CPU speed does not matter. what matters most is the I/O speed. As far as I can tell, AMD chip suffered with a lot of I/O. Their Hyper-transport seems not competitive with Intel's ring bus
2012/7/26 Michael Mol <mike...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Евгений Пермяков <permea...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On 07/26/2012 05:50 PM, Michael Mol wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Евгений Пермяков <permea...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 07/26/2012 12:05 AM, Philip Webb wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I've listed what's available at the local store, >>>>> which I trust to stock reliable items, tho' I wouldn't ask their advice. >>>>> >>>>> All the AMD's are 32 nm , while the Intel recommended by one commenter >>>>> -- Core i5-3570 4-Core Socket LGA1155, 3.4 Ghz, 6MB L3 Cache, 22 nm -- >>>>> is 22 nm : it costs CAD 230 & they have 3 in stock, >>>>> which suggests demand, but not the most popular ( 9 in stock). >>>>> >>>>> Isn't 22 nm going to be faster than 32 nm ? >>>>> >>>>> In the same price range, AMD offers Bulldozer X8 FX-8150 (125W) >>>>> 8-Core Socket AM3+, 3.6 GHz, 8Mb Cache, 32 nm ( CAD 220 , 2 in >>>>> stock). >>>>> >>>>> How do you compare cores vs nm ? >>>>> How far is cache size important ( 6 vs 8 MB )? >>>>> >>>>> When I built my current machine 2007, the CPU cost CAD 213 , >>>>> so both look as if they're in the right ballpark. >>>>> >>>> If you're building new, performance-oriented box, you should take latest >>>> intel with AVX because of AVX. As I recall, recent gcc has support for >>>> avx, >>>> so some performance gain may be achieved. >>>> If you want home box, you may be interested in AMD A8 and similar chips, >>>> as >>>> they are reasonably fast and very chip >>> >>> AMD parts have had AVX since the Bulldozer core release in Q3 2011. >> >> Are they already available in reasonable numbers on market? > > http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8120+Eight-Core > > At $150, fitting into existing Socket AM3+ boards, that looks like the > best part for my money right now. > >>>> In any case, I'd put most of my money in 2-4 big 3Tb HDD's for media and >>>> 8+ >>>> Gb fast memory, as modern browsers eat memory like crazies and CPU is >>>> usually fast enough. Decoding HDTV mkv's should occur on gpu block in any >>>> case, so general performance for most uses is irrelevant, as it was fast >>>> enough four yesrs earlier. Simply check, that you can offload HDTV >>>> decoding >>>> to GPU in your config. >>> >>> Here, you're talking about either VDPAU or VAAAPI support. VDPAU is >>> only offered by nVidia cards, and even then you need to run the >>> proprietary driver. VAAPI is supported by Intel graphics and ATI's >>> proprietary driver. >> >> I do not see any problems with this. A blob in system is not best practice, >> of course, but it does not need any configuration and is not a performance >> bottle-neck, so there is no reason to care. > > I only bring it up because some people do care. I'm running fglrx at > home right now. When I run nVdia, I run the nVidia drivers. In part > because I like accelerated video decoding (which a Geforce 210 does > wonderfully), in part because the nv, nouveau and radeon drivers > historically worked very poorly for me in 2D performance when faced > with multiple 1080p displays. They're always getting better, of > course. > >> >> I personally would prefer AMD A8 if I can offload decoding to GPU unit there >> (not sure if I can, so won't change my box till next summer), but discrete >> video card will not be the most costly part in good non-gaming box, hard >> drives will, so again, what the matter? > > Computer usage breaks down into more than gaming and non-gaming. My > "non-gaming" boxes at home tend to have their CPU, RAM or NICs as > their most expensive components, because that's where I need them to > perform better. > > > -- > :wq >
