[clue-talk] new processors

[Dan Kulinski]

Mr Fedde makes a great point.  While I went into detail about Intel specific
architecture, I purposely made no mention of which CPU is best suited to
which task.

I bought an upper end CPU for a couple of reasons.  I am a gamer and I
typically transcode video a lot.  I have the VOB files from my DVDs and I
transcode them for my PS3 or my iPod Touch and even my Blackberry.  Moving
from my Core 2 6600, where it took about 75 minutes to encode a 90 minute
DVD, I am now able to encode a 90 minute DVD in about 15 minutes with my
overclocked system.  Adding two more cores, hyperthreading, a more efficient
CPU really paid off for my workload.

In other news, Intel released their Clarkdale series of CPUs.  These are
very interesting CPUs, especially for the typical desktop user.  The CPUs
have a GPU integrated on the chip itself and Intel finally stuck a chip that
decent in most tasks, even modest gaming.  It definitely pays to know what
workload you have in mind for your machine before you purchase a new one.

Dan Kulinski

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 9:18 AM, chris fedde <chris at fedde.us> wrote:

> So as always the real answer is: "It Depends".  A "real world" desktop
> environment a few extra cores will make your experience a bit
> snappier.  A reasonably recent motherboard with a good built in GPU
> and a single modern multi-core processor will likely give good
> performance.  Consider that the performance gap between disk/network
> speed has grown so large that much of the time a modern processor is
> waiting around for L2 cache to be loaded anyway.
>
> http://duartes.org/gustavo/blog/post/what-your-computer-does-while-you-wait
>
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Nate Duehr <nate at natetech.com> wrote:
> > It gets crazier than that, since the newer Intel hardware/chips now
> "simulate" that they have more cores than they have to (supposedly) speed up
> things.  A "quad core" i7 "looks like" 16 cores to the OS... via
> "HyperThreading" technology...
> >
> > On Jan 2, 2010, at 9:43 AM, chris fedde wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Louis Miller <miller106c at comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>>       Could someone send me a hyperlink to an article that would
> explain how
> >>> it would be so much faster, please? Something for the non-computer
> >>> scientist, if possible. Or if someone wants to explain it and can
> through
> >>> e-mail that would be okay, too.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I realize that this is an older message but thought I'd respond and
> >> expand on some other responses.
> >>
> >> The 2.6 Linux kernels are written to take advantage of mult-core
> >> architectures.  This means that typical single threaded applications
> >> buy themselves will not see any speedup but since more than one time
> >> slice can be run at once the over all system performance improves.
> >>
> >> Here is a pointer to a white paper with excruciating detail:
> >>
> http://www.silicon.com/white-papers/components/2009/12/24/multi-core-and-linux-kernel-60295311/
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> clue-talk mailing list
> >> clue-talk at cluedenver.org
> >> http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
> >
> > --
> > Nate Duehr
> > nate at natetech.com
> >
> > http://facebook.com/denverpilot
> > http://twitter.com/denverpilot
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > clue-talk mailing list
> > clue-talk at cluedenver.org
> > http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
> >
> _______________________________________________
> clue-talk mailing list
> clue-talk at cluedenver.org
> http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://cluedenver.org/pipermail/clue-talk/attachments/20100104/bb04caa2/attachment.html