absence of further explication, I'm likely to go with 22 nm . because structure size has no influence on the performance - from a user point of view. In theory: smaller structers - less power needed - faster switching - so higher clocks are possible., In practice: smaller structures - more leak current - not as much faster clocks as hoped. For a user there is no difference between a 3ghz 32nm or a 3ghz 22nm cpu. The later one MIGHT use less power. But nothing is guaranteed. In the same price range, AMD offers Bulldozer X8 FX-8150 (125W) 8-Core Socket AM3+, 3.6 GHz, 8Mb Cache, 32 nm ( CAD 220 , 2 in stock). How do you compare cores vs nm ? who cares? These answers are not very helpful : does anyone have anything more so ? because you don't. cores and nm are in no way related. How far is cache size important ( 6 vs 8 MB )? depends on the architecture. It occurs to me that a larger cache goes with more cores, so the last question is not so important. no, really, this is the only question that makes sense. And it depends on the cache structure. A 6mb L3 'victim' cache that only caches stuff that is not in L2 and L1 might be better than a 8mb L3 cache that also holds the same stuff as L2 and L1. -- #163933
Re: [gentoo-user] new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm
On 07/26/2012 12:05 AM, Philip Webb wrote: I've listed what's available at the local store, which I trust to stock reliable items, tho' I wouldn't ask their advice. All the AMD's are 32 nm , while the Intel recommended by one commenter -- Core i5-3570 4-Core Socket LGA1155, 3.4 Ghz, 6MB L3 Cache, 22 nm -- is 22 nm : it costs CAD 230 they have 3 in stock, which suggests demand, but not the most popular ( 9 in stock). Isn't 22 nm going to be faster than 32 nm ? In the same price range, AMD offers Bulldozer X8 FX-8150 (125W) 8-Core Socket AM3+, 3.6 GHz, 8Mb Cache, 32 nm ( CAD 220 , 2 in stock). How do you compare cores vs nm ? How far is cache size important ( 6 vs 8 MB )? When I built my current machine 2007, the CPU cost CAD 213 , so both look as if they're in the right ballpark. If you're building new, performance-oriented box, you should take latest intel with AVX because of AVX. As I recall, recent gcc has support for avx, so some performance gain may be achieved. If you want home box, you may be interested in AMD A8 and similar chips, as they are reasonably fast and very chip In any case, I'd put most of my money in 2-4 big 3Tb HDD's for media and 8+ Gb fast memory, as modern browsers eat memory like crazies and CPU is usually fast enough. Decoding HDTV mkv's should occur on gpu block in any case, so general performance for most uses is irrelevant, as it was fast enough four yesrs earlier. Simply check, that you can offload HDTV decoding to GPU in your config.
Re: [gentoo-user] new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Евгений Пермяков permea...@gmail.com wrote: On 07/26/2012 12:05 AM, Philip Webb wrote: I've listed what's available at the local store, which I trust to stock reliable items, tho' I wouldn't ask their advice. All the AMD's are 32 nm , while the Intel recommended by one commenter -- Core i5-3570 4-Core Socket LGA1155, 3.4 Ghz, 6MB L3 Cache, 22 nm -- is 22 nm : it costs CAD 230 they have 3 in stock, which suggests demand, but not the most popular ( 9 in stock). Isn't 22 nm going to be faster than 32 nm ? In the same price range, AMD offers Bulldozer X8 FX-8150 (125W) 8-Core Socket AM3+, 3.6 GHz, 8Mb Cache, 32 nm ( CAD 220 , 2 in stock). How do you compare cores vs nm ? How far is cache size important ( 6 vs 8 MB )? When I built my current machine 2007, the CPU cost CAD 213 , so both look as if they're in the right ballpark. If you're building new, performance-oriented box, you should take latest intel with AVX because of AVX. As I recall, recent gcc has support for avx, so some performance gain may be achieved. If you want home box, you may be interested in AMD A8 and similar chips, as they are reasonably fast and very chip AMD parts have had AVX since the Bulldozer core release in Q3 2011. In any case, I'd put most of my money in 2-4 big 3Tb HDD's for media and 8+ Gb fast memory, as modern browsers eat memory like crazies and CPU is usually fast enough. Decoding HDTV mkv's should occur on gpu block in any case, so general performance for most uses is irrelevant, as it was fast enough four yesrs earlier. Simply check, that you can offload HDTV decoding to GPU in your config. Here, you're talking about either VDPAU or VAAAPI support. VDPAU is only offered by nVidia cards, and even then you need to run the proprietary driver. VAAPI is supported by Intel graphics and ATI's proprietary driver. There's talk about using VDPAU as a backend to VAAPI, but everything I read on the subect says things like 'potentially' and 'could be'. -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:39 AM, microcai micro...@fedoraproject.org wrote: 2012/7/26 Philip Webb purs...@ca.inter.net: I've listed what's available at the local store, which I trust to stock reliable items, tho' I wouldn't ask their advice. All the AMD's are 32 nm , while the Intel recommended by one commenter -- Core i5-3570 4-Core Socket LGA1155, 3.4 Ghz, 6MB L3 Cache, 22 nm -- is 22 nm : it costs CAD 230 they have 3 in stock, which suggests demand, but not the most popular ( 9 in stock). Isn't 22 nm going to be faster than 32 nm ? In the same price range, AMD offers Bulldozer X8 FX-8150 (125W) 8-Core Socket AM3+, 3.6 GHz, 8Mb Cache, 32 nm ( CAD 220 , 2 in stock). How do you compare cores vs nm ? How far is cache size important ( 6 vs 8 MB )? cache size is always the most important thing. cache miss is the top reason your application slows down. Generally speaking, but it does depend on your workload; if you're processing and referencing the same piece of memory over and over, cache shines. If you're streaming through a lot of data...not so much. Certainly, though, the former behavior is far more common. -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm
On 07/26/2012 05:50 PM, Michael Mol wrote: On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Евгений Пермяков permea...@gmail.com wrote: On 07/26/2012 12:05 AM, Philip Webb wrote: I've listed what's available at the local store, which I trust to stock reliable items, tho' I wouldn't ask their advice. All the AMD's are 32 nm , while the Intel recommended by one commenter -- Core i5-3570 4-Core Socket LGA1155, 3.4 Ghz, 6MB L3 Cache, 22 nm -- is 22 nm : it costs CAD 230 they have 3 in stock, which suggests demand, but not the most popular ( 9 in stock). Isn't 22 nm going to be faster than 32 nm ? In the same price range, AMD offers Bulldozer X8 FX-8150 (125W) 8-Core Socket AM3+, 3.6 GHz, 8Mb Cache, 32 nm ( CAD 220 , 2 in stock). How do you compare cores vs nm ? How far is cache size important ( 6 vs 8 MB )? When I built my current machine 2007, the CPU cost CAD 213 , so both look as if they're in the right ballpark. If you're building new, performance-oriented box, you should take latest intel with AVX because of AVX. As I recall, recent gcc has support for avx, so some performance gain may be achieved. If you want home box, you may be interested in AMD A8 and similar chips, as they are reasonably fast and very chip AMD parts have had AVX since the Bulldozer core release in Q3 2011. Are they already available in reasonable numbers on market? In any case, I'd put most of my money in 2-4 big 3Tb HDD's for media and 8+ Gb fast memory, as modern browsers eat memory like crazies and CPU is usually fast enough. Decoding HDTV mkv's should occur on gpu block in any case, so general performance for most uses is irrelevant, as it was fast enough four yesrs earlier. Simply check, that you can offload HDTV decoding to GPU in your config. Here, you're talking about either VDPAU or VAAAPI support. VDPAU is only offered by nVidia cards, and even then you need to run the proprietary driver. VAAPI is supported by Intel graphics and ATI's proprietary driver. I do not see any problems with this. A blob in system is not best practice, of course, but it does not need any configuration and is not a performance bottle-neck, so there is no reason to care. I personally would prefer AMD A8 if I can offload decoding to GPU unit there (not sure if I can, so won't change my box till next summer), but discrete video card will not be the most costly part in good non-gaming box, hard drives will, so again, what the matter? There's talk about using VDPAU as a backend to VAAPI, but everything I read on the subect says things like 'potentially' and 'could be'.
Re: [gentoo-user] new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Евгений Пермяков permea...@gmail.com wrote: On 07/26/2012 05:50 PM, Michael Mol wrote: On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Евгений Пермяков permea...@gmail.com wrote: On 07/26/2012 12:05 AM, Philip Webb wrote: I've listed what's available at the local store, which I trust to stock reliable items, tho' I wouldn't ask their advice. All the AMD's are 32 nm , while the Intel recommended by one commenter -- Core i5-3570 4-Core Socket LGA1155, 3.4 Ghz, 6MB L3 Cache, 22 nm -- is 22 nm : it costs CAD 230 they have 3 in stock, which suggests demand, but not the most popular ( 9 in stock). Isn't 22 nm going to be faster than 32 nm ? In the same price range, AMD offers Bulldozer X8 FX-8150 (125W) 8-Core Socket AM3+, 3.6 GHz, 8Mb Cache, 32 nm ( CAD 220 , 2 in stock). How do you compare cores vs nm ? How far is cache size important ( 6 vs 8 MB )? When I built my current machine 2007, the CPU cost CAD 213 , so both look as if they're in the right ballpark. If you're building new, performance-oriented box, you should take latest intel with AVX because of AVX. As I recall, recent gcc has support for avx, so some performance gain may be achieved. If you want home box, you may be interested in AMD A8 and similar chips, as they are reasonably fast and very chip AMD parts have had AVX since the Bulldozer core release in Q3 2011. Are they already available in reasonable numbers on market? http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8120+Eight-Core At $150, fitting into existing Socket AM3+ boards, that looks like the best part for my money right now. In any case, I'd put most of my money in 2-4 big 3Tb HDD's for media and 8+ Gb fast memory, as modern browsers eat memory like crazies and CPU is usually fast enough. Decoding HDTV mkv's should occur on gpu block in any case, so general performance for most uses is irrelevant, as it was fast enough four yesrs earlier. Simply check, that you can offload HDTV decoding to GPU in your config. Here, you're talking about either VDPAU or VAAAPI support. VDPAU is only offered by nVidia cards, and even then you need to run the proprietary driver. VAAPI is supported by Intel graphics and ATI's proprietary driver. I do not see any problems with this. A blob in system is not best practice, of course, but it does not need any configuration and is not a performance bottle-neck, so there is no reason to care. I only bring it up because some people do care. I'm running fglrx at home right now. When I run nVdia, I run the nVidia drivers. In part because I like accelerated video decoding (which a Geforce 210 does wonderfully), in part because the nv, nouveau and radeon drivers historically worked very poorly for me in 2D performance when faced with multiple 1080p displays. They're always getting better, of course. I personally would prefer AMD A8 if I can offload decoding to GPU unit there (not sure if I can, so won't change my box till next summer), but discrete video card will not be the most costly part in good non-gaming box, hard drives will, so again, what the matter? Computer usage breaks down into more than gaming and non-gaming. My non-gaming boxes at home tend to have their CPU, RAM or NICs as their most expensive components, because that's where I need them to perform better. -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm
Am Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2012, 16:05:29 schrieb Philip Webb: I've listed what's available at the local store, which I trust to stock reliable items, tho' I wouldn't ask their advice. All the AMD's are 32 nm , while the Intel recommended by one commenter -- Core i5-3570 4-Core Socket LGA1155, 3.4 Ghz, 6MB L3 Cache, 22 nm -- is 22 nm : it costs CAD 230 they have 3 in stock, which suggests demand, but not the most popular ( 9 in stock). Isn't 22 nm going to be faster than 32 nm ? no In the same price range, AMD offers Bulldozer X8 FX-8150 (125W) 8-Core Socket AM3+, 3.6 GHz, 8Mb Cache, 32 nm ( CAD 220 , 2 in stock). How do you compare cores vs nm ? who cares? How far is cache size important ( 6 vs 8 MB )? depends on the architecture. -- #163933
Re: [gentoo-user] new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm
120725 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: Am Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2012, 16:05:29 schrieb Philip Webb: I've listed what's available at the local store, which I trust to stock reliable items, tho' I wouldn't ask their advice. All the AMD's are 32 nm , while the Intel recommended by one commenter -- Core i5-3570 4-Core Socket LGA1155, 3.4 Ghz, 6MB L3 Cache, 22 nm -- is 22 nm : it costs CAD 230 they have 3 in stock, which suggests demand, but not the most popular ( 9 in stock). Isn't 22 nm going to be faster than 32 nm ? no In the absence of further explication, I'm likely to go with 22 nm . In the same price range, AMD offers Bulldozer X8 FX-8150 (125W) 8-Core Socket AM3+, 3.6 GHz, 8Mb Cache, 32 nm ( CAD 220 , 2 in stock). How do you compare cores vs nm ? who cares? These answers are not very helpful : does anyone have anything more so ? How far is cache size important ( 6 vs 8 MB )? depends on the architecture. It occurs to me that a larger cache goes with more cores, so the last question is not so important. -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto TRANSIT`-O--O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
Re: [gentoo-user] new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm
Am 25.07.2012 22:14, schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann: Am Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2012, 16:05:29 schrieb Philip Webb: I've listed what's available at the local store, which I trust to stock reliable items, tho' I wouldn't ask their advice. All the AMD's are 32 nm , while the Intel recommended by one commenter -- Core i5-3570 4-Core Socket LGA1155, 3.4 Ghz, 6MB L3 Cache, 22 nm -- is 22 nm : it costs CAD 230 they have 3 in stock, which suggests demand, but not the most popular ( 9 in stock). Isn't 22 nm going to be faster than 32 nm ? no Lower transistor size gives you two advantages: Lower current (- potentially lower power consumption and heat) and more transistors to do something. The practical effects depend on what the chip maker does with this. In the same price range, AMD offers Bulldozer X8 FX-8150 (125W) 8-Core Socket AM3+, 3.6 GHz, 8Mb Cache, 32 nm ( CAD 220 , 2 in stock). How do you compare cores vs nm ? who cares? You cannot really compare this. If you can use more cores, e.g. because you have an embarrassingly parallel application, by all means, get it. Otherwise you should probably care more about single core performance. How far is cache size important ( 6 vs 8 MB )? depends on the architecture. In short, for all three questions: Look at benchmarks and look at the TDP ratings if that is important to you. nm numbers don't tell you anything that can be directly translated into performance or other qualities. They only allow educated guesses. If you really want to delve so deep into chip design, you could as well look at pipeline depths, cache associativity and such alike (not that you should). Regards, Florian Philipp signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Florian Philipp li...@binarywings.net wrote: Am 25.07.2012 22:14, schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann: Am Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2012, 16:05:29 schrieb Philip Webb: I've listed what's available at the local store, which I trust to stock reliable items, tho' I wouldn't ask their advice. All the AMD's are 32 nm , while the Intel recommended by one commenter -- Core i5-3570 4-Core Socket LGA1155, 3.4 Ghz, 6MB L3 Cache, 22 nm -- is 22 nm : it costs CAD 230 they have 3 in stock, which suggests demand, but not the most popular ( 9 in stock). Isn't 22 nm going to be faster than 32 nm ? no Lower transistor size gives you two advantages: Lower current (- potentially lower power consumption and heat) and more transistors to do something. The practical effects depend on what the chip maker does with this. I second this; the feature size limit of the process isn't really something a consumer should care about at _all_. Its only real impact is on what architectural options are open to the manufacturer, which in turn drives how much they can get out of a performance and feature balance. What you really care about is what the manufacturer builds, not the tools and materials they had available to them. In the same price range, AMD offers Bulldozer X8 FX-8150 (125W) 8-Core Socket AM3+, 3.6 GHz, 8Mb Cache, 32 nm ( CAD 220 , 2 in stock). How do you compare cores vs nm ? who cares? You cannot really compare this. If you can use more cores, e.g. because you have an embarrassingly parallel application, by all means, get it. Otherwise you should probably care more about single core performance. I'll note that emerge -e @world with parallel emerge and parallel make qualifies. So does running a browser like Chromium which gives each tab its own process. How far is cache size important ( 6 vs 8 MB )? depends on the architecture. In short, for all three questions: Look at benchmarks and look at the TDP ratings if that is important to you. Good points. nm numbers don't tell you anything that can be directly translated into performance or other qualities. They only allow educated guesses. If you really want to delve so deep into chip design, you could as well look at pipeline depths, cache associativity and such alike (not that you should). Not that that isn't fun. ^^ -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm
I'll add this. When I buy a CPU, I look at the speed, mine is 3.2Ghz, and the cache that is on the chip, mine has 512Kb. Sometimes depending on the process, having more cache can be just as important as the speed. If I am looking at buying one of two identical CPUs but one has more cache, I would try to get the one with more cache. One should keep in mind that some are more efficient than others but unless you plan to really look under the hood real close, those are two things to really look at. Given how efficient things are nowadays, the nm would be the last thing I look at. The point made about producing less heat with the smaller nm sounds reasonable tho. I'm trying to picture a nm. o-o H, maybe this is better. O-O Nope, still can't picture a nm. lol Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: The point made about producing less heat with the smaller nm sounds reasonable tho. Less heat with the smaller nm, but only if all other things remain equal! In reality, manufacturers use additional margin within their TDP to improve the product otherwise. Perhaps they increase the clock speed somewhat. Perhaps they increase the amount of on-die cache. Perhaps they reduce the instruction pipeline. AMD, for example, has tended to maintain keep something in the market for a 125W, 95W and 65W TDPs for several years. Each year, the functionality that used to be in a 125W TDP processor shows up in a 95W TDP processor, and the latest 125W TDP processor beats the pants off of last years'. -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm
Michael Mol wrote: On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: The point made about producing less heat with the smaller nm sounds reasonable tho. Less heat with the smaller nm, but only if all other things remain equal! In reality, manufacturers use additional margin within their TDP to improve the product otherwise. Perhaps they increase the clock speed somewhat. Perhaps they increase the amount of on-die cache. Perhaps they reduce the instruction pipeline. AMD, for example, has tended to maintain keep something in the market for a 125W, 95W and 65W TDPs for several years. Each year, the functionality that used to be in a 125W TDP processor shows up in a 95W TDP processor, and the latest 125W TDP processor beats the pants off of last years'. I found this to be plain weird when I built my new rig. My old rig was a AMD 2500+ single core system with 2Gbs of ram. It pulled about 400 watts or so for normal desktop use. A little more when compiling and such. My new rig, AMD Phenom II 955 with four cores and 16Gbs of ram. Heck, just a single core is much faster than my old rig. Thing is, the new rig pulls less than half of what the old one pulls, WHILE COMPILING. I can't recall the nm part but I think the CPU I got for my old rig was supposed to be for laptop use. AMD sure is getting more efficient as you point out. I still wonder where we will be in 10 years. Just how fast can they make them? Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Michael Mol wrote: On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: The point made about producing less heat with the smaller nm sounds reasonable tho. Less heat with the smaller nm, but only if all other things remain equal! In reality, manufacturers use additional margin within their TDP to improve the product otherwise. Perhaps they increase the clock speed somewhat. Perhaps they increase the amount of on-die cache. Perhaps they reduce the instruction pipeline. AMD, for example, has tended to maintain keep something in the market for a 125W, 95W and 65W TDPs for several years. Each year, the functionality that used to be in a 125W TDP processor shows up in a 95W TDP processor, and the latest 125W TDP processor beats the pants off of last years'. I found this to be plain weird when I built my new rig. My old rig was a AMD 2500+ single core system with 2Gbs of ram. It pulled about 400 watts or so for normal desktop use. A little more when compiling and such. My new rig, AMD Phenom II 955 with four cores and 16Gbs of ram. Heck, just a single core is much faster than my old rig. Thing is, the new rig pulls less than half of what the old one pulls, WHILE COMPILING. I can't recall the nm part but I think the CPU I got for my old rig was supposed to be for laptop use. AMD sure is getting more efficient as you point out. I still wonder where we will be in 10 years. Just how fast can they make them? Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Definitely OT but that's surely not because of the CPU, or at least not only the CPU. Many people highly underestimate the value of a good and efficient power supply, which can make a huge difference. This is one of those things that companies such as Dell like to cut costs on because the average user neither sees the PSU specifications nor knows enough to ask about it. Of course, efficiency within the entire computer helps, but a bad power supply can really hurt your electric bill. On topic, AMD is definitely getting more efficient but mostly because that's where the technology is headed in general -- Intel seems to do a better job at efficiency per core but they also use hyper threading, whereas AMD is putting their bets into more physical cores. Yes, I'm going to say it again, but AMD is what you want for multitasking. They are switching their goals from high-performance cores to highly-concurrent CPUs, GPUs, and APUs. Concurrency is the future, it's just hard for a lot of people to think in such a way (and our technology doesn't leverage it to its full capacity). Just look at the human brain: a maximum of 1,000 nerve impulses per second is possible. However, firing rates of 1 per second to 300-400 per second are more typical.[1] Basically the average neuron seems to be about only 300Hz, but there are trillions upon trillions of synapses within the brain. I don't know about you, but I am, allegedly, a fully-functioning, self-aware, intelligent being. [1] http://www.noteaccess.com/APPROACHES/ArtEd/ChildDev/1cNeurons.htm
