Linux - HardwareThis forum is for Hardware issues.
Having trouble installing a piece of hardware? Want to know if that peripheral is compatible with Linux?
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
View Poll Results: Proc. cores vs. Clock speed. Which would you favor?
8 cores (2 x intel clovertown e5310 1.60Ghz quad-core Xeon)
Just out of curiosity: as a desktop user with no large calculations or compilations to do, what's the point in having more than 2 cores? Or high clockspeed for that matter? I understand faster is better but it doesn't happen that often that I'm waiting on an application which doesn't involve lots of disc activity and I believe faster also means more power & cooling needed, in that I'd gain the most from having lots of fast RAM, I think.
So, what can I use more cores for?
Just out of curiosity: as a desktop user with no large calculations or compilations to do, what's the point in having more than 2 cores? Or high clockspeed for that matter? I understand faster is better but it doesn't happen that often that I'm waiting on an application which doesn't involve lots of disc activity and I believe faster also means more power & cooling needed, in that I'd gain the most from having lots of fast RAM, I think.So, what can I use more cores for?
One core for the O.S. to play with and page (if necessary), and the other for the application you are using.
If you're not doing any major grunt work (games / photo manipulation / video copying), then 2x cores of the slowest you can find would be fine.
Have a look at the new AMD BE series. The BE2300 or BE2350 consume no more than 45W (compared to 69-85) and don't need to spin fans as fast, so they're quieter too.
also generally the more cores you have teh greater the cache on the processor allowoing for faster memory retrieval.. but if you have high speed ram and a high speed memory bus on your bored then there isnt much point other then for bragging rights
I have too little technical background to fully understand the issues around multi-core. With a bit of googling it's easy to find some information but it usually focuses on 2 angles:
- multi-core processing works great for applications that have been designed/programmed with multiple threads/processes (whatever's more appropriate here) in mind,
- the Linux SMP kernel with scheduler performs load balancing, distributing threads/processes over the cores available.
What I'm missing here is how much effect a desktop user will experience by running several apps that haven't been developed specifically for parallel processing ('enough' apps to put an interesting load on the system, whatever that may be). Or a different view: what's the role of the window manager on a multi-core system? Is the WM simply unaware of the amount of CPUs and has it have the kernel sorting things out or do I need a multi-core WM in order to see all cores being used effectively?
A recent entry on the Coding Horror blog has something about clockspeed vs 2 - 4 cores. It's Windows centric and raises more questions than it answers (see comments) but it's on topic here:
Higher counts on cores allow you to do more at once. But there is a catch, packing too many cores on a single die does diminish the entire CPU's efficiency when it comes to getting data from memory. You're effectively dividing your FSB by the number of cores.
But then again, Tillera has a 64 Core chip already out, with plans to roll out a 128 core chip before 2010.