| 1 |
On 11/10/2015 08:55 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 10/11/2015 20:37, Stanislav Nikolov wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> On 11/10/2015 08:17 PM, Mick wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> On Tuesday 10 Nov 2015 17:47:08 Stanislav Nikolov wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>> Dear Gentoo users, |
| 7 |
>>>> I'm building a new PC. I have a budget of ~$550-$650. No GPU, no special |
| 8 |
>>>> case (I may use a card box), not even a hdd or ssd. So, as you can see, |
| 9 |
>>>> it's pretty much "get the best CPU and mobo/ram that are compatible with |
| 10 |
>>>> it". The problem is, which is the best one. By "best" I mean to compile |
| 11 |
>>>> shit fast. My laptop with 3rd gen i5 compiles firefox for 40 minutes on |
| 12 |
>>>> average. |
| 13 |
>>>> |
| 14 |
>>>> The most expensive Intel CPU is the skylake i7-6700k. But is it the best? |
| 15 |
>>>> Is there something from AMD that will perform even better? I can't find |
| 16 |
>>>> any benchmarks with AMD/Intel CPUs. And how much does the mobo matter? |
| 17 |
>>>> Will a cheap $30 400W PSU power that thing? |
| 18 |
>>>> |
| 19 |
>>>> Thanks |
| 20 |
>>> I don't (yet) own a i7-6700k, but my 6 year old laptop with (1st generation) |
| 21 |
>>> i7 Q720 @1.60GHz takes slightly less than yours: |
| 22 |
>>> |
| 23 |
>>> Sat Oct 3 14:35:40 2015 >>> www-client/firefox-38.3.0 |
| 24 |
>>> merge time: 36 minutes and 53 seconds. |
| 25 |
>>> |
| 26 |
>>> Fri Nov 6 09:10:06 2015 >>> www-client/firefox-38.4.0 |
| 27 |
>>> merge time: 38 minutes and 8 seconds. |
| 28 |
>>> |
| 29 |
>>> |
| 30 |
>>> In contrast a year old AMD A10-7850K APU is significantly faster: |
| 31 |
>>> |
| 32 |
>>> Sat Oct 3 19:40:48 2015 >>> www-client/firefox-38.3.0 |
| 33 |
>>> merge time: 17 minutes and 42 seconds. |
| 34 |
>>> |
| 35 |
>>> Fri Nov 6 08:41:02 2015 >>> www-client/firefox-38.4.0 |
| 36 |
>>> merge time: 18 minutes and 18 seconds. |
| 37 |
>>> |
| 38 |
>>> |
| 39 |
>>> I would also be interested to see compile times of more modern i7s and FXs, |
| 40 |
>>> but bear in mind that in single core operations Intel is these days |
| 41 |
>>> significantly better than AMD. |
| 42 |
>>> |
| 43 |
>> So, I shouldn't prepare for a 8x times faster compile time... :( |
| 44 |
>> |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> I can't help but think you are approaching this from the wrong perspective. |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> Why exactly are you using compile times as your sole criterion? Are you |
| 50 |
> building a compile farm for Ubuntu? Running continuous integration tests |
| 51 |
> for LibreOffice [on a $600 budget in a cardboard box :-) ]? |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> Or do you want emerge world to get it over with quicker? |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> If the latter, you better rethink your priorities. In computing terms, |
| 56 |
> compilation is a rare event; launching apps is a common event; and |
| 57 |
> writing to the disk happens all the time. Optimize for the common case. |
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
> A CPU never works in isolation, it is always part of a much larger |
| 60 |
> system, like disks, RAM and all possible kinds of I/O. The best CPU on |
| 61 |
> the market plugged into a POS motherboard will perform on emerge world |
| 62 |
> like a piece of shit - it will follow the weakest link. |
| 63 |
> |
| 64 |
> If you want to build a compiling machine, buy the best collection of |
| 65 |
> stuff that works together well and still fits the budget. If you want a |
| 66 |
> machine that you can use and be happy with, ignoree the temptation to |
| 67 |
> must have the biggest baddest fastest CU (you will never get to use all |
| 68 |
> that big bad fast) and invest rather in gobs of RAM and an SSD. Remember |
| 69 |
> that apps are launched many times more than they are compiled. Or put |
| 70 |
> another way, sacrifice compilation times t get something you can use. |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
8GB of RAM are waaay more than I use daily (several firefox tabs, nvim = 2Gb max), I have a pretty fast SSD too. Even buying 8GB RAM and a brand new SSD, I have > $450 left. Can I buy a AMD CPU that will get the job done faster than 6700k and/or cheaper? |
Archives