Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linus Torvalds Switches To AMD Ryzen Threadripper After 15 Years Of Intel Systems

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

  • drSeehas
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    ... How about getting a Epyc workstation board, as I mentioned above? It's a bit more expensive, but not by that much for the price of a complete system, and it's definitely better than the price of two full systems.
    https://www.asrockrack.com/general/p...Specifications
    https://www.asrockrack.com/general/p...Specifications
    https://www.gigabyte.com/Server-Motherboard?fid=2301
    These are all server boards, not workstation boards!
    There are no Epyc workstation boards.

    Leave a comment:


  • drSeehas
    replied
    Originally posted by GI_Jack View Post
    [AM4 can use up to 128 GB]
    For a consumer desktop. Not for a workstation or server. ...
    Even AM4 workstation or AM4 server boards can't use more than 128 GB.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by herman View Post
    Those were the good days. I hope we see that kind of innovation again soon.
    Eh, I agree it was cool as a general idea, but I've never been a fan of having to replace the PC every year to run latest software.

    Also used hardware market nowadays is great, in many situations you can get something from 3 years ago that is perfectly capable of doing most jobs you need but is heavily discounted because it is "not new" anymore and the seller is trying to get rid of it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zan Lynx
    replied
    I saw someone comment about CPU usage seeming high on low power tasks.

    Something I often see people missing is CPU frequency. Always check that when you look at usage.

    If you aren't locked at the highest frequency on a performance plan, the operating system is going to reduce CPU power to the lowest it can get away with. I've seen it go as high as 80% usage on an Android phone, but that was running on a low power core at 400 MHz.

    If the CPU never hits 100% the OS has no reason to increase speed or move to a high performance core because obviously the task is getting its work done.

    Leave a comment:


  • herman
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    Yes, Moore's Law slowed down until it eventually died around 5 years ago and CPUs have been improving by 5-10%*
    (*on selected workloads)
    I remeber the times when CPUs like doubled performance every year or so and even just overclocking could increase performance by 40%, that's long gone.
    Those were the good days. I hope we see that kind of innovation again soon.

    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    Btw did you test with the same hard drive? Because using a drive from 10 years ago would make a lot of difference even if you are comparing sata mechanical drives.

    For example I can get the complete garbage (tm) experience (10+ seconds of lag on clicks and such) using an old 40GB or a 80GB drive I have with Windows 7 and 10. On Linux it's better, but still not as good as with a more modern (still not really new) 500 or 1tb drive.
    All my drives that suck like that have been moved to storage or even just put in a drawer now.
    No, the drive was acquired at the same time as the processor and it wasn't an issue. Right now I'm using a throwaway spindle to try Linux out and it's been a pleasant experience minus the initial load times, but that's par for the course on a spindle disk.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by herman View Post
    i7-6700. It's nice, but it doesn't feel as big of a jump as the Core 2 Duo was from the P4. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy with what I've got; I just think the industry didn't move as much as it could have.
    Yes, Moore's Law slowed down until it eventually died around 5 years ago and CPUs have been improving by 5-10%*
    (*on selected workloads)
    I remeber the times when CPUs like doubled performance every year or so and even just overclocking could increase performance by 40%, that's long gone.

    Btw did you test with the same hard drive? Because using a drive from 10 years ago would make a lot of difference even if you are comparing sata mechanical drives.

    For example I can get the complete garbage (tm) experience (10+ seconds of lag on clicks and such) using an old 40GB or a 80GB drive I have with Windows 7 and 10. On Linux it's better, but still not as good as with a more modern (still not really new) 500 or 1tb drive.
    All my drives that suck like that have been moved to storage or even just put in a drawer now.
    Last edited by starshipeleven; 07-23-2020, 04:49 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • herman
    replied
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    Oh, I disagree. If you combine IPC-improvements and the higher clockspeed, Skylake is easily as big a jump. And that's before you even factor in the extra cores, hyperthreading, or integrated memory controller.
    On paper it's huge, but it doesn't seem to reflect real world results. Sometimes CPU usage took up more resources than expected on lighter tasks (online video streaming, etc). I've noticed this more on Windows but haven't done enough testing on Fedora.

    Originally posted by coder View Post
    I'm confused. Do you just care about the amount of improvement, or the absolute performance? The original Pi was kind of equivalent to a Pentium MMX or thereabouts. With their A72 cores, maybe they're now the level of a Core2 Quad, if we're being generous. While that's a massive jump, it's really nothing remotely on par with where Apple is at, much less a full-fledged desktop CPU like your i7.
    I care about both (I'm greedy ). To borrow from your analogy, the jump from a Pentium MMX to a Core2 Quad was the impressive part, and that's the kind of jump I was expecting from a Core 2 Duo to i7. You are also right that the Raspberry Pi is nothing close to an i7, but it still can handle light desktop computing tasks. The Raspberry Pi 6 or 7 should be able to easily function as a desktop replacement for mild browsing/email related tasks, which is what most people tend to use their computers for nowadays. Just imagine if companies started selling high-end laptop kits (display+keyboard combos) for the next generation of Raspberry Pis. It's conceivable that such a project could take off.

    Originally posted by coder View Post
    Could be. With the Coretex-X1, ARM is now focusing squarely on the performance-oriented segment.

    To be honest, as of about 5 years ago, I expected to have an ARM-based PC, by now. Not my primary machine, but perhaps my fileserver, which I'm instead about to upgrade to a Ryzen 3000 or maybe a 4000-series APU.
    You're far more of a visionary than me since I've only recently discovered this. Apple will have to first show everyone if it can be a success and then most manufacturers will follow suit.
    Last edited by herman; 07-23-2020, 03:30 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by herman View Post
    i7-6700. It's nice, but it doesn't feel as big of a jump as the Core 2 Duo was from the P4. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy with what I've got; I just think the industry didn't move as much as it could have.
    Oh, I disagree. If you combine IPC-improvements and the higher clockspeed, Skylake is easily as big a jump. And that's before you even factor in the extra cores, hyperthreading, or integrated memory controller. Then, you have things like AVX2, crypto acceleration, and L3 cache.

    Originally posted by herman View Post
    I was watching a recent video of the new Raspberry Pi 4 and I was impressed with how far they've come along.
    I'm confused. Do you just care about the amount of improvement, or the absolute performance? The original Pi was kind of equivalent to a Pentium MMX or thereabouts. With their A72 cores, maybe they're now the level of a Core2 Quad, if we're being generous. While that's a massive jump, it's really nothing remotely on par with where Apple is at, much less a full-fledged desktop CPU like your i7.

    Originally posted by herman View Post
    I really think the majority of computer users (let's face it, most of them are consumers rather than producers) will be completely happy on a new ARM board within the next 2-5 years, which is how long Apple is planning to take to release their new ARM-based Macs.
    Could be. With the Cortex-X1, ARM is now focusing squarely on the performance-oriented segment. Maybe someone will build a SoC around it, intended for use in Mini-PCs running Windows 10. It's a little hard to see a straight path to the desktop, but it'll get there, eventually.

    To be honest, as of about 5 years ago, I expected to have an ARM-based PC, by now. Not my primary machine, but perhaps my fileserver, which I'm instead about to upgrade to a Ryzen 3000 or maybe a 4000-series APU. In my defense, I think AMD had recently announced their ARM-based server chip (which they eventually shipped). I expected that'd be the basket where they put most of their eggs - not in Zen.
    Last edited by coder; 07-23-2020, 02:59 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • herman
    replied
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    Yeah, they were good.

    Except, I was more interested in what you upgraded to.
    i7-6700. It's nice, but it doesn't feel as big of a jump as the Core 2 Duo was from the P4. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy with what I've got; I just think the industry didn't move as much as it could have.

    Originally posted by coder View Post
    Out-of-order ARM cores were affected by some of the side-channel attacks, too.

    I'm with you on wanting to see the sun set on x86, but it really is the fastest thing currently available. Apple's ARM cores are the only real challenger, but only in a power-constrained or thermally-limited scenario. If you put them in a desktop or a performance-oriented notebook, the higher clockspeed ceiling of x86 will carry it to an easy victory.
    Apple is making the move at the right time. Intel is still struggling to shrink their die while ARM is rapidly gaining performance. I was watching a recent video of the new Raspberry Pi 4 and I was impressed with how far they've come along. I really think the majority of computer users (let's face it, most of them are consumers rather than producers) will be completely happy on a new ARM board within the next 2-5 years, which is how long Apple is planning to take to release their new ARM-based Macs.
    Last edited by herman; 07-22-2020, 11:26 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by herman View Post
    I had a Core 2 Duo, and I loved that thing.
    Yeah, they were good.

    Except, I was more interested in what you upgraded to.

    Originally posted by herman View Post
    It also didn't help that my CPU was nerfed after I bought it. It's enough to sour me on x86 processors in general. I'd love to see ARM take over.
    Out-of-order ARM cores were affected by some of the side-channel attacks, too.

    I'm with you on wanting to see the sun set on x86, but it really is the fastest thing currently available. Apple's ARM cores are the only real challenger, but only in a power-constrained or thermally-limited scenario. If you put them in a desktop or a performance-oriented notebook, the higher clockspeed ceiling of x86 will carry it to an easy victory.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X