LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Linux - Hardware (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-hardware-18/)
-   -   Best CPU and other hardware for its price in 2012? (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-hardware-18/best-cpu-and-other-hardware-for-its-price-in-2012-a-4175423055/)

Mercury305 08-20-2012 08:52 AM

Best CPU and other hardware for its price in 2012?
 
I was thinking is it better to get an old used Dual Core 2 over the modern day i3s?

I bought an AMD 64 X2 including monitor and Geforce Nvidia for only $80 :)

How much faster is the i3's over the older generation dual cores? Also what type of CPU would you guys recommend for a good Linux Workstation + Multimedia (1080p)?

I noticed that DDR2 Ram costs more then DDR3! :( Which is bad thing to get in an old computer. Having to pay more for something twice as slow!

abrinister 08-20-2012 11:38 AM

i3

Athlon 64 X2

Looking at these pages, I notice the key differences being die size and frequency. The i3 offers a larger frequency (depending on the one you buy) and it offers a 32nm die. The Athlon X2 offers a lower frequency (depending on the one you buy) and offers a (minimum) of a 65nm die. The larger the die size, the more power the processor consumes.

Die info

Also, speed info

Alex Brinister

Mercury305 08-20-2012 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abrinister (Post 4759319)
i3

Athlon 64 X2

Looking at these pages, I notice the key differences being die size and frequency. The i3 offers a larger frequency (depending on the one you buy) and it offers a 32nm die. The Athlon X2 offers a lower frequency (depending on the one you buy) and offers a (minimum) of a 65nm die. The larger the die size, the more power the processor consumes.

Die info

Also, speed info

Alex Brinister

There has to be more then just die size. But if that were true I would never buy i3 again since i use a desktop. I have noticed Multitasking improvements with i3 as well.

abrinister 08-20-2012 11:56 AM

There is also the caches. The i3 comes with a 3MB L3 cache (some with 4), while the smallest and most updated Athlons come with 2MB L3 cache.

Specs on i3 models.

Alex Brinister

salasi 08-20-2012 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abrinister (Post 4759319)

Looking at these pages, I notice the key differences being die size and frequency. The i3 offers a larger frequency (depending on the one you buy) and it offers a 32nm die. The Athlon X2 offers a lower frequency (depending on the one you buy) and offers a (minimum) of a 65nm die. The larger the die size, the more power the processor consumes.

If you had read the references that you quoted, you would have realised that the units were different. There is a reason for this; they aren't the same thing. 32 nm (or 65 nm, for that matter) are not the size of the die, they are the size (linear dimension, not area) of an individual transistor. It is not even a reliable indication of the size of a transistor, because of the difference between drawn feature size and effective channel length, which means that you cannot necessarily compare the 32 nm from one supplier with the dimension quoted by another.

It also isn't true that the larger the die size, the more power the processor consumes - if you turn down the clock speed, which generally you can do, the power goes down, but the die size stays the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by abrinister (Post 4759319)
I notice the key differences being die size and frequency.

You've decided that architecture and number of cores, or number of threads aren't significant; some of the time that won't be true. In particular the arch can be very significant.

@Mercury305
Quote:

There has to be more then just die size. But if that were true I would never buy i3 again since i use a desktop. I have noticed Multitasking improvements with i3 as well.
I don't follow your logic with Desktop = No i3 (whether the die size is the factor, which it isn't, or not), but regardless of that, with the same number of cores and the same clock speed an i3 will be faster than an Athlon X2. For most people, most of the time, a more useful measure is how much performance you can get for how much cash. If you already have a mobo that you are happy to keep, then the most economical total system cost is probably to restrict yourself to whatever is compatible with that existing mobo (unless there is nothing suitable). But, in that case, the Intel versus AMD comparison is irrelevant, because the mobo won't be compatible with both.

If buying a new mobo is possibly a good solution, you could buy anything, and in that case an Athlon X2 probably wouldn't be anyone's first choice (either the last of the Phenoms, probably with a higher core count, or a Bulldozer; for some people the FM1 series with integrated graphics might also be an option, but that seems like a dead end right now with the Trinity/Piledriver/FM2 parts coming along in a couple months, and, presumably, when that happens, the FM1 series will see no further development).

That said, I'd probably be taking my money to Intel, in spite of the higher costs (on average) of mobos, these days Intel's low end parts do a cracking job, and it is difficult to argue for AMD, unless you have some kind of principled objection to giving Intel any money. AMD does need some successful new parts, and soon.

abrinister 08-20-2012 06:42 PM

Quote:

If you had read the references that you quoted, you would have realised that the units were different. There is a reason for this; they aren't the same thing. 32 nm (or 65 nm, for that matter) are not the size of the die, they are the size (linear dimension, not area) of an individual transistor. It is not even a reliable indication of the size of a transistor, because of the difference between drawn feature size and effective channel length, which means that you cannot necessarily compare the 32 nm from one supplier with the dimension quoted by another.

It also isn't true that the larger the die size, the more power the processor consumes - if you turn down the clock speed, which generally you can do, the power goes down, but the die size stays the same.
My ignorance does tend to cloud my ability to answer knowledgeably. Thank you for correcting me.

Quote:

You've decided that architecture and number of cores, or number of threads aren't significant; some of the time that won't be true. In particular the arch can be very significant.
That is a good point. I did ignore thread count (which is 4 on the i3) and number of cores and the architecture. However, I do not think that mentioning the architecture or the number of cores makes a difference in this case because both processors are 64-bit and both are dual-core.

Alex Brinister

Mercury305 08-20-2012 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salasi (Post 4759611)
If you had read the references that you quoted, you would have realised that the units were different. There is a reason for this; they aren't the same thing. 32 nm (or 65 nm, for that matter) are not the size of the die, they are the size (linear dimension, not area) of an individual transistor. It is not even a reliable indication of the size of a transistor, because of the difference between drawn feature size and effective channel length, which means that you cannot necessarily compare the 32 nm from one supplier with the dimension quoted by another.

It also isn't true that the larger the die size, the more power the processor consumes - if you turn down the clock speed, which generally you can do, the power goes down, but the die size stays the same.



You've decided that architecture and number of cores, or number of threads aren't significant; some of the time that won't be true. In particular the arch can be very significant.

@Mercury305


I don't follow your logic with Desktop = No i3 (whether the die size is the factor, which it isn't, or not), but regardless of that, with the same number of cores and the same clock speed an i3 will be faster than an Athlon X2. For most people, most of the time, a more useful measure is how much performance you can get for how much cash. If you already have a mobo that you are happy to keep, then the most economical total system cost is probably to restrict yourself to whatever is compatible with that existing mobo (unless there is nothing suitable). But, in that case, the Intel versus AMD comparison is irrelevant, because the mobo won't be compatible with both.

If buying a new mobo is possibly a good solution, you could buy anything, and in that case an Athlon X2 probably wouldn't be anyone's first choice (either the last of the Phenoms, probably with a higher core count, or a Bulldozer; for some people the FM1 series with integrated graphics might also be an option, but that seems like a dead end right now with the Trinity/Piledriver/FM2 parts coming along in a couple months, and, presumably, when that happens, the FM1 series will see no further development).

That said, I'd probably be taking my money to Intel, in spite of the higher costs (on average) of mobos, these days Intel's low end parts do a cracking job, and it is difficult to argue for AMD, unless you have some kind of principled objection to giving Intel any money. AMD does need some successful new parts, and soon.

The purpose of my post is to get a bang for my buck. In otherwords get the most for the least. Like I said I got the AMD 64X2 including monitor for only $80 and another one for only $100. I think I got a good bang. Nvidia geforce included.
As for the desktop statement because I don't worry about power consumption as much as I would on a laptop.

Mercury305 08-20-2012 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abrinister (Post 4759620)
My ignorance does tend to cloud my ability to answer knowledgeably. Thank you for correcting me.



That is a good point. I did ignore thread count (which is 4 on the i3) and number of cores and the architecture. However, I do not think that mentioning the architecture or the number of cores makes a difference in this case because both processors are 64-bit and both are dual-core.

Alex Brinister

...and that Thread count is what makes "MultiProcessing" better. Now its making more sense.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:58 PM.