Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 61

Thread: Linux's "Ondemand" Governor Is No Longer Fit

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    542

    Default

    Quote 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 at 12:17 AM.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,877

    Default

    Quote 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.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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?

    Quote 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...

    Quote 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.
    Quote 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 at 09:34 AM.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,877

    Default

    Quote 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.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote 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.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Quote 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.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Quote 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.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    20

    Default

    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.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    198

    Default

    Quote 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!

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,877

    Default

    Quote 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?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •