Re: [gentoo-user] which machine to buy for perfect gentoo machine?!

[Michael Mol]

On 04/13/2013 01:50 PM, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 07:03:26AM +0200, Tamer Higazi wrote:
>> Hi people!
>> My old core2duo machine says slowly goodbye and I am at this lever after
>> 7 years for buying myself a new developer machine, that should serve me
>> well for a long time again. With intel I never had problems, all their
>> systems were REALLY stable, and they were really worth their money up to
>> the last cent.
>
> Same situation here -- Core2 Duo T7200 (2 GHz max, but throttled due to
> worn-down heatpipe). I'll be buying a new system, too, soon.
>
> As to the other issues of the thread:
> all intel Cores have VT-x (including Core2, by the way), which is basic
> virtualisation support. What only a select few have is VT-d, which is I/O
> virtualisation. As for the confusion about model range and hyperthreading,
> Wikipedia has a very nice comparison chart of all available models:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Bridge_(microarchitecture)#Desktop_processors
>
> Basically:
>   i3 = dual-core with HT (2 physical/4 logical cores), no turbo mode
>   i5 = quad-core without HT (4/4, except one low-TDP model, which is 2/4)
>   i7 = quad-core with HT (4/8)
>
> I don't know the technical details very well, but because my Netbook has a
> single-core CPU with HT, I read up on it a bit. As I understand it, HT allows
> two threads to use the same core simultaneously, if they don't use the same
> instruction circuitry. Hence a hyper-threaded single-core is not as fast as
> a proper dual-core, because sometimes one thread still has to wait.
>
>> There are 3 choices:
>>
>> Intel Xeon E5-2650
>> Core i7 3979 extreme edition
>> AMD FX.8350 CPU
>
> Everything Intel with Extreme in the name is, in my opinion, overpriced for
> its bang. If you really need as much bang as possible and afford it (like when
> you earn your money with that bang), then why not.
> But if you say your Core2 served you well, then you could go a more pragmatic
> approach of "3 times more power than before is enough for me" and save a few
> 100 bucks, or maybe invest in a bigger SSD instead.
>
>
> I'm currently holding out on my Core2 though, because Haswell is on the
> doorstep, and I first wanna see what the market has to offer. The CPU part
> might not gain much in performance, but the graphics part got a big boost and
> all models support VT-d now (according to cpu-world.com). Plus theoretically
> I'm a bit more future-proof due to the new socket (which is probably the most
> annoying thing about the Intel world, compared to AMD).
>

Be very careful. This laptop's processor does not have VT-x...and that
bit me.

$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor       : 0
vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
cpu family      : 6
model           : 42
model name      : Intel(R) Pentium(R) CPU B940 @ 2.00GHz
stepping        : 7
microcode       : 0x14
cpu MHz         : 800.000
cache size      : 2048 KB
physical id     : 0
siblings        : 2
core id         : 0
cpu cores       : 2
apicid          : 0
initial apicid  : 0
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 13
wp              : yes
flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge
mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe
syscall nx rdtscp lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good nopl
xtopology nonstop_tsc aperfmperf eagerfpu pni pclmulqdq dtes64 monitor
ds_cpl est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm pcid sse4_1 sse4_2 x2apic popcnt
tsc_deadline_timer xsave lahf_lm arat epb xsaveopt pln pts dtherm
bogomips        : 3990.81
clflush size    : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes   : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:

processor       : 1
vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
cpu family      : 6
model           : 42
model name      : Intel(R) Pentium(R) CPU B940 @ 2.00GHz
stepping        : 7
microcode       : 0x14
cpu MHz         : 800.000
cache size      : 2048 KB
physical id     : 0
siblings        : 2
core id         : 1
cpu cores       : 2
apicid          : 2
initial apicid  : 2
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 13
wp              : yes
flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge
mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe
syscall nx rdtscp lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good nopl
xtopology nonstop_tsc aperfmperf eagerfpu pni pclmulqdq dtes64 monitor
ds_cpl est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm pcid sse4_1 sse4_2 x2apic popcnt
tsc_deadline_timer xsave lahf_lm arat epb xsaveopt pln pts dtherm
bogomips        : 3990.81
clflush size    : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes   : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:


Anyway (copying from what I just sent in response to Pandu)...

Personally, I've enjoyed both Intel and AMD processors. Last I assembled
a system, Intel's midrange offered more bang for the buck than AMD, but
Intel's midrange part was also much more expensive. OTOH, AMD systems
could be upgraded for piece by piece for much, much, much longer,
whereas Intel systems tended to require replacing many more parts at the
same time.

That was about five years ago, though...I don't know exactly where
things sit today. I'd start with the cpubenchmarking.net CPU value
listing, and find the best-value part that has the performance degree
I'm looking for.

http://cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html

I might also cross-reference that page with this one:

http://cpubenchmark.net/mid_range_cpus.html

If buying an Intel part, I'd be very, very careful to make sure that it
supported all the features I want. I've been bit by that on this
laptop...I had no idea it wouldn't have VT-x.