LinuxQuestions.org
Visit the LQ Articles and Editorials section
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Hardware
User Name
Password
Linux - Hardware This forum is for Hardware issues.
Having trouble installing a piece of hardware? Want to know if that peripheral is compatible with Linux?

Notices

View Poll Results: Which processor should I choose?
Pentium 4 3 7.89%
Pentium D 2 5.26%
An AMD 31 81.58%
Other 4 10.53%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 07-31-2006, 09:19 AM   #16
Gustavo Narea
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: Venezuela
Distribution: openSUSE 10.1
Posts: 7

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0

Hi, SD-user.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SD-user
Built my own system w/ an AMD x64 Athlon w/ FC5 x64. Two words: awesome performance. Far better than any Intel box rated at 1.8-2.0 GHz faster.
Which distro and desktop environment are you using?
 
Old 07-31-2006, 09:38 AM   #17
Gustavo Narea
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: Venezuela
Distribution: openSUSE 10.1
Posts: 7

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Hi all, and thanks for your answers.

Just in the mean time, I'm going to expand my RAM only, but as soon as these AMD processors have lower prices, I'll purchase one of them.

However, I don't know much about hardware pieces as I've only worked at software-level, so, could you mind suggesting me an specific combination of AMD-processor/socket? (I'd like to take advantage of this thread in order to ask this question)

TIA, once again.

Cheers!
 
Old 07-31-2006, 10:25 AM   #18
drkdick
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2006
Distribution: Fedora, custom LFS, Ubuntu Studio (RT)
Posts: 37

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustavo Narea
However, I don't know much about hardware pieces as I've only worked at software-level, so, could you mind suggesting me an specific combination of AMD-processor/socket?
Since you will need a new mobo I'd go for socket AM2, this looks better IMO considering upgradability. Also, why not buy an energy efficient processor since the price difference to the "regular" ones is not supposed to be that significant.

For example:
AMD X2 4800+ (2.4Ghz), energy efficient, socket AM2,
but ONLY if prices continue to drop (which I'm afraid they won't since it apparently has been discontinued)

Something that should still be available:
AMD X2 4600+ (2.4Ghz), energy efficient, socket AM2,
but again, only if prices continue to drop.

As a rule of thumb, don't buy unless the whole setup is considerably cheaper than an entry-level conroe where you live or until user reviews start telling of serious flaws in Intel's new arcitechture.
 
Old 07-31-2006, 08:59 PM   #19
SD-user
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 22

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by drkdick
What processor/socket/memory-combination do you have? Is the desktop just more responsive or is it some specific area in which you've noticed speed-ups?


Penguin, here's "Tom's hardware" on the odd multiplier issue:
***.tomshardware.com/2006/05/23/amd_reinvents_itself/page46.html
dkrdick,

AMD 64 socket 939 3000+ GHz for extra horsepower / bandwidth. I believe the processor only runs at maybe 1.8-2.0 Ghz - but it easily out performed a 3.4GHz Intel PIV - I ran some processor / 3D benchmarks last summer while on a Windows trial and the AMD simply out performed (although, I can't remember the scores off the top of my head) - I believe we used AquaMark and another program for testing.

Other specs include: Asus A8N-SLI (nForce 4) w/ 2x 512 Kingston Value Ram - went with Asus recommendation . . . I didn't change the latencies on the memory at all. Antec 430 Watt True power 2.0 power supply, PCIe 16x video, and went with a all with a lan party case - hoo ya!

Ran some demos on Doom last summer - had a few glitches at the highest resolution, but for ~$600, I'll take it. Processor stays cool and the fans adjust speed depending on the heat / processor demand. Good stuff and quiet.

I'm running Fedora Core 5 now and there is absolutely no hesitation. I'm up and running in under a minute. Haven't done any benchmarks in Linux. I'd also say that the 64 bit OS's are much faster too . . . no specific area in particular, just overall performance.

Hope this helps,

SD
 
Old 07-31-2006, 09:00 PM   #20
SD-user
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 22

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustavo Narea
Hi, SD-user.



Which distro and desktop environment are you using?
Gustavo:

Fedora Core 5 & KDE.
 
Old 07-31-2006, 11:15 PM   #21
Gustavo Narea
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: Venezuela
Distribution: openSUSE 10.1
Posts: 7

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Thumbs up Thank you so much! That's it!

Hi.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drkdick
Since you will need a new mobo I'd go for socket AM2, this looks better IMO considering upgradability. Also, why not buy an energy efficient processor since the price difference to the "regular" ones is not supposed to be that significant.

For example:
AMD X2 4800+ (2.4Ghz), energy efficient, socket AM2
As far as I could understand, It sounds good. I also liked what I found on the AMD's website about this processor:

Quote:
Originally Posted by AMD's web site
Do more in less time with true multi-tasking
Increase your performance by up to 80% with the AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core processor. Work or play with multiple programs without any stalling or waiting. Dual-core technology is like having two processors, and two working together is better and faster than one working alone.
And that's exactly what I'm looking for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drkdick
but ONLY if prices continue to drop (which I'm afraid they won't since it apparently has been discontinued)
Yes, maybe I'm better off buying the 5000+ in one go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drkdick
As a rule of thumb, don't buy unless the whole setup is considerably cheaper than an entry-level conroe where you live or until user reviews start telling of serious flaws in Intel's new arcitechture.
Thanks for the advice!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SD-user
Gustavo:

Fedora Core 5 & KDE.
Thanks!

Thank you all for helping me out! Now I have a clue on what I'm going to buy in a few months!

Cheers.
 
Old 08-01-2006, 12:52 AM   #22
Electro
Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,042

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Depending on your present Pentium 4 system. If you are thinking of upgrading your memory, first find out what chipset you have. Earlier Pentium 4 systems come with either RAMBUS or SDRAM memory. RAMBUS memory cost a lot but it has a memory bandwidth up to 3 GB per sec. The systems that comes with SDRAM memory is not DDR, so the memory bandwidth is about 400 MB per sec. These two memory technologies have a huge memory bandwidth difference. Pentium 4 processors are memory bandwidth hungry, so I would upgrade the one that has a larger memory bandwidth.

My motherboard model is Abit TH7II-RAID (Intel chipset 850). I upgraded from 256 MB to 1024 MB of ECC RAMBUS memory. It is well worth the money. I can play Unreal Tournament 2004 with a little to no lag, but still playable in many maps.

I recommend motherboards with passive cooling chipsets. This means with out active heatsinks (fans with heatsinks). The active heatsinks are not reliable and are noisy which is bad for chipsets. The motherboard has no way of monitoring the chipset fan, so do not bother picking motherboards with active heatsinks for chipsets.

I suggest Gentoo because you are able to use new technology when the latest stable kernel supports it.

The processor's MHz is not best for fast performance for general work. I usually pick a slower processor and spend the money on fast hard drives, video cards, memory, power supply. I suggest Western Digital Raptor 74 GB SATA hard drives in RAID-1 (mirroring) because it will access your data faster and they are much faster than their 36 GB and 150 GB models.

BTW, AMD processors does work better in Linux because it gets little to no penalty performance when running 80386 with 32-bit instructions and all the way up to 80686 with 64-bit instructions.
 
Old 08-01-2006, 02:26 AM   #23
eagles-lair
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Distribution: Lindows/Linspire, SuSE, PC-BSD, ubuntu, puppy
Posts: 239

Rep: Reputation: 30
I tend to agree with most of the comments.

I evaluate operating systems out of interest, and use plug-in HDD's in racks in order to get an identical machine state, as near as possible.

I've installed SuSE 9.3 64-bit version and SuSE 9.3 32-bit version on two identical Western Digital WD200 hard disk drives, each in an identical plug-in rack, on an IBM Aptiva with a replaced motherboard, an MSI standard 64-bit one running an AMD processor at 2600+, with 512Mb of fast RAM.

The five ISO's of each version were downloaded and burned from the same mirror (my ISP's actually) and there is quite a remarkable difference in stopwatch timing for power-on to login, login to desktop loaded, and starting typical applications such as Firefox, OpenOffice, etc.

Likewise with shutting down.

This was attempted under both KDE and Gnome, and KDE is nowhere near the sluggard it used to be.

Although there is only the 32-bit version available, I've tried (amongst other distros) PC-BSD v1.1 and 1.2 and actually that is faster than SuSE on the rig I did the stopwatch tests with.

I went back in time and installed and then ran Sun JDS v2 (SuSE 8.2 based) and that was unbelievably swift on the same 64-bit machine.

I think it really depends what you want to use it for.

As an example, I have a quite elderly IBM PC300GL which I use for a file server, which happily runs NASLite on 64Mb RAM. I still occasionally use PCLinuxOS Live CD to do housekeeping tasks on it, so that runs reasonably with the 64Mb needed to be doubled to 128Mb.

I would suggest that if you replace your existing 512Mb RAM with a gig (use the single chip version in preference to just adding a second chip) you will probably find a huge improvement in performance - particularly if you buy wisely, avoiding the cheap RAM suppliers.

Just my thoughts, hope you get what you want out of it.

Richard in Australia

PS, fyi, ...

When PC's shifted to Mr. Gates Windows95, I remember having a discussion with a Microsoft Support engineer about how 32-bit apps would fare on the 16-bit DOS which was retained.

I was running AutoCAD at the command prompt - which was a 32-bit application which accessed the 16-bit OS through a nifty thing called a "DOS Extender", named after the racehorse "Pharlap".

We talked about whether or not DOS AutoCAD would run slower or faster when on a psuedo-32bit OS.

Slower was my bet, and he agreed with me, because of the finite time it takes to address a bus - which already thought it was 32-bit because of "Pharlap".

It was marginally slower using the stopwatch tests I since used for checking operating systems. So I continued to recommend running DOS AutoCAD on *real* DOS

For what it's worth, this sort of convo has gone on for many years

Have fun mate

Last edited by eagles-lair; 08-01-2006 at 02:28 AM.
 
Old 08-01-2006, 02:33 AM   #24
khaleel5000
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: Pakistan
Distribution: Debian,Pclinuxos
Posts: 327

Rep: Reputation: 31
I would add have atleast 1gb of ram in form of 2x512 or if possible 4x256 ,
get a good cooling system for your pc
get a good powersupply
AMD yeah goooooooooooooo for it
--slow while package management ???? On same pc i saw big difference in performance in comparision to suse 9.2 and pCLinux-os try changing distro?
 
Old 08-01-2006, 06:55 AM   #25
ozone
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Posts: 2

Rep: Reputation: 0
Don't waste your money

I'm here on PIII 500Mhz, 352MB RAM, 6GB HDD, Suse 10.1. This is OLD. Yet it's a workable setup. The big problem with Suse 10.1 is YAST package manager/installer, it is slow as a dog. As someone else suggested, try using smart package manager.
 
Old 08-01-2006, 07:26 AM   #26
Mizzou_Engineer
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Missouri
Distribution: Gentoo 2007.0 x86 & amd64
Posts: 25

Rep: Reputation: 15
I had very similar setup to yours: 2.20 GHz Pentium 4-M notebook, later bought a new desktop. Here are my performance experiences with it. I usually ran SuSE with KDE on it. The notebook originally came with a 4200 rpm 60GB hard drive and 2 256MB sticks of DDR 266 RAM.

1. The hard drive died, so I put in a 5400 rpm 100GB model. This was a fairly big performance increase as the system was now much more responsive than before when loading applications.

2. Upgraded the RAM from 512MB to 1GB. This helped a few applications run faster, especially R and Octave when I was crunching large data sets. But for the most part, it didn't make much of a difference as I would suspend-to-disk or shut down pretty frequently- things didn't have time to get cached in RAM.

3. Bought a new desktop late February with a socket 939 AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ at 2.2 GHz. I put 2 1GB DDR 400 modules in it, a 74GB WD Raptor 10,000 rpm HDD as a system drive and an inexpensive but good WD Caviar SE16 250GB HDD for /home. I put SuSE 10.0 64-bit on it and it is far, far faster than the laptop.

4. Switched the desktop and laptop to Gentoo 2006.0 (64 bit for the desktop and 32-bit for the laptop.) Overall performance doesn't seem to differ that much, but certain programs work a lot faster and RAM usage is much lower on the desktop. KDE now starts up with 85MB RAM used on the laptop

So I would recommend that you upgrade your computer as I could easily bog down the old laptop when doing a lot of work with it. Here are my suggestions:

1. CPU: Get an AMD Socket AM2 Athlon 64 X2. If you want to run the computer at stock speeds, I suggest getting a 4600+ Energy Efficient. It's under $300. If you do not mind overclocking, get the 5000+. AM2 processors only have integer multiplier values and that causes the RAM to be run at less than its full DDR2-800 speed when the CPU speed does not divide cleanly by 400, which is the DDR2-800's natural frequency. This hinders performance on the 2.2 (4200+) and 2.6 GHz (5000+) units. But overclocking the 4200+ and 5000+ by roughly 100 or 200 to bump the LDT bus back up to 400 MHz will make the 4200+ and 5000+ will run very well. Core 2s are good, but you cannot buy them currently for anywhere near list and the motherboard selection is slim and also expensive. Pentium Ds are very hot-running and the Athlon X2s are for more powerful and a far better bang for the buck.

2. Motherboard: One with passive chipset cooling is very good. My 939 board, an Abit KN8-SLi, has this and it's nice as chipset fans are noisy and I've seen a few die and kill the chipset when they do so.

3. Hard drives: Faster is better, and I recommend a pair of WD Raptor hard drives (either 74GB or 150GB, depending on how much you want to spend) set up in RAID 1 via Linux md software RAID. RAID 1 is redundant and has load balancing, which will improve performance in reads versus just one disk. md RAID is just as fast or faster than a hardware RAID device when you have 10 or less drives and you hardware RAID controller costs less than $1000. Get a decent but inexpensive 200-320GB 7200 rpm hard drive for /home.

4. RAM: Get two matched DDR2-800 modules with a latency of 4-4-4 or less. I'd suggest 2 1GB modules as 64-bit OSes have just about twice the RAM usage of a 32-bit one. 2x1GB of 4-4-4 DDR2-800 will probably set you back nearly $200, but the performance is very good.

5. OS: If you have a 64-bit chip, run a 64-bit OS. AMD's 64-bit processors get a 5-25% speed boost when running 64-bit code vs. 32-bit code and you can still run 32-bit applications easily in a 64-bit OS.
 
Old 08-02-2006, 10:03 AM   #27
tmbowie16
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton, England, UK
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 17

Rep: Reputation: 0
Exclamation

I am running Ubuntu "Dapper" 6.06 on my main machine, home-built a year and a half ago.
Its an AthlonXP-2800+, 1.25gb ram, Abit NF7-S board (Nforce2), Nvidia Geforce 128mb 6600gt AGP.

I have installed the "k7"-optimised 2.6 kernel, and performance is very quick. Have never had a problem with the graphics card, nvidia's drivers are excellent I run "R4" visulatation software under Wine through my tv and it runs faster than under XP, i'm also running XGL/compiz and it's fast and stable.

I know there are much faster processors out there, but this does the job, and AMDs are usually much cheaper than Pentiums. I have found it to be very stable under linux, just use the k7-optimised kernel to squeeze out every last bit of performance.

Only one gripe: AthlonXP's run hotter than the 64-bit chips, so make sure you apply plenty of paste and a decent copper cooler, and it should be fine.

Tom
 
Old 08-02-2006, 07:17 PM   #28
eagles-lair
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Distribution: Lindows/Linspire, SuSE, PC-BSD, ubuntu, puppy
Posts: 239

Rep: Reputation: 30
Tom,

You might like to consider adding an extra case fan.

Maybe even make some ductwork from the processor to the fan, using cardboard, like Compaq did with the physically tiny Presario boxes.

If you use a duct, make sure the fan is working as "extract" lol


Richard in Australia
 
Old 08-02-2006, 07:44 PM   #29
anubis26
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere in the Central Timezone
Distribution: Suse 10.0
Posts: 128

Rep: Reputation: 15
If I were you, I would wait a few months (3-4) and see how the Intel Core 2 Duo's come out. If they are a flop, then just go with AMD. Your system is fine, so there is no need for urgency, and you'll just end up overpaying if you buy now.
 
Old 08-02-2006, 09:30 PM   #30
Penguin of Wonder
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: West Virginia
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 1,249

Rep: Reputation: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by anubis26
you'll just end up overpaying if you buy now.
I don't think I've ever underpaid.
 
  


Reply

Tags
32bit, amd, pentium, processor, ram, smart, upgrade, yast


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentium vs. AMD newbiesforever General 13 07-22-2006 04:08 PM
Pentium M processor family on kernel config jrdioko Linux - Hardware 4 08-14-2005 10:14 PM
Processor Upgrade (Pentium M) VS. Price: Which has the best price/tech ratio? hanzj Linux - Laptop and Netbook 8 03-22-2005 06:18 PM
Processor Upgrade (Pentium M) VS. Price: Which has the best price/tech ratio? hanzj General 3 03-21-2005 01:10 AM
Redhat 8.0 Incredibly slow with Pentium III Processor andrewgates1979 Linux - Hardware 6 08-17-2004 12:45 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:49 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration