Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
AMD or Intel
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page 1, 2  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Kernel & Hardware
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
compilator
n00b
n00b


Joined: 22 Feb 2014
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 3:49 pm    Post subject: AMD or Intel Reply with quote

Hi brothers,
I wont to upgrade my PC, currently I have Core 2 Duo, and I'll buy new CPU
My problem is:
which CPU is better for gcc compiling?
Overclocked Intel i5 with 4 corers, or AMD 8 cores like this: http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series%20FX-8350.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Perfect Gentleman
l33t
l33t


Joined: 18 May 2014
Posts: 802

PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

it depends on cpu's socket, but i'm sure you can't use AMD's cpu
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
schorsch_76
Guru
Guru


Joined: 19 Jun 2012
Posts: 450

PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would just buy what you wish. In general it is better for compilation to have more cores and more ram.

More ram would make it possible to compile most stuff in a tmpfs.
More cores would make it possible to compile multiple files in parallel.

My suggestion is 8 core with 16 GiB or 32 GiB of RAM, but each system would be able to handle all of it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nlsa8z6zoz7lyih3ap
Guru
Guru


Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 376
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Overclocked Intel i5 with 4 corers, or AMD 8 cores like this


The following gives some comparison http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/318/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-750.html.

I have an amd fx_8350 but have no experience with the Intel i5 with 4 cores.

For compiling on Gentoo I would still go with the FX-8350, as the portage work env makes excellent use of multithreading.
My relevant entries in /etc/make.conf are:
Code:
MAKEOPTS="-j9  -l16"
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--jobs=8  --load-average=16  --keep-going=y  --with-bdeps=y --complete-graph"


I have 32GB Ram, which allows me to make the following entry in /etc/fstab
Code:
tmpfs                   /var/tmp/portage        tmpfs           size=14000m,mode=1777    0 0


The FX-8350 overclocks well (mine is overclocked to almost 4.7GHZ for "emerge -ev @world" .
However, especially when overclocked, it runs hot so I have liquid cooling.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
krinn
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 7071

PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You should just learn more about a cpu to choose one.

Both cpu models you are seeking have 4 cores.
And both cpu models have 8 logical cores.

AMD is quiet good with commercial shitty technique, this doesn't remove the fact their cpu is good, but avoid mistake users like they do.
It would be another thread to speak about what technique is better to get the 4 more logical cores on both cpu.
But to keep that easy, if you count all cores, they are both 8 cores, and real core they are both 4 cores then.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nlsa8z6zoz7lyih3ap
Guru
Guru


Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 376
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Both cpu models you are seeking have 4 cores.
And both cpu models have 8 logical cores.


I have tested my FX-8350 to see how performance "scales" under increased load.
I ran simultaneous instances of the very same test program.
for running 1 to 4 instances, each instance took the same time to run as if I had only run 1 instance.

For running 8 instances, they slowed down by about 25%. I think that this is because the 8 cores come in 4 "pairs" which share
the "instruction translator." (I don't really know if I have gotten this technically right, but I believe that it is roughly correct,)

I would be very interested in knowing the results of a similar experiment on the intel cpu in question.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
krinn
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 7071

PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

:)
No this is because of another feature (that "ahah surprise", both cpu also shared).

When not using all cores, they have feature that overclock the cores in use (using of course two different tech again).
So when running 1 core application and running that same applications on multi-cores, the application is run at different speed.

What you are asking is also nearly close to impossible to do, except if you have a way to pickup what cores to use.
As when you run 4 time the same application, you let kernel handle what cores will be use, and it could be real cores, logical cores or a mix of them.
So it would be really really hard to give a performance of logical core vs real core.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nlsa8z6zoz7lyih3ap
Guru
Guru


Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 376
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
No this is because of another feature (that "ahah surprise", both cpu also shared).


Good point. However I am overclocking to about 4.7GHZ, so I am not sure how much it speeds things up when only using 1 single core.

However you have inspired me to run some better tests in a few days. :) (Too busy today)

I am pretty sure that I can turn off some of the features that you mention in bios.


I'll let you know how these turn out. Thanks for bringing these points up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
szatox
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Aug 2013
Posts: 1746

PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There used to be some neat pictures showing estimated performance vs price for many different CPUs in a single chart.
Last time I checked trend was Intel's offered higher performance, while AMD's had better performance/price ratio. Well, it was some time ago, so don't take it for granted for current market.
Ask yourself what is important for you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1clue
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2549

PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As far as I can remember, AMD has always focused on better performance for the price, and Intel always focused on fastest. This is since the 90s when I started building my own boxes.

I don't have enough information for valid statistics, but every AMD box I've had close contact with had severe overheating issues and regular thermal shutdown. That said, I guess everyone I know who built one (these are all customer-assembled boxes) was trying to make the best bang-for-the-buck they could, which probably means they skimped on cooling.

I've always gone with Intel, so I've never built my own. And that said, it seems that on my current desktop hardware I've got overheating problems too, so maybe I skimped on cooling. :)

The most recent AMD box I've had contact with was one at work some time back. It was really fast, 6 cores and 16g RAM, for under USD $700. It was the fastest box we had at the time, so we loaded it up. Then the overheating started, and we unloaded it. Now it goes along fine but not at full load for any significant time, especially in the summer. In comparison, not too long earlier I had built a first-generation i7 for a whole lot more than that for my personal system, which can handle being at 80% CPU average all day long.

I guess I don't have anything more to add, except that whatever you get, make sure you pay attention to cooling. Personally I'm going to give that top priority for any more systems I build. I've been "on the edge" with that for a long time, getting tired of it especially when I choose poorly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
creaker
l33t
l33t


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 651

PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would suggest Intel.
1. Manufacturing process 0.022 (Ivy) micron vs 0.032 micron. It makes Intel CPU 1.5 times faster ceteris paribus.
2. AMD needs a more powerful, noisy and expensive cooling system. Most of the money saved by AMD CPU will be eaten by cooling system.
3. Mobo manufacturers drops AMD sockets support too quickly, so if your mobo will die in 2 or 3 years it may be a problem to buy a new one for replacement. For Intel CPU you can buy , for example, mobo for Socket-478 till now (more than 10 years old).

As for me, I would buy i7-3770 (if no plans to overclock) or i7-3770K (for overclocking). Taking into account the cooling system, it will be more expensive than FX-8350 ($60-70), but it's worth it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
compilator
n00b
n00b


Joined: 22 Feb 2014
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 6:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So... I see I must think about Intel i7 CPU too,
Thanks for help, and I have another question
i7 is more expensive than previous CPU, than I can not enough money for graphical card, what you can suggest me?
I use GPU for openGL and CUDA learn programming, and I must be can connect 2 FULL HD display
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lollix01
n00b
n00b


Joined: 26 May 2014
Posts: 27

PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The perfect solution is a PC completely Intel, Intel is supported better than AMD, Ati and nVidia.
Hello! :-)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
szatox
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Aug 2013
Posts: 1746

PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
1. Manufacturing process 0.022 (Ivy) micron vs 0.032 micron. It makes Intel CPU 1.5 times faster ceteris paribus.

It sounds like this CPU will be 1,5 times faster. But it won't. Performance depends on frequency, architecture, cache miss rate and perhaps several other things. A single transistor's gate size gives a potential to increase frequency and reduce voltage (which in turn reduces power consumption and heating), but it's not enough to say it WILL be faster.
Funny, my AMD doesn't overheat (with stock cooling) during long, parallel compilations on quad core APU, even though sometimes I was overheating in the very same room. - oh and that integrated GPU seems to mach medium-level discrete graphic cards. Obviously if you need support for CUDA you must get nvidia.
Again, make your mind on what you expect. I took AMD because it let me make the best box with my budget.
What will that PC be doing most of it's time? What would that task benefit from most? (single core performance? Parallel performance? CPU cache size? GPU? Something else?) How much you want to spend?

Quote:
2. AMD needs a more powerful, noisy and expensive cooling system. Most of the money saved by AMD CPU will be eaten by cooling system.
I have seen a computer I couldn't hear at all, so you might be right, but I'd be more concerned with noise from cheap case. You know, those things can ring and rattle, while whispering fan is not that bad.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nlsa8z6zoz7lyih3ap
Guru
Guru


Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 376
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
However you have inspired me to run some better tests in a few days. :) (Too busy today)

I am pretty sure that I can turn off some of the features that you mention in bios.


I'll let you know how these turn out. Thanks for bringing these points up.


I have run these tests after doing my best to turn off all such features in bios. (No guarantees)
Each instance of my test program uses 100% of a core, intensive ram reading and writing, and almost nothing else.

(1) 1 instance: 35min and 33s

(2) 8 simultaneous instances close to 49min 15s cpu time for each instance.

I therefore conclude that the FX-8350 acts as if it were a 5.77 core cpu that had no performance hit
for the simultaneous use of both cores in a unit.

Question: Does any one know what the corresponding figures are (roughly) for a 4 core hyper threaded i5 or i7?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1clue
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2549

PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What szatox said is true, other than that I prefer Intel. You need to pay attention to the whole picture. You might want to google what others with your focus have done, and get overall system performance benchmarks related to those tasks.

You need a balanced system whose strengths match your needs. You can take a slower CPU but focus on a better motherboard and peripherals and get better overall performance than a CPU-heavy system with cheaper peripherals.

There is a wide range of Intel i7s. The low end of i7s are slower than the high end of i5s, at least some of the time. I suspect that the same is true for AMD chips.

You need to sit down, define the problem, decide on your optimal and minimum requirements and then build a system which is designed with that task in mind. Focus the money where the money needs to be. Some of these new chips have video support built in, needing less hardware on the outside, but you need to pay attention to the whole system.

For me, disk access is an issue as is network performance. My next system will have a pci solid state drive to get speeds better than sata3, and I haven't found a satisfactory network solution yet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 3926
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I would suggest Intel.
1. Manufacturing process 0.022 (Ivy) micron vs 0.032 micron. It makes Intel CPU 1.5 times faster ceteris paribus.


micron size doesn't necessarily have anything to do with speed.
Oh the chips can go faster but it's not a direct correlation.
It has more to do with heat and power savings.

Quote:
2. AMD needs a more powerful, noisy and expensive cooling system. Most of the money saved by AMD CPU will be eaten by cooling system.


I run my 8320 (oc'd to 4 ghz) on a CM Hyper TX3 ($22) and it stays well below max temp, nor is it overly "noisy"

Quote:
3. Mobo manufacturers drops AMD sockets support too quickly, so if your mobo will die in 2 or 3 years it may be a problem to buy a new one for replacement. For Intel CPU you can buy , for example, mobo for Socket-478 till now (more than 10 years old).


Hell, I've got some old celerons sitting around (66 bus) but I can't say that I want to run them other than a "see it still runs" type bragging.
I've had 5-7 year old amd chips that I've had no problem finding a new mb for if I wanted to still run them.

I had a phenom II x6 that was perfectly fine, but I got a good deal on the 8320 and on the mb that I was using I just swapped out the cpu.

It all depends on what the user wants, what they are intending to do with their system and their budget as far as one vs the other.
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - nouveau, oss4, rx550 for qemu passthrough
Acer laptop E5-575, i3-7100u - i965, alsa
---both---
5.0.13 zen kernel, profile 17.0 (no-pie) amd64-no-multilib
gcc 8.2.0, eudev, openrc, openbox, palemoon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
creaker
l33t
l33t


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 651

PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 2:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

For those who says that microns means nothing in terms of performance:
http://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/1709-designing-finfets.html

For those who says that microns means nothing in terms of speed (switching time):
time=distance/speed.
For which transistor electric field from Gate reaches channel faster? For thin or for thick?
Once electric field will be induced in channel, what distance will be overcome by the electron faster? Large or small?
As I wrote above, these processes will be faster 1.5 times ceteris paribus
Since 22nm has other structure and topology than 32 nm for real cheaps, expected improvement is not 1.5, but still weighty.

Another one thing: for the short channel Source-Drain capacity is smaller than for the long, so channel recharges faster with less power consumption.

P.S.
I don't hear my $8 cpu cooler at all, neither quiet nor loud.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tony0945
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 3076
Location: Illinois, USA

PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I don't have enough information for valid statistics, but every AMD box I've had close contact with had severe overheating issues and regular thermal shutdown.


I've never had a thermal shutdown and my last Intel CPU was a 486DX-100. You have to research the chip. Google will tell you which CPU's have a rep for bad stock coolers. Many stock coolers are OK, but sometime AMD gets cheap and sells a marginal cooler. Aftermarket coolers are not that expensive unless you get into water cooling which shouldn't be necessary at stock speeds.

Intel is great if you can spend $1,000.00 on a CPU.http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116938 Passmark rating is 12,762

I'd suggest this one http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116938 Passmark rating is 9,038 at a sixth of the price.

This one, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113362 runs great on Windows 7 but I haven't seen any Linux benchmarks or even if gcc optimizes for it. But it's dirt cheap. If anyone knows about A4's or A8's on Linux I would appreciate some information.

Regarding build times my Phenom II six core is limited by hard drive speed and I've got a 10,000 RPM Western Digital Velociraptor. My guess (and that's all it is) is that Firefox would still take forever to build on that $1,000 Intel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1clue
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2549

PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 3:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

@Tony0945,

Are you using tmpfs for /var/tmp/portage? That's a huge speedup.

Also, while I was a strong doubter about ssd's for a long time, they make a huge difference even on a sata2 system. My next system will have sata3 and usb3 as well as a pci ssd.

I'm not going to argue about overheating issues, all I'm saying is be careful. The main box I have experience with, the one in my office, was a proof of concept and I know for certain it was built for the lowest budget. A customer's IT staff had sized the server for our software at USD $60k, which is outrageous. We build this one for roughly 1% of that and had satisfactory performance, heat issues notwithstanding. Obviously not for a real server running real production software, but you get the idea. Once it was done with testing, we had a marginal box to put a light load on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
krinn
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 7071

PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 3:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

:) Tony0945,

If we pickup your references benchmark and vendor :
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116900&cm_re=4770-_-19-116-900-_-Product
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-4770K+%40+3.50GHz&id=1919
10299 passmark for $309

And amdFX-9590
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113347&cm_re=amd_9590-_-19-113-347-_-Product
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-9590+Eight-Core&id=2014
10267 passmark for $329

Need to change anything there now?
Tony0945 wrote:
Intel is great if you can spend $1,000.00 on a CPU
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vaxbrat
l33t
l33t


Joined: 05 Oct 2005
Posts: 731
Location: DC Burbs

PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:35 am    Post subject: beware the intel "market segmentation" Reply with quote

Intel may have the performance crown, but it has made them bastards again in the marketing dept. You will often find that processors conveniently have features removed in order to make them less of a bargain when compared to the hideously expensive Xeon series. You may end up stuck with a chip that has had virtualization disabled because it is targeted at the consumer market. There's often no rhyme or reason to this since an I5 meant for business might have a feature while an I7 targeted at the consumer market doesn't.

You can't trust benchmarks because Intel is notorious for insisting on their ICC compilor to be used when comparing with other chipsets. Some think the acronym stands for Intel Crippling Compiler because it will turn off crucial optimizations for everything other than a genuine intel part. Only trust benchmarks run with gcc if you can find them.

Every AMD chip since the second generation or so of Athlon 64 has had hardware vitualization onboard. AMD based mobo's have had 6gb SATA and more than 4 ports available for far longer than Intel based boards.

Finally realize that a chipzilla without significant competition from AMD, VIA and others will simply drag butt and attempt to squeeze every last dollar of profit out of their products. It's already pretty much happened, but they do face significant competition from Samsung and others in the ARM arena. Do not allow them to dominate there or the game will really be over.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 3926
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

creaker wrote:
For those who says that microns means nothing in terms of performance:
http://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/1709-designing-finfets.html

For those who says that microns means nothing in terms of speed (switching time):
time=distance/speed.


I should have qualified the terms of and context of speed, just as you should have.
Yes, a smaller die, smaller micron will make the component to component speed faster. It's a shorter distance, Duh.
But that doesn't always translate into external hz's being 1.5, 2 or a 100 times faster than a larger die cpu.
Nor does it necessarily mean that it gets more work done.
Many other things constrain the performance of newer cpu's.
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - nouveau, oss4, rx550 for qemu passthrough
Acer laptop E5-575, i3-7100u - i965, alsa
---both---
5.0.13 zen kernel, profile 17.0 (no-pie) amd64-no-multilib
gcc 8.2.0, eudev, openrc, openbox, palemoon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1clue
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2549

PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anon-E-moose wrote:
creaker wrote:
For those who says that microns means nothing in terms of performance:
http://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/1709-designing-finfets.html

For those who says that microns means nothing in terms of speed (switching time):
time=distance/speed.


I should have qualified the terms of and context of speed, just as you should have.
Yes, a smaller die, smaller micron will make the component to component speed faster. It's a shorter distance, Duh.
But that doesn't always translate into external hz's being 1.5, 2 or a 100 times faster than a larger die cpu.
Nor does it necessarily mean that it gets more work done.
Many other things constrain the performance of newer cpu's.


It goes further than that. A faster chip does not mean that a poorly designed or inappropriate motherboard won't cause bottlenecks, and even after that slow or inappropriate peripherals, or too many peripherals, can cause bottlenecks too.

Or, the slower chip overall might have better performance than the faster one in one particular area that the software uses intensively.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tony0945
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 3076
Location: Illinois, USA

PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Are you using tmpfs for /var/tmp/portage? That's a huge speedup.


Yes, but I only have 8 Gigs. Allocating 4G for /var/tmp/portage isn't enough for Firefox. Temps do get high (gnome-sensors-applet) under sustained world building using tmpfs, but no shutdowns. I'm running at stock 3.2GHz with the stock cooler, a Seasonic power supply and lots of 80mm case fans in an antec tower case. The BIOS is set to run all fans at top speed. I've got three WD hard drives. CPU temp right now is 86 degrees F. I need to clean dust out. The downstairs computer dropped ten degrees after blowing it out. My video card is a basic 8400GS, not much thermal load. I don't game and my eyes are bad. I don't need a better card. I really just bought it because the onboard video had driver trouble.

@krinn

Same performance for virtually the same price, so where is the big Intel advantage? It's at the top end where the prices are obscene. BTW, I would never spend $300 for a CPU unless inflation gets a lot worse. Witness my interest in the $50 CPU.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Kernel & Hardware All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum