1 |
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Philip Webb <purslow@××××××××.net> wrote: |
2 |
> Thanks for all the comments so far: HTH other users. |
3 |
> |
4 |
> I am struck by the huge difference in price between Intel/AMD : |
5 |
> at Canada Computers -- a very reliable store in my experience since 2000 -- |
6 |
> Intel's price range is CAD 200 - 240 , |
7 |
> AMD's CAD 130 - 180 with an outlier FX-8150 at CAD 220 . |
8 |
|
9 |
AMD parts have long, long been generally cheaper than Intel parts. If |
10 |
you can afford the Intel part, you either get more beef per dollar, or |
11 |
more beef per watt. (Where 'beef' refers to the CPU's practical |
12 |
computing power, not some meaty substance.) |
13 |
|
14 |
Every now and then, AMD manages to upend Intel here. (Usually, by |
15 |
being able to do either more work per dollar or more work per watt. I |
16 |
don't think they've ever managed to upend Intel on both fronts at the |
17 |
same time, but I could be mistaken.) AMD's Hammer core managed to best |
18 |
Intel by changing the subject of the race to multicore, forcing Intel |
19 |
to ditch NetBurst and develop Core. With Core2, Intel pulled ahead for |
20 |
a while, but AMD caught up. Sandy Bridge reflected Intel pulling _far_ |
21 |
ahead of AMD in work-per-watt (not sure about work per dollar), and |
22 |
Bulldozer is AMD's answer to that; AMD went superscalar on Intel |
23 |
again, which is the same stunt they pulled back in 1999 with the |
24 |
Athlon. (Same stunt, but they pulled it a different way.) I think |
25 |
Athlon was the most recent time AMD pulled ahead in both work-per-watt |
26 |
and work-per-dollar. |
27 |
|
28 |
All of this is based on hazy recollection...I welcome any corrections. |
29 |
|
30 |
> For CAD 240 , I can buy an Intel i5-2550K, 4-core, 6 MB cache, 3,4 GHz ; |
31 |
> for CAD 130 , an AMD FX-4100, 4-core, 8 MB cache, 3,6 GHz ; |
32 |
> both are 32 nm & yes, I hear everyone saying that's irrelevant. |
33 |
> CC seems to have much higher demand for AMDs : |
34 |
> they have c 3 Intels of each type in stock, c 7 AMDs of each type |
35 |
> (they're a busy store, which moves stuff quickly). |
36 |
|
37 |
AMD parts are very popular because they're much cheaper, and because |
38 |
you can very often upgrade systems in a more incremental fashion than |
39 |
you can with Intel parts. |
40 |
|
41 |
> |
42 |
> I've looked at a few reviews, which reveal no special advantage for Intel. |
43 |
> http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/1/ says : |
44 |
> "entry level; half an FX-8150; best price; AMD Power Manager noticed |
45 |
> the CPU was idle & put it in a low power state for power-saving; |
46 |
> able to run <= 3,8 GHz when 1 - 2 threads are being used, |
47 |
> but only <= 3,7 GHz if 3 - 4 threads are being used: |
48 |
> running 1 thread can goto 3,8 GHz ; |
49 |
> fully unlocked, so you can easily overclock it". |
50 |
> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-4100+Quad-Core |
51 |
> shows FX-4100 as best value. AMD says it's made in Germany. |
52 |
> |
53 |
> Do I need > 4 cores ? i5-2550K & FX-4100 both use 95 W |
54 |
> (some of the more costly AMDs use 125 W ). |
55 |
|
56 |
As Nikos noted, the 95W and 125W numbers are theoretical limits; the |
57 |
CPU shouldn't idle anywhere close to those numbers. |
58 |
|
59 |
Also as Nikos noted, you only "need" one core; that (and some hardware |
60 |
support) is all that's fundamentally required for the a preemptive |
61 |
multitasking kernel such as Linux to run properly. That said, having |
62 |
multiple cores has very real benefit; if one process hangs in a |
63 |
busyloop, your other processes won't feel that process's competition |
64 |
quite so badly. |
65 |
|
66 |
Really, once you get beyond two cores, it doesn't matter a whole lot |
67 |
if you have three, four or eight cores; what matters in those contexts |
68 |
is what each of those cores is capable of individually, and what |
69 |
they're capable of in aggregate. How much each of those matters |
70 |
depends on what you're using the computer for. |
71 |
|
72 |
For most use cases, a small number (Say, 3 or 4) of cores running at a |
73 |
very high GHz number will give you better results than a larger number |
74 |
of cores at a lower GHz number. Exceptions exist. One such exception |
75 |
would be parallel compiles. |
76 |
|
77 |
> |
78 |
> I lean towards the FX-4100 : does anyone have further advice ? |
79 |
|
80 |
To my mind, the FX-8120 is the best part on the market right now: |
81 |
|
82 |
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8120+Eight-Core |
83 |
|
84 |
Compare that to the FX-8150: |
85 |
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8150+Eight-Core |
86 |
|
87 |
and the FX-4100: |
88 |
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-4100+Quad-Core |
89 |
|
90 |
Now compare their performance-per-dollar on the larger chart: |
91 |
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html |
92 |
|
93 |
> |
94 |
> Also, some comments implied that Intels have a built-in GPU : |
95 |
> if so, would that save the cost of a graphics card ? |
96 |
> how would it compare to an Nvidia card ? how reliable are the drivers ? |
97 |
|
98 |
Nikos responded adequately on this... |
99 |
|
100 |
-- |
101 |
:wq |