Am Freitag, 2. November 2012 schrieb Stan Hoeppner: > On 11/1/2012 11:42 AM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Am Montag, 29. Oktober 2012 schrieb Stan Hoeppner: > >>> For powerful laptops and power saving desktops I think Intel > >>> Sandybridge/Ivybridge is best bet currently - except for the > >>> political dimension. > >> > >> Sure, but 90% of users don't need "powerful". All the cores sit > >> idle most of the time, and a faster CPU doesn't make Thunderbird or > >> Firefox, IE or Outlook express, go any faster. Nor any of the > >> standard desktop apps. 90% of users would benefit more from a low > >> wattage dual or even single core CPU, with an SSD instead of a rust > >> drive. > >> > >> But it's hard to sell people on the truth after you've been lying to > >> them about the benefits of 4-8 core CPUs for many years... > > > > Yeah, as you pointed out its about peak performance. > > No, it has nothing to do with peak performance. What I said was that, > in a nut shell, a 2.5-3GHz dual core CPU from AMD or Intel is more > powerful than what 99.99% of users need. Yet AMD/Intel are only > selling 4/6/8 core desktop CPUs today. It's a waste of cores and a > waste of money.
Hmmm, then I misunderstood you. I do think that a bigger peak performance on *one* core can make a difference. If using a… > > Whether thats noticable? Well, one would have to test it. > > > > I think to see any difference during application load times tough you > > need to have a good SSD alongside. > > CPU performance has little to do with app load times, with most > productivity apps anyway. Load time is dictated by disk latency. If > the application's binary and libraries have been cached then CPU makes > more difference, but it's a small difference. … SSD and lots of RAM… and that this is why… > > But I do believe that the kernel pings > > between 800 MHz and turbo mode not for nothing. > > I have no idea what point you're making here. "ondemand" scheduler tends to do it by give-me-everything-you-got or the- least-you-can-provide. As I experience the Linux kernel is using that turbo mode quite a lot. So something has to benefit from it. How noticable it is? I think it can be noticable with fast SSD and lots of RAM. Thus I do think that it potentially gives the following benefits: 1) faster execution / lower latency on peak loads 2) less power consumption due to longer sleep periods. And thus I say, that I better use a dual core CPU with higher peak performance for typical desktop workloads, than a quad core CPU with lower peak performance. A quad core CPU with as high peak performance might be in order if something compiles software a lot. And thats my case for using Intel CPUs at the moment. Given the additional thing that at least from my perception anything Post-Nehalem from Intel has really good power consumption to computing power ratio. Well already Pentium-M has been quite good, while Pentium 4 was a joke. That Intel i5 Sandybridge CPU on this ThinkPad T520 is really, really fast together with that Intel SSD 320 + 8 GiB of RAM. I had a machine with i7 Quadcore, but probably a bit slower SSD, for a week and subjectively I did not notice a difference. That said, in order to support the smaller company, an AMD CPU is an option as well. I do think the difference won´t be that big. But I think it needs to be one with a good power consumption versus processing power ratio. And I did not follow AMD´s recent development there, in order to really judge whether they have anything competitive in that field meanwhile. Back then when I looked they had not. So my question would be: What AMD CPU do you see as alternative to say: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2520M CPU @ 2.50GHz dual core CPU or say the Ivybridge equivalent in its desktop variant (as its a desktop machine being talked over here in this thread and no laptop). Which one could compete? Ciao, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201211021316.02950.mar...@lichtvoll.de
