Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Frank Steinmetzger <Warp_7@×××.de>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] PCIe x1 or PCIe x4 SATA controller card
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 22:04:03
Message-Id: ZBJAwTAx1HjgjyCs@kern
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] PCIe x1 or PCIe x4 SATA controller card by Dale
1 Am Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 07:45:25AM -0500 schrieb Dale:
2 > Mark Knecht wrote:
3
4 > > > Another question.  My rig is getting a bit aged.  I have a AMD FX-8350 8
5 > > > core CPU running at 4GHz.  I also have 32GBs of memory.  I've read that
6 > > > Intel currently has the best bang for buck on CPUs nowadays.  I'm open
7 > > > to the idea of switching.  As far as speed goes, if I built a new rig
8 > > > that is using a reasonably cost CPU and memory, would I see any real
9 > > > improvements?
10 > >
11 > > I think it all depends on what you're going to use the machine for and
12 > > whether you really use all your CPU for extended periods of time. 
13
14 This! My mini PC with its passive 10 W Celeron N5100 is enough for desktop
15 use, including encrypted storage. But maybe not for Gentoo. :)
16
17 > > […]
18 > > PixInsight has a benchmark program built in and all the results
19 > > are open to look at:
20 > >
21 > > https://pixinsight.com/benchmark/index.php?sort=cpu&os=all
22 > >
23 > > Interestingly I didn't find your processor even on the list
24
25 That’s probably because the FX processors are ooooold. Old and hungry. ^^
26
27 > Sometimes a CPU that costs $500 can only be just a fraction faster than a
28 > $200 CPU.
29
30 That’s still the case today for those impatient gamer enthusiasts who are
31 after the “longest bars” [in benchmarks]. The same goes for power
32 consumption. With Zen 4, AMD of course launched the fastest X-processors
33 first with a gargantuan power demand. A few months later the non-X were
34 released. They used 40 % or so less power at a performance cost of maybe 10
35 % (not actual numbers, but figuratively speaking from memory).
36
37 > Given that my rig, as you point
38 > out, sits here and waits on me to do something most of the time, that's
39 > a lot of money for something I won't see much time savings on.  I might
40 > add tho, I do sometimes convert videos from 1080p to 720p.  That makes
41 > the CPU max out pretty good.  Compiling Libreoffice, Firefox etc also
42 > maxes out the CPU but those are what, once a month or so???
43
44 Intel and AMD are giving themselves quite a race these days about who offers
45 more bang for the buck, or rather, more bang. In the past, Intel used to
46 have more to offer at the lower end (below 100 € CPUs, like Pentiums and
47 i3’s, while AMD was milking the market with high-end chips due to their
48 limited manufacturing capacities).
49
50 If you want to save money and aim for a low-cost AMD APU (processor with
51 integrated graphics), you can get an older 3000-series Ryzen for a two-digit
52 price. It’ll still be much faster than your old FX at a fraction of the
53 power consumption. Like the 4300G, which is twice as fast for half the
54 electricity. With today’s processors, basically none of the socktetable
55 models are too slow unless you have specific performance requirements.
56
57 With each generation, the architecture becomes more efficient, meaning more
58 instructions per cycle, lower consumption and so on. The max frequency is
59 not really the driving force behind performance increase anymore due to
60 efficiency issues at higher frequencies.
61
62 Here are some benchmark comparisons from cpubenchmark.net:
63
64 Processor year power cores single-core score multi-core score
65 FX-8350 2012 125 W 8/8 1580 6026
66 i5-4590 2014 84 W 4/4 2086 5356
67 i5-10400 2020 65 W 6/12 2580 12258
68 R3 4300G 2020 65 W 4/8 2557 11017
69 R5 5600G 2021 65 W 6/12 3185 19892
70 R5 7600X 2022 145 W 6/12 4213 28753
71
72 Sources:
73 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html#desktop-thread
74 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8350+Eight-Core&id=1780
75 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-4590+%40+3.30GHz&id=2234
76 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-10400+%40+2.90GHz&id=3737
77 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+3+4300G&id=3808
78 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+5+5600G&id=4325
79 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+5+7600X&id=5033
80
81 You can see the increase in performance. My old i5-4590, at half the cores,
82 can keep up with your FX, even though it is only 1½ years younger. Ryzens
83 used to be more efficient in multi workloads (look at the 2020 entries). But
84 I’m not too sure about current generations due to Intel’s big-little
85 concept.
86 DDR5 and PCIe5 have higher requirements at signal quality, making the boards
87 and components much more expensive (and, again, more power hungry). That’s
88 why, even though DDR4 platforms are on their way out technologically, they
89 are still an economically sound choice.
90
91 > I was also wondering what a mobo/CPU/memory combo would cost nowadays. 
92 > Maybe someone who recently built a decent rig recalls how much they paid
93 > for those three.  I don't go cheap on power supply but I don't require a
94 > lot for a video card or anything.  Some spend half their money on a
95 > video card alone but I just don't need anything that fancy.
96
97 Any current Intel non-F CPU (F means no graphics) can cover your graphics
98 need. Finally, AMD caught up and started shipping a minimal graphics chip in
99 all of their processors with Zen 4, but as I said, that platform is still
100 expensive.
101
102 > I got a Nvidia GeForce GTX 650 that drives both my monitor and my TVs
103 > through a splitter and it does just fine.
104
105 How cute. This should be about twice as fast as the integrated graphics in
106 my 8-year-old i5. So you’ll be fine with *any* integrated graphics (which
107 will also cut down on idle consuption, compared with a dGPU).
108
109 > This is some good info tho.  Maybe someone who built a rig recently can
110 > chime in on costs, US dollar would be nice.  ;-)
111
112 As mentioned, DDR5 is still expensive. With DDR4 platforms getting older,
113 their prices are going down. The Ryzen 5 5600G is an excellent and efficient
114 processor (it’s basically a laptop chip in a desktop socket) and currently
115 can be had for around 125 € (including taxes of course, not sure about US
116 prices). It has over twice the single- and thrice the multi-core performance
117 of your FX chip. Its graphics are way overkill for you, but you never know.
118 ;-)
119 If you want to keep yout GPU, there’s also the Ryzen 5 5500, it has no
120 graphics and is only minutely slower than the 5600G, but can be had for less
121 than 100 €.
122
123
124 So, in summary (talking German consumer prices, meaning all taxes included,
125 but I think you can assume very similar $ pricse) for a not too fancy¹ system:
126
127 Processor 120 € (or up top 150 € for a current i3/i5)
128 RAM 60 € 32 GB DDR4 (cheap RAM, low latency costs more, but has no real use
129 for your use case)
130 Board 100..120 € depending on I/O needs and quality.
131
132 Going DDR5 means an increase in budget by at least 100 € for a 32 GB system.
133
134
135 ¹ As far as I can see, compiling packages is the most taxing thing you do,
136 which is why I don’t see you needing a big-rig processor. (Though I
137 understand the nice feeling you get from having one.)
138
139 --
140 Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
141 Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.
142
143 “Meow” <SPLAT!> “Woof” <SPLAT!> Jeez, it’s really raining today!

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] PCIe x1 or PCIe x4 SATA controller card Frank Steinmetzger <Warp_7@×××.de>
Re: [gentoo-user]Computer build, was PCIe x1 or PCIe x4 SATA controller card Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com>