1 |
Mark Knecht wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> |
4 |
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 7:35 AM Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com |
5 |
> <mailto:rdalek1967@×××××.com>> wrote: |
6 |
> <SNIP> |
7 |
> > Another question. My rig is getting a bit aged. I have a AMD FX-8350 8 |
8 |
> > core CPU running at 4GHz. I also have 32GBs of memory. I've read that |
9 |
> > Intel currently has the best bang for buck on CPUs nowadays. I'm open |
10 |
> > to the idea of switching. As far as speed goes, if I built a new rig |
11 |
> > that is using a reasonably cost CPU and memory, would I see any real |
12 |
> > improvements? |
13 |
> |
14 |
> I think it all depends on what you're going to use the machine for and |
15 |
> whether you really use all your CPU for extended periods of time. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> For all the hours my machines run they are mostly idle, in the sense |
18 |
> that even if I'm keeping the machine busy watching a movie, doing |
19 |
> backups, browsing the web, even on my older machines none of those |
20 |
> use more than 10-15% of my older machines. The only two things I do |
21 |
> which drove the purchase of my new machine were: |
22 |
> |
23 |
> 1) Studio level audio recording using Mixbus32C (the for-pay version |
24 |
> of the Open Source project called Ardour) |
25 |
> |
26 |
> 2) Astrophotography photo processing using the for-pay program |
27 |
> called PixInsight. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> Mixbus32C issues are more based around real-time performance |
30 |
> and use of both the Linux and Windows versions, and being able |
31 |
> to transfer projects back and forth between both platforms. I've |
32 |
> never heard you talk about using Windows, nor doing anything |
33 |
> that takes real-time capabilities so that probably doesn't apply. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> PixInsight is the processor hog. It can use all my 32GB memory |
36 |
> (and more) and it can run for hours using 100% of my CPU so |
37 |
> it's the one that drove my eventual purchase of a Ryzen 9 5950X. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> PixInsight has a benchmark program built in and all the results |
40 |
> are open to look at: |
41 |
> |
42 |
> https://pixinsight.com/benchmark/index.php?sort=cpu&os=all |
43 |
> |
44 |
> Interestingly I didn't find your processor even on the list and |
45 |
> the top says it covers about 3000 CPU models. You might |
46 |
> take a look at this when you boil your processor choices down |
47 |
> to 2 or 3. |
48 |
> |
49 |
> Note that for the specific processor type you can open up the |
50 |
> group and look at individual machines. Most/many include what |
51 |
> motherboard they were running so that can assist you making |
52 |
> choices also. |
53 |
> |
54 |
> Hope this helps, |
55 |
> Mark |
56 |
|
57 |
|
58 |
One of my concerns isn't just speed, it's the age of things like caps |
59 |
and such on the mobo. This mobo is around a decade old. While it is |
60 |
supposed to be a top of the line board, it's still got caps which tend |
61 |
to be a weak spot. I seem to recall looking when I bought this mobo |
62 |
that it does have Japanese caps which are the best. Thing is, even they |
63 |
go bad sometimes. While this machine is old, it is still pretty fast. |
64 |
I really wish I knew the life expectancy of a Gigabyte mobo like this. |
65 |
It claims to be 'ultra durable' and given it is in a Cooler Master |
66 |
HAF-932 case with those large fans, it does run pretty cool, heat tends |
67 |
to age caps and make the stink get out. |
68 |
|
69 |
The other reason, I'm just curious if I build a new rig if I should be |
70 |
looking to really upgrade by a lot or just get parts that are newer and |
71 |
less likely to fail due to age. When I went from previous rig which was |
72 |
single core to current rig which originally had a 4 core CPU, it was |
73 |
about 6 to 7 times faster. When I upgraded to a 8 core, it speed up |
74 |
some more. It was a noticeable improvement both times over original |
75 |
single core rig. Thing is, it seems CPU frequencies have pretty much |
76 |
maxed out. I think pushing above 4.5GHz or so is difficult to do. |
77 |
Dang, that is fast. Over twice the frequency of a microwave oven for |
78 |
goodness sake. They seem to be making them more efficient, adding |
79 |
cores/threads and such as that. We had a long thread several years back |
80 |
talking about reaching the max on frequency of CPUs and such. It's |
81 |
almost like we need a whole new technology now to make things faster as |
82 |
far as the CPU frequencies go. |
83 |
|
84 |
In the past, I used a list on Tom's Hardware to pick CPUs. I usually |
85 |
started about 4 or 5 CPUs down the list, from fastest to slowest, and |
86 |
started checking prices. Sometimes a CPU that costs $500 can only be |
87 |
just a fraction faster than a $200 CPU. Given that my rig, as you point |
88 |
out, sits here and waits on me to do something most of the time, that's |
89 |
a lot of money for something I won't see much time savings on. I might |
90 |
add tho, I do sometimes convert videos from 1080p to 720p. That makes |
91 |
the CPU max out pretty good. Compiling Libreoffice, Firefox etc also |
92 |
maxes out the CPU but those are what, once a month or so??? |
93 |
|
94 |
I was also wondering what a mobo/CPU/memory combo would cost nowadays. |
95 |
Maybe someone who recently built a decent rig recalls how much they paid |
96 |
for those three. I don't go cheap on power supply but I don't require a |
97 |
lot for a video card or anything. Some spend half their money on a |
98 |
video card alone but I just don't need anything that fancy. I got a |
99 |
Nvidia GeForce GTX 650 that drives both my monitor and my TVs through a |
100 |
splitter and it does just fine. Heck, the video card fan is pretty much |
101 |
at idle and the temps cool most all the time so I can't be pushing it to |
102 |
hard. Usually, mobo and CPU is the main part of my cost. Power supply |
103 |
right behind that. |
104 |
|
105 |
This is some good info tho. Maybe someone who built a rig recently can |
106 |
chime in on costs, US dollar would be nice. ;-) |
107 |
|
108 |
Thanks. |
109 |
|
110 |
Dale |
111 |
|
112 |
:-) :-) |