Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Core i5 2500K Linux Performance

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

  • #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 UKŁ310 and my Intel was Ł303. 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


            • #21
              Originally posted by TrevorPH View Post
              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 UKŁ310 and my Intel was Ł303.
              Yeah, my point is that at the AMD high end (Intel mid-range), Intel seems to kick ass with this upgrade. A build like yours with the "K" version would overclock like crazy, according to this article. It seems like the difference after overclocking would be a lot higher than a marginal 10%

              I think BlackStar's point is still valid at the very low end, particularly for people coming from an older AMD build, and just dropping something like an Athlon II X3 435 for about 70 USD (apparently it can OC easily to 3.5Ghz).

              For any of you following the best gaming processors in the monthly analysis from Tom's hardware, I think Intel will take over everything but the very low end.

              It's funny though. We are calling a triple core @3.5Ghz "low end" these days. Just 10 years ago that was pretty much a mainframe

              Comment


              • #22
                Technically triple core was actually never high-end.
                Triple core were crippled or second-quality quad-cores. They did qualify for a mid-enthusiast branch though.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Erm... guys, why would you need THAT much power anyway, eh? And you say sometimes in your posts, "the best gaming processor". You need a decent GPU, not CPU to game. And actually, you don't need more than a 450 or 460 to game. Because when you game, you turn off all the graphics bling and concentrate on the gameplay, else you don't game, but simply waste your time and achieve nothing, actually. It distracts, believe me. The graphical bling does distract. Really.

                  But what *is* so good about those new Sandy Bridge processors and the platform in general, is that it *is* cool. As in, really cool. No Northbridge. No overheat. And decent performance. What else do we need, eh?

                  Of course if your build your kernel every day, then you might an i7 or an i5. Otherwise, i3 is your best bet. That and a mATX board, actually. Just have a look at the brilliant ASUS P8P67-M PRO. Or Rampage III Gene, if you're an "enthusiast" and want your mobo to look nice. But everything else is an overkill, really.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by thorgt View Post
                    concentrate on the gameplay, else you don't game, but simply waste your time and achieve nothing,
                    Funny.
                    FYI, there are people that actually do work with their CPU's.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      This - "do work with their CPUs" - is covered later in my post. Please read carefully.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Building kernel every day is not working, unless you are a kernel developer.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Well yes, but won't you admit that "doing work" is implied in that part of the post?
                          Second, I was primarily referring to the "gaming" statements above. Productivity is obvious. And then, people rarely do content creation on Linux, it seems to me. But I'm not sure with this at all.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by thorgt View Post
                            Well yes, but won't you admit that "doing work" is implied in that part of the post?
                            What is implied is that you play around with kernel settings and newest drivers for the fun of it or for the gaming and that its not important anyway, because there is the gaming. That was my impression...
                            Second, I was primarily referring to the "gaming" statements above. Productivity is obvious. And then, people rarely do content creation on Linux, it seems to me. But I'm not sure with this at all.
                            I wasn't referring to content creation, but to hacking and number crunching. Besides on linux, generally gaming is just as (un)popular as content creation. I will defer from inquiring how popular they both actually are.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by misiu_mp View Post
                              What is implied is that you play around with kernel settings and newest drivers for the fun of it or for the gaming and that its not important anyway, because there is the gaming. That was my impression...
                              No. What I said was that when you game, you don't need a powerful GPU because all the stuff that a more powerful GPU is used for, like coronas, bloom, and motion blur, distracts the gamer from fragging effectively. That's all I said. I can't seem to quite get it how you came to such a conclusion.

                              Originally posted by misiu_mp View Post
                              I wasn't referring to content creation, but to hacking and number crunching. Besides on linux, generally gaming is just as (un)popular as content creation. I will defer from inquiring how popular they both actually are.
                              Number crunching maybe. Science you mean? Have to agree with this, probably, because I don't know anything about that. GSL is all I know about(GNU Scientific Library, that is.)

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by thorgt View Post
                                Erm... guys, why would you need THAT much power anyway, eh? And you say sometimes in your posts, "the best gaming processor". You need a decent GPU, not CPU to game.
                                I was referring to the Tom's Hardware "best gaming CPUs" (wonderful) monthly guide. Which is admittedly a misnomer: they always point out that a good triple core is more than you need for gaming. But they pick best CPU's at different price ranges, which is very informative.

                                Me? I never game. But I need the power for other things, mostly encoding/transcoding media, and having lots of applications running at the same time. So, yes, lots of fast cores is nice.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X