Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux's "Ondemand" Governor Is No Longer Fit

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Ericg View Post
    Are they -really- beating Intel on the value end of the spectrum though? Core i5 Haswell is gonna have MORE than adequate graphics for anything up to gaming (and even some gaming) great CPU performance, power consumption is going to be at near-ARM levels, all for about $200 I'm guessing, maybe less. AMD's graphics may be better, but they are still reeling from the clusterfsck known as Bulldozer, their power consumption is up, they cant even idle at the levels that Intel can, and their chips cost between $100 and $200 for Piledriver.

    Quite honestly, at least for me, I wont even CONSIDER an AMD APU for a Laptop just because of the heat and power consumption. Desktop, okay, maybe they have a shot in one of my builds just because power consumption doesnt matter as much there.
    I'm curious; is the power consumption on Haswell really that amazing that it can be called 'close to ARM levels'?

    For comparison's sake, my 1-month old SurfaceRT can last for anywhere between 12 - 20 hours (non-idle with WiFi and Bluetooh disabled; i use it more as a glorified e-reader and disk management device) on a single charge with its quad-core Tegra 3 SoC. Assuming WindowsRT works on x86 as well and all other variables kept the same, how much juice can I get out of the average Haswell chip compared to what I'm currently getting out of the Tegra?
    Last edited by Sonadow; 05-19-2013, 12:17 AM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
      I'm curious; is the power consumption on Haswell really that amazing that it can be called 'close to ARM levels'?

      For comparison's sake, my 1-month old SurfaceRT can last for anywhere between 12 - 20 hours (non-idle with WiFi and Bluetooh disabled; i use it more as a glorified e-reader and disk management device) on a single charge with its quad-core Tegra 3 SoC. Assuming WindowsRT works on x86 as well and all other variables kept the same, how much juice can I get out of the average Haswell chip compared to what I'm currently getting out of the Tegra?
      If the marketting is to be believed, the next gen Atoms are supposed to use Haswell as their base (or at least that WAS the plan) and that those atoms would hit near-ARM. So going off that, apparently Haswell is very flexible in terms of power/performance.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
        Not to mention AMD has some presence in the dedicated GPU market. Although the alleged performance of Haswell's onboard graphics core are destroying that presence...
        lol. Not only Intel sucks at IGPs compared to AMD, even the A10-5800K's IGP (60% faster than an HD4000) is only at the level of a 8800GTS at best.

        Originally posted by Ericg View Post
        Are they -really- beating Intel on the value end of the spectrum though?
        Yes they are, how about comparing a FX-8320 to an i7-3770K?

        Originally posted by Ericg View Post
        Core i5 Haswell is gonna have MORE than adequate graphics for anything up to gaming (and even some gaming) great CPU performance
        On the laptop side, mobile i5s are twice as slow as the desktop ones because they only have two cores (but at least they have HT). Marketing, quand tu nous tiens...

        Originally posted by Ericg View Post
        their power consumption is up, they cant even idle at the levels that Intel can
        10 watt difference at idle (FX-8350 vs i5-3570K). 10 watt. The difference is going to be about 10 euros per year if you're 25% at full load and 75% at idle.
        Originally posted by Ericg View Post
        and their chips cost between $100 and $200 for Piledriver.
        You forgot the i7s already?
        Last edited by Calinou; 05-19-2013, 09:34 AM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Calinou View Post
          On the laptop side, mobile i5s are twice as slow as the desktop ones because they only have two cores (but at least they have HT). Marketing, quand tu nous tiens...
          Calinou you seem to be forgetting that we've hit the point where CPU and GPU are beyond what anyone would ever NEED. Haswell or Broadwell graphics are perfectly good for anyone who's not doing gaming as their main usecase, hell I'm gaming on an Sandy Bridge ULV and pretty happy with frame rates. The only time I can ever clock out this CPU is during compiles-- it takes me about 90minutes to compile the linux kernel. The only reason I have to upgrade this laptop is 1) Better screen, 2) Better power consumption 3) Hard drive and RAM are soldered on, so eventually a bump to 8Gbs and a bigger SSD would be nice.

          Also keep in mind that in mobile... the number 1 thing that matters is power consumption for battery life, and thermal levels because of it being either on the person's lap or in their hands, and Intel wins on BOTH while providing very good performance. This laptop right now is 9.5watts, giving me about 5hrs of battery life (firefox and about 15 tabs are open. KDE desktop is loaded, and powertop is complaing about a lot of BAD tunables so I could prob get down to 8watts if I tried) and 47degrees Celsius, the lowest I've ever seen it go was 38.

          On the desktop, where heat and power consumption don't matter as much, then yes AMD wins performance-per-dollar I will give you that. But when you're talking mobile then you have a lot more factors to bring in.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Ericg View Post
            On the desktop, where heat and power consumption don't matter as much, then yes AMD wins performance-per-dollar I will give you that. But when you're talking mobile then you have a lot more factors to bring in.
            I wouldn't even say that AMD wins the performance/dollar on the desktop now days. It really depends on the type of work one does on the system. i5's are pretty competitive in comparison with the FX series and the motherboards that are available for intels are a bit more feature rich for the same priced AMD boards (with the exception of only having two SATA 3 ports on intel boards). The intels do offer a more consistent gaming experience. The lack of a new chipset for the AMD's hurt them quite a bit in the value dept.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Ericg View Post
              The only time I can ever clock out this CPU is during compiles-- it takes me about 90minutes to compile the linux kernel.
              90minutes? Thats insane man. Something is wrong. It takes about 3 minutes on my computer.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                I wouldn't even say that AMD wins the performance/dollar on the desktop now days. It really depends on the type of work one does on the system. i5's are pretty competitive in comparison with the FX series and the motherboards that are available for intels are a bit more feature rich for the same priced AMD boards (with the exception of only having two SATA 3 ports on intel boards). The intels do offer a more consistent gaming experience. The lack of a new chipset for the AMD's hurt them quite a bit in the value dept.
                I've said this before... What is the point in a new chipset? Will offer a newer version of SATA? Or USB? Or PCIe? I there arent any new features to add then there is no need for a new chipset. Releasing a new chipset that doesnt add anything is is exactly the same thing as continuing to release the same chipset.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Being an AMD fanboy I must say they really need a new chipstet! For me the weakest point right know is how bad the memory controller is compared with Intel solution, in benchmarking they offer truly poor results! Also PCI express 3.0 should already be implemented! While ASUS already provides a motherboard with pci e 3.0 on the 990fx chipset is not really a native solution.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Ericg View Post
                    The only reason I have to upgrade this laptop is 1) Better screen, 2) Better power consumption 3) Hard drive and RAM are soldered on, so eventually a bump to 8Gbs and a bigger SSD would be nice.
                    I don't know about you but I have a really hard time using up 4GB of RAM on linux (KDE desktop). I don't even use a swap. I could see if you edit a lot of RAW images, have large video projects open, or run virtual machines, you might run out, but 4GB seems plenty enough for me for a long time. On OS X (Mountain Lion) even after an upgrade from 4GB to 8GB I was still running out of memory with fewer apps open!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                      90minutes? Thats insane man. Something is wrong. It takes about 3 minutes on my computer.
                      Whats your processor? How much RAM?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by molecule-eye View Post
                        I don't know about you but I have a really hard time using up 4GB of RAM on linux (KDE desktop). I don't even use a swap. I could see if you edit a lot of RAW images, have large video projects open, or run virtual machines, you might run out, but 4GB seems plenty enough for me for a long time. On OS X (Mountain Lion) even after an upgrade from 4GB to 8GB I was still running out of memory with fewer apps open!
                        Htop says: 1496mb of RAM used, of 3277MB available
                        Arch x64, KDE 4.10.3, firefox open with 7 tabs (3 are active thanks to Unload-- https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...don/unloadtab/). I did just close a lot of tabs about 5minutes ago though so maybe its not de-allocated that memory yet. Firefox is using the most memory, followed by virtuso (Nepomuk). A big chunk of that is probably in use by zRAM-- https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...cache_.2F_Zram.

                        And I can hit memory-pressure on occasion, mostly during compiles (/tmp is tmpfs with 3G alloted because im on an SSD and I didnt want to wear it out), hence 4GB of swap, and zRam.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by marco26 View Post
                          Being an AMD fanboy I must say they really need a new chipstet! For me the weakest point right know is how bad the memory controller is compared with Intel solution, in benchmarking they offer truly poor results! Also PCI express 3.0 should already be implemented! While ASUS already provides a motherboard with pci e 3.0 on the 990fx chipset is not really a native solution.
                          The memory controller is on the CPU, not the chipset, and the PCIe spec is already at 3.0.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Ericg View Post
                            Htop says: 1496mb of RAM used, of 3277MB available
                            Arch x64, KDE 4.10.3, firefox open with 7 tabs (3 are active thanks to Unload-- https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...don/unloadtab/). I did just close a lot of tabs about 5minutes ago though so maybe its not de-allocated that memory yet. Firefox is using the most memory, followed by virtuso (Nepomuk). A big chunk of that is probably in use by zRAM-- https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...cache_.2F_Zram.

                            And I can hit memory-pressure on occasion, mostly during compiles (/tmp is tmpfs with 3G alloted because im on an SSD and I didnt want to wear it out), hence 4GB of swap, and zRam.
                            Are you subtracting cache/buffers from used memory?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
                              Are you subtracting cache/buffers from used memory?
                              I'm just reading off the number from htop at the top, so if it automatically pulls out cache & buffers-- then yes. As good with linux as I have gotten over the years...I have yet to figure out how exactly memory reporting works to get a "real" answer ><.

                              Whats a good utility that will print out either the ram minus the cache and buffers, or that will print them side by side so I know what to subtract from the readout?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Code:
                                 $ free -m
                                             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
                                Mem:         32070      30045       2025          0        154      25945
                                -/+ buffers/cache:       3945      28125
                                Swap:            0          0          0
                                Some ~4 GB are buffers and some ~26 GB are cached files. I think (used - cached + free ~= actual free) and that buffers is stuff that needs to be written somewhere before it can be cleared?
                                Last edited by ChrisXY; 05-22-2013, 07:37 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X