LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Latest LQ Deals
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


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 07-16-2008, 03:30 AM   #16
H_TeXMeX_H
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292

How much you gonna pay for that processor ? Have you checked the prices ? I couldn't afford it, and it may not even be worth it at that price, it's gonna be around $1000 just for the processor (depends on which one).

And what you gonna be running on it to be worthy of such a beastly processor ? I mean I have a cheaper Q9300, got it for around $400, but you can get it for even $300 some places. I can play games like etqw, guild wars, and others at maximum resolution and maximum quality and it's not even using half of the power of a single core, usually around 30% at max.

Last edited by H_TeXMeX_H; 07-16-2008 at 03:38 AM.
 
Old 07-16-2008, 06:16 AM   #17
Electro
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,042

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by mahdif View Post
Ok
Thanks everyone
I made up my mind to buy an Asus P5E3 Premium mobo and an Intel® Core™2 Extreme Processor. An nVidia graphics card with 512 MB of RAM. Any ideas?
I recommend do not get that motherboard with built-in WiFi or else you are asking for a lot of setup problems. Also JMicron controllers do not work well in Linux even though JMicron stated they support Linux. Third the Marvell NIC will give you some problems. IMHO, ASUS is POS for the price and they are very dependent on Windows even though they are creating their own Linux BIOS.

Games in Linux are different than in Windows. OpenGL heavily loads a video card, so a mid-end model will not work well. I suggest a GeForce8 8800 Ultra or a GTX 280.

Some people here seem to be a little novice how Linux works with multiple processors. Linux tries to balance all processors. More processors you give to Linux, the better it works. The reason for this is it is a multi-tasking and virtual memory environment.

I prefer AMD processors because all the problems I am having with notebook computer that has a T7300 processor. From what I read, AMD processors latest processors does not have any problems.

The following motherboard could be used for an AMD system with a Black Edition AMD processor to ease over clocking.

GIGABYTE GA-M750SLI-DS4

With all computers buy a very good power supply. Seasonic makes the best power supplies. If you know that your computer complete setup will idle consuming 300 watts or more go with SilverStone. Though SilverStone does not have good efficiency and does not have low audible noise.

I suggest buy a Western Digital Raptor series of hard drives. They are fast, but they are loud. They need something to minimize the vibrations that they make. If you are going for the VelociRaptor, spend money on a hardware RAID controller like from 3ware or Areca.

A custom XFS file system format should be used for the highest performance.
 
Old 07-18-2008, 12:03 AM   #18
mahdif
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2006
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 75

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Oh, you're right my friend! I didn't check the price! I just want a powerful and fast CPU, so I'm not gonna pay $1000 for a processor! What specification should I consider when buying a CPU? Which bus speed, cache size and clock speed is suitable for the needs i mentioned? Of course I want a powerful PC which assures my I won't need to upgrade for a few years. And how can I find AMD equivalents for the intels you introduce?

I've done a lot of googling, but there are too many models and brands. I narrowed down my search to asus boards, but I don't know how to fiind exactly what i want. Generally I want an asus board with support for Core 2 dou, DDR2 and DDR3, 4 usb slots, firewire, DVI, and support for a new NVIDIA graphics card.

Last edited by mahdif; 07-18-2008 at 01:22 AM.
 
Old 07-18-2008, 06:45 AM   #19
H_TeXMeX_H
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292
So this was the board you wanted:
http://usa.asus.com/products.aspx?mo...11&l3=640&l4=0

You'll have to use DDR3 RAM. You can have a processor with any of there FSB speeds: 1600/1333/1066/800, RAM with any of these speeds: 2000*/1800*/1600/1333/1066/800 (*=Overclocked).

Typically the new Core 2 Intel processors beat anything AMD has to offer at that price, it used to be the other way around.
Check here for the processors:
http://www.intel.com/products/proces...mber/index.htm

Things to look at are pretty much what is listed there, Clock speed, FSB speed, Cache size. Note that there are two main types of processor architecture for newer processors: 65 nm, 45 nm. 45 nm is used on all the newest processors, it is in general said to be more efficient and better than the older 65 nm architecture, so if you can, you should get a 45 nm one. The more L2 cache the better and the more expensive. Note that this cache is not usually available to all cores at all times. For example with my Q9300 if I do 'cat /proc/cpuinfo' I get:
Code:
cache size	: 3072 KB
for each of 4 cores, in reality as it state on the intel page, this processor has 6MB cache with 3MB per core pair, this means the cores are paired 2 cores access 3MB and other 2 access the other 3MB cache. Not that it matters to much, but just so you are not deceived. For my processor here I think 6MB may be a too little cache, I would have liked a Q9450 or Q9550 both with 12 MB cache, but they were not available in my area, and they tend to be more expensive.

Obviously higher clock rate and FSB are better, I'd get at least 1066 FSB. I'd say FSB speed and cache size are more important that clock rate.
FSB > cache > clock rate
I usually like to imagine it as some type of production line / factory. The processor produces goods at the clock rate, these goods are sent through the FSB, then through the memory bus to the RAM. However this pathway is slower than it should be so some stuff is put in the L2 cache which speeds things up considerably. So if you equilibrate all these values, theoretically everything will go like clockwork. Check out this diagram of typical relationships, one like this is also in many (intel) motherboard manuals: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rd_diagram.png
In reality there are bottlenecks, typically at the FSB, this causes a need for lots of L2 cache. So I say these two FSB, and L2 cache are more important than clock rate. Typically if your FSB is slow, you want at least a bit more L2 cache to make up for it, but L2 cache significantly increases the cost of the processor, so it's best to have a very fast FSB and a need for less cache. You would also want a fast memory bus, but you may have a hard time finding RAM with speeds such as 1600/1333 as are advertised by this board, but it's possible. Make sure to use dual-channel non-ecc RAM if you want maximum throughput, and I'd recommend a good brand like Corsair, OCZ, GeIL.

Of course things are much more complicated that this, because these values depend on one another and on other things, surely someone who knows more than I can explain them.

Also note that quad core is not necessarily better than dual core, in fact some dual core processors have better performance than quad core ones. I still prefer quad core tho.

EDIT: Oh, and if you wanted to buy an AMD, make sure to read about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper_transport
AMD doesn't use a FSB, instead it uses HT (hyper transport NOT hyperthreading), it's better than a FSB, but if their processors are not as good ...

Last edited by H_TeXMeX_H; 07-18-2008 at 06:56 AM.
 
Old 07-18-2008, 08:20 AM   #20
johnsfine
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Dec 2007
Distribution: Centos
Posts: 5,286

Rep: Reputation: 1194Reputation: 1194Reputation: 1194Reputation: 1194Reputation: 1194Reputation: 1194Reputation: 1194Reputation: 1194Reputation: 1194
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
Also note that quad core is not necessarily better than dual core, in fact some dual core processors have better performance than quad core ones. I still prefer quad core tho.
The important thing is to have some understanding of what sort of applications you will be running. Home users almost never run anything that will get any benefit from having more than two cores. So with the same L2 cache per core and the same clock rate, a quad core would run no better nor worse than a dual core. However, to get the same L2 per core and the same clock rate as a reasonably priced dual core, an Intel quad core becomes absurdly expensive. With AMD, a quad core matching the L2 and clock of reasonably priced dual core simply doesn't exist. AMD's best quad core doesn't approach the performance per core of their top dual core and that top dual core is very inexpensive.

Quote:
EDIT: Oh, and if you wanted to buy an AMD, make sure to read about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper_transport
AMD doesn't use a FSB, instead it uses HT (hyper transport NOT hyperthreading), it's better than a FSB, but if their processors are not as good ...
The important point there is that the connection between CPU and memory for Intel goes through the same FSB as almost all other forms of data transfer on the motherboard. It is general and slow and congested. In the AMD design, the HT is not used for that most important form of data transfer (CPU to ram). That uses a private bus designed just for that purpose.

So with equal speed ram and equal size L2 cache, an AMD system will have much faster ram access. To get equivalent memory performance with the same speed ram, an Intel system needs a slightly larger L2 cache than a comparable AMD system.

But the Intel CPUs are available with much larger L2 cache's (than the largest AMD offers). Part of the extra L2 cache is needed just to bring the Intel CPU to equal. The rest can bring it significantly ahead.

So at the top of the line (cost ignored), Intel seems to have a big lead on AMD at the moment. If you don't ignore cost, I think AMD's 3.2Ghz dual core is a better deal than anything Intel has in that performance range.

Last edited by johnsfine; 07-18-2008 at 08:22 AM.
 
Old 07-18-2008, 08:28 AM   #21
mahdif
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2006
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 75

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
So I think DDR3 support is a must, isn't it? Unfortunately a lot of cheaper ASUS boards don't seem to support it.
 
Old 07-18-2008, 11:45 AM   #22
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Summer Midwest USA, Central Illinois, Winter Central Florida
Distribution: Slackware®
Posts: 13,610
Blog Entries: 34

Rep: Reputation: 2793Reputation: 2793Reputation: 2793Reputation: 2793Reputation: 2793Reputation: 2793Reputation: 2793Reputation: 2793Reputation: 2793Reputation: 2793Reputation: 2793
Hi,
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsfine View Post
<snip>
So at the top of the line (cost ignored), Intel seems to have a big lead on AMD at the moment. If you don't ignore cost, I think AMD's 3.2Ghz dual core is a better deal than anything Intel has in that performance range.
Agree! Most SOHO users don't need the computational abilities of multicore processors. Sure the gamer may want or need the computational but most of the load does fall on the GPU along with the CPU.

If you are going to be doing some high end Computational Fluid Dynamics, rendering 3D or other high end computational then sure max the $$ to get the correct CPU along with the Motherboard, memory and subsystems.

I'm happy with my Intel and AMD based systems. Each has it's gains.
 
Old 07-18-2008, 12:23 PM   #23
H_TeXMeX_H
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292
Quote:
Originally Posted by mahdif View Post
So I think DDR3 support is a must, isn't it? Unfortunately a lot of cheaper ASUS boards don't seem to support it.
Well, DDR3 supports faster bus speeds at greater stability, it uses less power, so yeah it would great if you could get a board that supports it. Indeed most cheaper, older boards don't support it.
 
Old 07-18-2008, 12:27 PM   #24
amani
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: Kolkata, India
Distribution: Debian 64-bit GNU/Linux, Kubuntu64, Fedora QA, Slackware,
Posts: 2,766

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
For the graphic card part, ATI cards will be much better. You get better open source drivers for them (I have used both ati and nvidia cards).
 
Old 07-18-2008, 12:31 PM   #25
amani
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: Kolkata, India
Distribution: Debian 64-bit GNU/Linux, Kubuntu64, Fedora QA, Slackware,
Posts: 2,766

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
Well, DDR3 supports faster bus speeds at greater stability, it uses less power, so yeah it would great if you could get a board that supports it. Indeed most cheaper, older boards don't support it.
Most benchmarks suggest that it amounts to nothing much...apart from marketing
 
Old 07-18-2008, 03:11 PM   #26
H_TeXMeX_H
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292
Quote:
Originally Posted by amani View Post
Most benchmarks suggest that it amounts to nothing much...apart from marketing
Oh yeah ? Find me a DDR2 RAM stick at 1600 MHz.
 
Old 07-18-2008, 08:45 PM   #27
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Summer Midwest USA, Central Illinois, Winter Central Florida
Distribution: Slackware®
Posts: 13,610
Blog Entries: 34

Rep: Reputation: 2793Reputation: 2793Reputation: 2793Reputation: 2793Reputation: 2793Reputation: 2793Reputation: 2793Reputation: 2793Reputation: 2793Reputation: 2793Reputation: 2793
Hi,
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
Oh yeah ? Find me a DDR2 RAM stick at 1600 MHz.
I take some of those.
 
Old 07-18-2008, 09:52 PM   #28
Electro
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,042

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsfine View Post
The important thing is to have some understanding of what sort of applications you will be running. Home users almost never run anything that will get any benefit from having more than two cores. So with the same L2 cache per core and the same clock rate, a quad core would run no better nor worse than a dual core. However, to get the same L2 per core and the same clock rate as a reasonably priced dual core, an Intel quad core becomes absurdly expensive. With AMD, a quad core matching the L2 and clock of reasonably priced dual core simply doesn't exist. AMD's best quad core doesn't approach the performance per core of their top dual core and that top dual core is very inexpensive.
This is Linux we are talking about. In Windows your assumptions will be true since its process scheduler is not good as Linux balancing the processors. Linux does better balancing single threads to each processor. Windows is depended on the running program if it is capable of handling two or more threads at once. Multiple processors such as a quad core is better to use in Linux than a dual core. Games in Linux are multi-threaded thanks to SDL. Two cores could be handling graphics and sound while the other two is handling the game and kernel I/O. If you want performance go with as many processors as your bank account allows it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsfine View Post
The important point there is that the connection between CPU and memory for Intel goes through the same FSB as almost all other forms of data transfer on the motherboard. It is general and slow and congested. In the AMD design, the HT is not used for that most important form of data transfer (CPU to ram). That uses a private bus designed just for that purpose.

So with equal speed ram and equal size L2 cache, an AMD system will have much faster ram access. To get equivalent memory performance with the same speed ram, an Intel system needs a slightly larger L2 cache than a comparable AMD system.

But the Intel CPUs are available with much larger L2 cache's (than the largest AMD offers). Part of the extra L2 cache is needed just to bring the Intel CPU to equal. The rest can bring it significantly ahead.

So at the top of the line (cost ignored), Intel seems to have a big lead on AMD at the moment. If you don't ignore cost, I think AMD's 3.2Ghz dual core is a better deal than anything Intel has in that performance range.
The amount of cache depends on how the processor is designed. Some processors just needs a little bit of cache while others needs a lot of cache.

AMD K10 core is basically four processors that has their own L1 and L2 cache. The L3 cache is shared. If the tasks are small, the K10 core is actually faster than Intel Core 2 Duo based processors. The K10 core processor is basically designed to be used as server processor. The site anandtech.com explains more why AMD K10 performs this way.

Intel Core 2 Duo based processors shares L2 cache and each processor can have variable size of L2 cache for heavy or lite program tasks. Since there are only two levels of cache, latency is lower compared to AMD K10 processor. Though an AMD Athlon64 X2 is still the best from AMD if you are comparing benchmarks.

If AMD can provide a feature that can turn off L2 cache in their K10 processor, things might change.

Starring at the benchmarks will not tell you what is better. It just creates more confusion. AMD is the way to go for a cost friendly setup while Intel is the way to go if you like to brag about benchmarks. The best way is pick a processor that is at least two times faster than your present computer. If this is not feasible, do not get a new computer.

In order for DDR3 to provide higher performance compared to DDR2, you will need to over clock the memory controller to above 1600 MHz. Sure DDR3 may use less electricity, but it becomes the same at the speed 1600 MHz or greater for a small performance increase.

HyperTransport VS Front Side Bus are just bus interconnects. One is packet based like Ethernet while other is basically a parallel bus. AMD still has the fastest interconnect compared to Intel's QPI.
 
Old 07-23-2008, 05:54 AM   #29
mahdif
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2006
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 75

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Thanx everyone for your help. You linux friends are a great asset to me. I finally got my PC, of course my choices were limited by cost and availability. This is what I bought:

Intel Core 2 Duo E4600
Asus P5B Motherboard
Geforce 8500GT Graphics card
2 GB of RAM - Kingston bus 667
Samsung Syncmaster 22bw wide screen monitor

The system is very fast, the Jmicron SATA controller is working well.
The only problem is that fonts are not rendered as I expect, even after installing proprietary unix driver from nvidia. Even in windows fonts are not as good-looking as my former CRT monitor.
 
Old 07-23-2008, 06:55 PM   #30
farslayer
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: Northeast Ohio
Distribution: linuxdebian
Posts: 7,247
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 191Reputation: 191
For font info here is a relevant post / How-To that covers Slackware.

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...n-12.1-640468/
 
  


Reply


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
Assembler Compatible Not Binary Compatible, Linux btbx Programming 1 09-22-2007 06:17 PM
Buying Linux sickboylives Linux - Distributions 9 06-07-2005 07:59 AM
buying a computer, needs to be linux compatible shrndegruv Linux - Hardware 2 01-14-2005 02:39 PM
Buying Linux wellington Linux - General 8 11-07-2004 02:13 AM
Buying Linux Storage gabaus Linux - Hardware 0 03-24-2004 06:03 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Hardware

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:20 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
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
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration