Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Core i5 2500K Linux Performance

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by next9 View Post
    Again, no AMD comparison :-(.

    From what I have read here, It is not Michael to blame but AMD. I do not understand, why the hell they refuse to borrow/give their CPU to test on Phoronix!

    They send their processors to every looser using Windows/3DMark/syntetic_crap to produce zillion of the same useless reviews, but quite interesting and in fact uniqe benchmarking site is ignored? What is the sense of this?
    Yep, that's right
    Michael Larabel
    http://www.michaellarabel.com/

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by Michael View Post
      Yep, that's right
      What is typical AMD commentary, when you ask them for CPU?

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by next9 View Post
        What is typical AMD commentary, when you ask them for CPU?
        The last time I asked was a response that they didn't have any CPUs available.
        Michael Larabel
        http://www.michaellarabel.com/

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by Michael View Post
          The last time I asked was a response that they didn't have any CPUs available.


          Joke of the year

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by tjormola View Post
            At the page nine of the article Intel Core i5 2500K Linux Performance it's said



            This is a false statement and should be corrected ASAP, as the untrue info potentially affects many Linux users. The K version is better for overclocking, but it has some features crippled compared to the non-K version. It lacks trusted execution and VT-d support. See the product details of the 2500 and 2500K, the Advanced Technologies table.

            Especially the latter might be a deal-breaker. VT-d support allows a host machine to share physical PCI devices to guest hosts when running KVM based virtualization systems. With the new Sandy Bridge K processors you can't do that. Many people might want to experiment with this features as it's supported by modern Linux distributions. But you need the non-K processor for that.

            I guess Intel is crippling the overclockable processor because those interested in overclocking probably aren't interested in enterprise features (though people at this forum might make an exception to this assumption). This way they also prevent cheap-ass people from building servers with "too good" power/performance/price ratio using the over clocked K processors thus leaving room for their upcoming Sandy Bridge Xeons...
            Thanks for this information, much appreciated. Intel's market segmentation is getting worse. For me, no VT-d and/or locked clocks == no sell. AMD may lack raw speed at the high end, but if I buy a Phenom I rest assured that I'll get both VT and overclocking potential.

            Originally posted by Lukian
            Nice cut on your finger. Sharp motherboard / case?
            (Happens far too often.)
            If you don't shed blood over your new computer, it won't work. It's been proven time and time again.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
              Thanks for this information, much appreciated. Intel's market segmentation is getting worse. For me, no VT-d and/or locked clocks == no sell. AMD may lack raw speed at the high end, but if I buy a Phenom I rest assured that I'll get both VT and overclocking potential.
              Do not confuse Vt-d and Vt-x. Vt-x means general hardware virtualization support, and all Sandy Bridge CPUs available today support it. Vt-d means virtualization support for I/O devices direct access - simmilar to AMDs IOMMU nowadays available only on 890FX chipset. Even not all manufacturers support IOMMU correctly in their crappy BIOSes. Same as Intel Vt-d motherboard support.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by next9 View Post
                Again, no AMD comparison :-(.
                Quite frankly, in this case there IS no AMD comparison. I mean, this new sandy bridge i5 bets the hell out of anything AMD might have to offer at that price point, it seems. And it's just an i5.

                I am an AMD user (happily bought and I am still running one of the first phenom x3's to hit the market). I would love to see AMD stay afloat, because we desperately need competition. And frankly, they have been offering great value in the low/mid range. But Sandy Bridge is obviously changing the landscape. AMD has to switch to 32nm ASAP. It seems it won't happer until July/August. I am not sure how they can hold on until then ...

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by next9 View Post
                  Do not confuse Vt-d and Vt-x. Vt-x means general hardware virtualization support, and all Sandy Bridge CPUs available today support it. Vt-d means virtualization support for I/O devices direct access - simmilar to AMDs IOMMU nowadays available only on 890FX chipset. Even not all manufacturers support IOMMU correctly in their crappy BIOSes. Same as Intel Vt-d motherboard support.
                  Ah, that's better.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by mendieta View Post
                    Quite frankly, in this case there IS no AMD comparison. I mean, this new sandy bridge i5 bets the hell out of anything AMD might have to offer at that price point, it seems. And it's just an i5.

                    I am an AMD user (happily bought and I am still running one of the first phenom x3's to hit the market). I would love to see AMD stay afloat, because we desperately need competition. And frankly, they have been offering great value in the low/mid range. But Sandy Bridge is obviously changing the landscape. AMD has to switch to 32nm ASAP. It seems it won't happer until July/August. I am not sure how they can hold on until then ...
                    Considering the fact that a i5-2500K system will set you back at least 300€(*) (~$410 for mobo+cpu), AMD still has an advantage in value (you can get a 6-core for 165€ that probably runs on the AMD mobo you already have or 200€(*) for mobo+cpu). The 2500K may be faster but it costs more, too.

                    Still, I'll be happy to see the AMD refresh sooner rather than later.

                    (*) absolute lowest prices I can find here.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                      Considering the fact that a i5-2500K system will set you back at least 300€(*) (~$410 for mobo+cpu), AMD still has an advantage in value (you can get a 6-core for 165€ that probably runs on the AMD mobo you already have or 200€(*) for mobo+cpu). The 2500K may be faster but it costs more, too.
                      You are using figures rather selectively there. I recently reused an old case, PSU and hard disk and put in an Intel socket 1155 H57 based motherboard and integrated graphics card, an i5 2500 (not K), a SATA DVD writer and 4GB RAM and it cost me almost exactly the same as it would have done to put in an AMD 1090T 6 core chip in an Asus motherboard (the cheapest one I could find with SATA 6Gbps) and the same RAM and DVD writer. According to google, the 2500 scores about 10% higher than the 1090T. The AMD system has a price tag of UK£310 and my Intel was £303. The AMD might have the edge on graphics performance but since I needed mine without a GUI at all, I didn't have to worry about that. I suspect mine'll be cheaper to run too because the Intel uses less power.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X