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