[gentoo-user] OT worth upgrading hardware ?

[gentoo-user] OT worth upgrading hardware ?

[Dave S]

Hi all,

I have a PIII 700Mhz, 256MB RAM, Finances are somewhat tight (read that 
as very tight) but I could do with some more speed when playing with 
python scripts + KDE can be a tad sluggish.

The processor is going to have to be either a ...

Intel Celeron 2.4GHz 128K 400MHz Socket 478 CPU OEM - 512MB RAM
AMD Sempron 2800+ 2.0GHz (333FSB) 256K Cache Socket A OEM - 512 MB RAM

The GHz sound impressive but I know neither chip is a very powerful, I 
believe they 'water down' the internals !. I cant find anywhere a 
comparison between my PIII & these two possibilitys.

My PIII is old technology, these two are newer technology with faster 
clock speeds but engineered to a price, would the speed increase be 
noticeable ? Any comments ?

Dave

















-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] OT worth upgrading hardware ?

[Hemmann, Volker Armin]

On Sunday 02 October 2005 09:12, Dave S wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a PIII 700Mhz, 256MB RAM, Finances are somewhat tight (read that
> as very tight) but I could do with some more speed when playing with
> python scripts + KDE can be a tad sluggish.
>
> The processor is going to have to be either a ...
>
> Intel Celeron 2.4GHz 128K 400MHz Socket 478 CPU OEM - 512MB RAM
> AMD Sempron 2800+ 2.0GHz (333FSB) 256K Cache Socket A OEM - 512 MB RAM
>
> The GHz sound impressive but I know neither chip is a very powerful, I
> believe they 'water down' the internals !. I cant find anywhere a
> comparison between my PIII & these two possibilitys.
>
> My PIII is old technology, these two are newer technology with faster
> clock speeds but engineered to a price, would the speed increase be
> noticeable ? Any comments ?
>
> Dave

the most impact would come from the bigger ram ;)
The ram upgrade alone would be very  noticeable - the cpu-upgrade would mostly 
result in a little bit faster compile times.

But I would go for the sempron - most of the time the cpus are waiting for the 
ram - and the bigger the cache, the bigger the chance, that the data is 
already there. Plus it is 'exclusive' cache, everything in L1 won't be cached 
in L2 too - while in clereons/P4 the same stuff can be in L1 and L2.. wasting 
space (or was so, the last time I read about it..)

btw, aren't socket 754-boards&semprons in the same financial range like the 
socket a stuff?
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] OT worth upgrading hardware ?

[Folken]

On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 08:12:56AM +0100, Dave S wrote:
 
> The GHz sound impressive but I know neither chip is a very powerful, I 
> believe they 'water down' the internals !. I cant find anywhere a 
> comparison between my PIII & these two possibilitys.

I found a comparision between (almost) your target cpus: 
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=61

(note the celeron is actually the 2.8 GHz Model) 

> My PIII is old technology, these two are newer technology with faster 
> clock speeds but engineered to a price, would the speed increase be 
> noticeable ? Any comments ?

The 512 MB Ram will defently noticeable when you work with KDE. KDE is
very ram hungry and I wouldn't recommend to run it with less than 512.
(Although speed / memory consumption seem to have improved miles with
the latest versions of kde)

> Intel Celeron 2.4GHz 128K 400MHz Socket 478 CPU OEM - 512MB RAM
> AMD Sempron 2800+ 2.0GHz (333FSB) 256K Cache Socket A OEM - 512 MB RAM

As to the processors, I'd go for the Sempron. Celerons are IMO castraded
pentiums and really not great for compiler runs. The halved L1 cache
really hits on the performance in general. Since you are on a contrained
budget I'd even more strongley urge you to amd, since they usually give
you more performance for the buck.  

(That being said.. i'm no fan of intel. Therefore take this with a grain
of salt.)  

Oh btw.. you may ignore GHz numbers now.. they are no longer an
indicator of how "fast" processors are.  

- Folken
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] OT worth upgrading hardware ?

[Raphael Melo de Oliveira Bastos Sales]

Perhaps you can get a Semprom with a smaller clock but a higher FSB. I
have an AMD Semprom 2400+ with 400 Mhz FSB, 1 GB of Ram and I'm very
happy with it. It plays all the games I want and I can work in it very
smoothly. I recently upgrade to 1 GB of Ram, used to be 512 Mb and the
difference is amazing compared to 256, specially compile speeds. So,
unless you might want to upgrade you Celeron to a P4, assuming the
motherboard will take both, I'd go with Semprom, I believe it's more
cost-effective.

2005/10/2, Folken <folken@chaostreff.ch>:
> On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 08:12:56AM +0100, Dave S wrote:
>
> > The GHz sound impressive but I know neither chip is a very powerful, I
> > believe they 'water down' the internals !. I cant find anywhere a
> > comparison between my PIII & these two possibilitys.
>
> I found a comparision between (almost) your target cpus:
> http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=61
>
> (note the celeron is actually the 2.8 GHz Model)
>
> > My PIII is old technology, these two are newer technology with faster
> > clock speeds but engineered to a price, would the speed increase be
> > noticeable ? Any comments ?
>
> The 512 MB Ram will defently noticeable when you work with KDE. KDE is
> very ram hungry and I wouldn't recommend to run it with less than 512.
> (Although speed / memory consumption seem to have improved miles with
> the latest versions of kde)
>
> > Intel Celeron 2.4GHz 128K 400MHz Socket 478 CPU OEM - 512MB RAM
> > AMD Sempron 2800+ 2.0GHz (333FSB) 256K Cache Socket A OEM - 512 MB RAM
>
> As to the processors, I'd go for the Sempron. Celerons are IMO castraded
> pentiums and really not great for compiler runs. The halved L1 cache
> really hits on the performance in general. Since you are on a contrained
> budget I'd even more strongley urge you to amd, since they usually give
> you more performance for the buck.
>
> (That being said.. i'm no fan of intel. Therefore take this with a grain
> of salt.)
>
> Oh btw.. you may ignore GHz numbers now.. they are no longer an
> indicator of how "fast" processors are.
>
> - Folken
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] OT worth upgrading hardware ?

[Dave S]

Raphael Melo de Oliveira Bastos Sales wrote:

>Perhaps you can get a Semprom with a smaller clock but a higher FSB. I
>have an AMD Semprom 2400+ with 400 Mhz FSB, 1 GB of Ram and I'm very
>happy with it. It plays all the games I want and I can work in it very
>smoothly. I recently upgrade to 1 GB of Ram, used to be 512 Mb and the
>difference is amazing compared to 256, specially compile speeds. So,
>unless you might want to upgrade you Celeron to a P4, assuming the
>motherboard will take both, I'd go with Semprom, I believe it's more
>cost-effective.
>
>2005/10/2, Folken <folken@chaostreff.ch>:
>  
>
>>On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 08:12:56AM +0100, Dave S wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>The GHz sound impressive but I know neither chip is a very powerful, I
>>>believe they 'water down' the internals !. I cant find anywhere a
>>>comparison between my PIII & these two possibilitys.
>>>      
>>>
>>I found a comparision between (almost) your target cpus:
>>http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=61
>>
>>(note the celeron is actually the 2.8 GHz Model)
>>
>>    
>>
>>>My PIII is old technology, these two are newer technology with faster
>>>clock speeds but engineered to a price, would the speed increase be
>>>noticeable ? Any comments ?
>>>      
>>>
>>The 512 MB Ram will defently noticeable when you work with KDE. KDE is
>>very ram hungry and I wouldn't recommend to run it with less than 512.
>>(Although speed / memory consumption seem to have improved miles with
>>the latest versions of kde)
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Intel Celeron 2.4GHz 128K 400MHz Socket 478 CPU OEM - 512MB RAM
>>>AMD Sempron 2800+ 2.0GHz (333FSB) 256K Cache Socket A OEM - 512 MB RAM
>>>      
>>>
>>As to the processors, I'd go for the Sempron. Celerons are IMO castraded
>>pentiums and really not great for compiler runs. The halved L1 cache
>>really hits on the performance in general. Since you are on a contrained
>>budget I'd even more strongley urge you to amd, since they usually give
>>you more performance for the buck.
>>
>>(That being said.. i'm no fan of intel. Therefore take this with a grain
>>of salt.)
>>
>>Oh btw.. you may ignore GHz numbers now.. they are no longer an
>>indicator of how "fast" processors are.
>>
>>- Folken
>>--
>>gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
Thanks for all your input guys, its been very helpfull. A Sempron seems 
the way to go ... 

Dave


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] OT worth upgrading hardware ?

[Walter Dnes]

On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 08:12:56AM +0100, Dave S wrote
> Hi all,
> 
> I have a PIII 700Mhz, 256MB RAM, Finances are somewhat tight (read
> that as very tight) but I could do with some more speed when playing
> with python scripts + KDE can be a tad sluggish.

  Running a fat bloated resource-hogging "desktop" like GNOME or KDE
means that you're wasting a lot of system resources on Windows-like
eye-candy.  Before spending any money, try switching to a lightweight WM
(Window Manager) like "blackbox".  If you want a "control panel" use the
"fbpanel" app.  You have to set things up manually, but things run a lot
quicker.  Note; you can run KDE and GNOME *APPLICATIONS* without running
a GNOME or KDE *DESKTOP*.

  I run applications, not desktops.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
My musings on technology and security at http://tech_sec.blog.ca
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] OT worth upgrading hardware ?

[Hemmann, Volker Armin]

On Sunday 02 October 2005 15:58, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 08:12:56AM +0100, Dave S wrote
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have a PIII 700Mhz, 256MB RAM, Finances are somewhat tight (read
> > that as very tight) but I could do with some more speed when playing
> > with python scripts + KDE can be a tad sluggish.
>
>   Running a fat bloated resource-hogging "desktop" like GNOME or KDE
> means that you're wasting a lot of system resources on Windows-like
> eye-candy.  Before spending any money, try switching to a lightweight WM
> (Window Manager) like "blackbox".  If you want a "control panel" use the
> "fbpanel" app.  You have to set things up manually, but things run a lot
> quicker.  Note; you can run KDE and GNOME *APPLICATIONS* without running
> a GNOME or KDE *DESKTOP*.
>
>   I run applications, not desktops.

some people like the fat,. bloated, eye-candy heavy desktops - especially full 
experience of all components working together.

Not all people choose kde/gnome because of their looks, but because they WANT 
a complete desktop environment.

btw - some time ago I let glxgears run on several wm - and it was the fastest 
on kwin and integrity (both qt based) and slower on gtk-based wm...

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] OT worth upgrading hardware ?

[Christoph Gysin]

Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> btw - some time ago I let glxgears run on several wm - and it was the fastest 
> on kwin and integrity (both qt based) and slower on gtk-based wm...

glxgears doesn't need/use/depend neither a WM nor GTK/QT, so I don't see how 
this test makes any sense.

Christoph
-- 
echo mailto: NOSPAM !#$.'<*>'|sed 's. ..'|tr "<*> !#:2" org@fr33z3
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] OT worth upgrading hardware ?

[Jonathan Wright]

Christoph Gysin wrote:
> Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> 
>> btw - some time ago I let glxgears run on several wm - and it was the 
>> fastest on kwin and integrity (both qt based) and slower on gtk-based 
>> wm...
> 
> 
> glxgears doesn't need/use/depend neither a WM nor GTK/QT, so I don't see 
> how this test makes any sense.

But a WM and/or GTK/QT can have an effect on system load overall as well 
as working with the graphics card, which in the end can slow the gears.

-- 
  Jonathan Wright                           ~ mail at djnauk.co.uk
                                            ~ www.djnauk.co.uk
--
  2.6.12-gentoo-r6-djnauk-b2 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2100+
  up 3 days,  1:02, 13 users,  load average: 0.63, 0.53, 0.52
--
  "It's hard enough to be taken seriously in the struggle for  gay
  rights without having a bunch of straight girls  running  around
  kissing each  other  to  get  the  attention  of  the  boys  and
  videocameras."

                                          ~ M. Robin D'Antan, 2002
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] OT worth upgrading hardware ?

[Matan Peled]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jonathan Wright wrote:
> But a WM and/or GTK/QT can have an effect on system load overall as well
> as working with the graphics card, which in the end can slow the gears.

Perhaps, but glxgears is a really, REALLY bad benchmark.

- --
[Name      ]   ::  [Matan I. Peled    ]
[Location  ]   ::  [Israel            ]
[Public Key]   ::  [0xD6F42CA5        ]
[Keyserver ]   ::  [keyserver.kjsl.com]
encrypted/signed  plain text  preferred

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDQQQOA7Qvptb0LKURAsNKAJwI0GmGz4ml9sP6tT03v5TDlCcB4wCgl33F
NFUq6HAn0miBvvUjdQeO5Gs=
=SQva
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] OT worth upgrading hardware ?

[Hemmann, Volker Armin]

On Monday 03 October 2005 12:12, Matan Peled wrote:
> Jonathan Wright wrote:
> > But a WM and/or GTK/QT can have an effect on system load overall as well
> > as working with the graphics card, which in the end can slow the gears.
>
> Perhaps, but glxgears is a really, REALLY bad benchmark.
>

yes, glxgears is a bad bechmark. But if you do not use the numbers, but 
compares differences, on the same maschiene, with the same setup, it may show 
tendencies that are worth to think about.

 I find it interessting, that the qt-based wm (kwin, integrity) had the same 
fps. And the others, gtk based, had lower but also  same fps.

Somewhere some fps were lost - I blame gtk ;)
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list