1 |
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 9:54 PM, R0b0t1 <r030t1@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> Hello, I apologize for the tangents. |
3 |
> |
4 |
> The only on-topic comments I can offer are that: yes, those parts seem |
5 |
> to be usable with Gentoo, whereas similarly old parts a decade ago |
6 |
> were not; and, I have been looking for a low power server setup and |
7 |
> would appreciate if you could communicate your ultimate part |
8 |
> selection. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> Also that a $350-$400 CPU seems to be more than sufficient. My |
11 |
> i7-4770K is still very capable and that I look forward to some day |
12 |
> using a multisocket system with very nice Xeons (or the AMD |
13 |
> equivalent, if it becomes competitive). |
14 |
> |
15 |
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
16 |
>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 8:29 PM, wabe <wabenbau@×××××.com> wrote: |
17 |
>>> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
18 |
>>> |
19 |
>>>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 5:22 PM, wabe <wabenbau@×××××.com> wrote: |
20 |
>>>> > |
21 |
>>>> > I'm using an AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 965 Processor. I bought it six or |
22 |
>>>> > seven years ago when it was brand-new. It still works to my |
23 |
>>>> > satisfaction. But of course recent CPUs (for example AMD Ryzen) are |
24 |
>>>> > much faster. Therefore I wanna buy an AMD Threadripper next year. |
25 |
>>>> > This should be an enormous speedup. :-) |
26 |
>>>> |
27 |
>>>> Having just upgraded one of those to a Ryzen 5 1600 I can tell you |
28 |
>>>> that besides tripling your kernel build speeds, it will also sound |
29 |
>>>> less like a hair dryer and make your room feel less like it has a |
30 |
>>>> space heater inside. |
31 |
>>> |
32 |
>>> |
33 |
>>> I'm not sure what TDP my Phenoms have (95W or 125W). The TDP of the |
34 |
>>> 1950X is rated at 180W. But this is for all cores running at full load. |
35 |
>>> So the effective heat output over time should be lower than with my old |
36 |
>>> CPUs. |
37 |
>> |
38 |
>> Your old CPU has a TDP of 140W. I forget which model exactly I had |
39 |
>> but I think its TDP was 195W. |
40 |
>> |
41 |
>> Sure, the 1950X is going to pull quite a bit of power, but my 1600 |
42 |
>> only pulls 65W when going full tilt. It is a very noticeable |
43 |
>> difference. I suspect my old CPU probably used a good portion of that |
44 |
>> at idle. |
45 |
>> |
46 |
>>> |
47 |
>>> Because of the high price for the whole machine (board, ram, cpu...) |
48 |
>>> I will replace my two PCs (one Windoze and one Gentoo) with a single |
49 |
>>> machine. However I have some concerns regarding dualboot. I would |
50 |
>>> prefer NVMe SSDs but I think it may be better to use eSATA disks. Then |
51 |
>>> I easily can switch the disks and it should be impossible that one OS |
52 |
>>> can compromise the other. |
53 |
>> |
54 |
>> Seems like eSATA is harder to find these days. USB3 seems to be the |
55 |
>> way things are going. However, that works just fine. |
56 |
>> |
57 |
> |
58 |
> For a small amount of time you could find combination eSATA/USB 3 |
59 |
> connectors. I lament their demise. |
60 |
> |
61 |
> |
62 |
> Something to be aware of is that, in general, USB hubs will operate at |
63 |
> the speed of the slowest device connected. This is problematic because |
64 |
> a lot of motherboards and cases are such that a mouse and keyboard are |
65 |
> on the same hub that you would use at the front of your case. Mice and |
66 |
> keyboards are typically USB 1.1 devices. |
67 |
> |
68 |
> For USB 1.1 to USB 2, there is *supposed to be* one or more |
69 |
> transaction translators that take USB 1.1 data and retransmit it at |
70 |
> USB 2 speeds. Some hubs don't seem to implement this properly and |
71 |
> connecting a USB 1.1 device slows the entire bus down to USB 1.1 |
72 |
> speeds. Even if a transaction translator is present, the bus will |
73 |
> remain busy for the entire USB 1.1 communication time taken by the |
74 |
> device, slowing everything down. |
75 |
> |
76 |
> For USB 2 to USB 3, there is no conversion performed. This leads to a |
77 |
> situation contrary to what most people would expect - multiple USB 2 |
78 |
> devices can not take advantage of more than the default USB 2 |
79 |
> bandwidth. USB 2 connections to a USB 3 hub simply do not use the USB |
80 |
> 3 data lines, which are necessary for the increased bandwidth. |
81 |
> |
82 |
> Additionally, some hubs will downgrade USB 3 links to USB 2 speeds if |
83 |
> a USB 2 device is present for unknown reasons. This might be because |
84 |
> of the issue in the second paragraph, e.g. the requirement to wait for |
85 |
> USB 2 transmissions. Reading the specification as to whether this was |
86 |
> allowed behavior didn't make clarify anything to me. |
87 |
> |
88 |
> Regardless, the result is that if you plug a USB 1.1 device into a USB |
89 |
> 3 hub you might slow your file transfers down by an order of magnitude |
90 |
> or more. This is exactly what I experienced that led me to researching |
91 |
> this issue. |
92 |
> |
93 |
>> On my motherboard at least the PCI-based NVMe came at the cost of |
94 |
>> disabling one of the x16 slots, and the SATA-based one came at the |
95 |
>> cost of disabling one of the SATA ports. So, no PCI-based NVMe for me |
96 |
>> as I have an 8x card in addition to my graphics card. |
97 |
>> |
98 |
>> They really need to make more flexible slots as I believe that the |
99 |
>> slots themselves are electrically compatible - that is you can shove a |
100 |
>> 16x card in a 1x slot as long as you eliminate the plastic that blocks |
101 |
>> this from happening. Granted, I wouldn't want to put my LSI card in a |
102 |
>> 1x slot - it would be nicer if they had a 2x or 4x slot in there, but |
103 |
>> I realize that 1x and 16x seems to be where all the demand is. |
104 |
>> |
105 |
> |
106 |
> This is true. Unless the OS on the graphics card is making assumptions |
107 |
> it shouldn't be, it should be able to run with any number of lanes. A |
108 |
> lot of PCIe bridges can only allocate lanes in multiples of 2, 4, 8, |
109 |
> and 16, however. |
110 |
> |
111 |
> Based on some of my reading however the choices your motherboard |
112 |
> manufacturer made were made because non-server Intel (and AMD?) parts |
113 |
> have a very limited number of PCIe and other high speed interfaces |
114 |
> available. I would need to double check, but the configurations you |
115 |
> want might only be possible with server parts. |
116 |
> |
117 |
>>> |
118 |
>>> Hopefully the price for RAM will drop before I buy the new rig. It's |
119 |
>>> incredible high at the moment. |
120 |
>>> |
121 |
>> |
122 |
>> Yeah, the best price I could find as $99 for 8GB of DDR4 ECC, and only |
123 |
>> at 2400. Not much of a consumer market for ECC. |
124 |
>> |
125 |
> |
126 |
> There was recently a price fixing class action settlement for DDR2 |
127 |
> RAM. I hope there is another for modern RAM, as you can plot the price |
128 |
> against that natural disaster where the main manufacturing facilities |
129 |
> were and see that it never went back down afterwards. |
130 |
> |
131 |
> But I suppose my greed is getting to me. Our betters have decided what |
132 |
> the price should be, and I should be happy that I can afford RAM and a |
133 |
> nice computer to use. |
134 |
> |
135 |
> R0b0t1. |
136 |
|
137 |
I apologize for my terrible spelling and grammar. |