From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MjvjX-0002Ow-6U for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:55:15 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C43EDE0BBF; Sat, 5 Sep 2009 13:55:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from spunkymail-a9.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcaid.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.83]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FC2DE0BBF for ; Sat, 5 Sep 2009 13:55:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.69.3] (40.Red-83-40-11.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [83.40.11.40]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by spunkymail-a9.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 574E31FC9E for ; Sat, 5 Sep 2009 06:55:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4AA26D65.2030201@hiramoto.org> Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 15:53:41 +0200 From: Karl Hiramoto User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090828) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-embedded@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-embedded@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-embedded@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-embedded] personal compile-farm ? References: <3ea34a000909050348n7694c2cfj837cb1540515d1a8@mail.gmail.com> <4AA2465B.80805@hiramoto.org> <3ea34a000909050519q443d40a8m6db896b5544077e2@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3ea34a000909050519q443d40a8m6db896b5544077e2@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 016fb5ba-c960-4dca-a4de-92298dc671bf X-Archives-Hash: fc156c7d4783c29236340484c9171a3f Christopher Friedt wrote: > Hi Karl, > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Karl Hiramoto wrote: > >>> For those who have a multi-core compile-farm at home, is there a >>> largely noticeable difference in speed? >>> > > Sorry, that should read 'difference in speed for builds'. > > >> I don't have an atom myself but from looking at the specs, for the same >> amount of money, i'd think you'd be better of with a single machine with >> lots of RAM and 4 to 8 cores with lots of cache for compiling. >> > > Thanks for your reply. > > I'm primarily interested in something that uses a smaller form-factor > for power, noise pollution, and space reasons, but 4 to 8 cores > probably doesn't fit in that class. > If you don't mind waiting a long time for your atom to compile, then i suppose it's ok. But compute wise, its pretty weak. See the benchmarks a core 2 duo is many times faster than a atom: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-atom-efficiency,2069-8.html If noise and space is a primary concern but you want more compute power than an atom, then you could check out Aopen and logic supply, they are more expensive than atoms though, but you get what you pay for. http://www.logicsupply.com/blog/2008/10/10/introducing-the-all-new-fanless-core-2-duo-system-the-gs-l10/ http://usa.aopen.com/ I've used some aopen products withe Core2 duos for HTPC and been happy. Some of them have integrated IR receiver, and HD out which makes it nice. -- Karl Hiramoto http://karl.hiramoto.org/