Am Samstag, 3. November 2012 schrieb Stan Hoeppner: > On 11/2/2012 7:16 AM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > 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. > > "Average"/"normal" users don't compile source code. They use a > browser, maybe an MUA, an office suite, a PDF reader, a media player, > etc. > > Pick an AMD or Intel system with a dual core CPU @ ~2.5GHz and ~3GHz. > The extra ~500MHz will yield little noticeable difference in system > responsiveness, app load times, media playback stutter, etc.
Agreed. I wouldn´t never go for maxed out CPU specs. Not even on dual cores. But if I could have a dualcore with 2,5/3.0GHz I would prefer that over a quad core with 2 GHz for example - on same CPU architecture/design. > Now, pick one of those frequencies or closest available in a quad core, > 6 core, and 8 core. Run the same subjective tests of normal user > desktop applications. The perceived performance will be slightly > higher, but this will be due to the existence of large L3 caches, not > core count, because most productivity apps are still mostly single > threaded, simply because there's not much parallelism to be had in such > work flows. Productivity apps are not CPU bound, and never have been. Well thats the point I am making. See my other posts. Some peak performance by reduce latencies, how noticable that is when current desktop/server x86 CPUs IMHO already do have lots of peak performance on one core. I do think with current desktop workloads any dual core CPU > 2 GHz from Intel or AMD will do. > Now, if a 2.5GHz dual core CPU launches an app in 1 second, and a 3GHz > 8 core CPU launches the app in 0.4 seconds, twice as fast, and both > play media files with the same stutter (caused by packet loss not CPU > horsepower) then what is the practical performance difference here for > the average user? *There is none* My way to remove stuttering and latencies is still: apt-get purge pulseaudio Not even my ThinkPad T23 stutters. Well mostly. BTRFS, quite aged, slow fsync, due to "old" 3.3 kernel, apt-get dist-upgrade and then Amarok may stutter occassionaly. But not so on this T520 and also not on a T42 with Ext4. But then my media files are stored *locally*. > The only real difference is cost and thermal output, with the big core > CPUs losing in both categories. > > My entire point in this sub discussion is that AMD/Intel keep pushing > more speed and more cores, while the vast majority of users need > neither of these things. They both still have relatively low TDP dual > core chips on the market, thankfully, but these aren't the chips we > tend to see in many/most retail machines. I do think that improved peak performance on *one* core can matter. How much it would need to be tested. I think if I put the Intel SSD 320 from this T520 into my old Pentium 3 1,13GHz based T23 (with some SATA to IDE converter) I would face higher latencies on desktop usage - especially on application initialization/startup with typical KDE/GNOME/Iceweasel/Libreoffice kind of big complex applications. I also bet that would still be the case with my Pentium M based ThinkPad T42. So I gladly take some improvement there. But I agree that getting highest spec CPUs is rather pointless. Cause current CPUs are already quite fast. And I do agree on the core count. -- 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/201211081936.54885.mar...@lichtvoll.de
