According to my google searches, PCIe x4 is faster
than PCIe x1. It's why some cards are PCIe x8 or x16. I think video
cards are usually x16. My question is, given the PCIe x4 card costs
more, is it that much faster than a PCIe x1?
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 8:24 AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
According to my google searches, PCIe x4 is fasterIt could be slower than PCIe x1, because you didn't specify the version.
than PCIe x1. It's why some cards are PCIe x8 or x16. I think video
cards are usually x16. My question is, given the PCIe x4 card costs
more, is it that much faster than a PCIe x1?
PCIe uses lanes. Each lane provides a certain amount of bandwidth
depending on the version in use.
For example, a v1 4x card has 1 GB/s of bandwidth. A v4 1x card has
2GB/s of bandwidth.
Note that slot size is only loosely coupled with the number of lanes.
Lots of motherboards have a second 16x slot that only provides 4-8
lanes to save on the cost of a PCIe swich. You can also use adapters
to connect a 16x card to a 1x slot, or you might find a motherboard
that has an open-ended slot so that you can just fit a 16x card onto
the 1x slot. It will of course only use a single lane that way.
So what you need to do is consider the following:
1. How much bandwidth do you actually need? If you're using spinning
disks you aren't going to sustain more than 200MB/s to a single drive,
and the odds of having 10 drives using all that bandwidth are pretty
low. If you're using SSDs then you're more likely to max them out
since the seek cost is much lower.
2. What PCIe version does your motherboard support? Sticking a v4
card on an old motherboard that only supports v2 is going to result in
it running at v2 speeds, so don't pay a premium for something you
won't use. Likewise, if they cut down on the number of lanes assuming they'll have more bandwidth you might have less than you expected to
have.
Then look up the number of lanes and the PCIe version and see what you
can expect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI_Express#History_and_revisions
I think odds are you aren't going to want to pay a premium if you're
just using spinning disks. If you actually wanted solid state storage
then I'd also be avoiding SATA and trying to use NVMe, though doing
that at scale requires a lot of IO, and that will cost you quite a
bit. There is a reason your motherboard has mostly 1x slots - PCIe
lanes are expensive to support. On most consumer motherboards they're
only handled by the CPU, and consumer CPUs are very limited in how
many they offer. Higher end motherboards may have a switch and offer
more lanes, but they'll still bottleneck if they're all maxed out
getting into the CPU. If you buy a server CPU for several thousand
dollars one of the main features they offer is a LOT more PCIe lanes,
so you can load up on NVMes and have them running at v4-5. (Typical
NVMe uses a 4x M.2 slot, and of course you can have 16x cards offering multiples of those.)
The whole setup is pretty analogous to networking. If you have a
computer with 4 network ports you can bond them together and run them
to a switch that supports this with 4 cables, and get 4x the
bandwidth. However, you can also get a single connection to run at
higher speeds (1Gb, 2.5Gb, 10Gb, etc), and you can do both. PCIe
lanes are just like bonded network cables - they are just pairs of
signal wires that use differential signaling, just like twisted pairs
in an ethernet cable. Longer slots just add more of them. Everything
is packet switched, so if there are more lanes it just spreads the
packets across them. Higher versions mean higher speeds in each lane.
Another question. My rig is getting a bit aged. I have a AMD FX-8350 8
core CPU running at 4GHz. I also have 32GBs of memory. I've read that
Intel currently has the best bang for buck on CPUs nowadays. I'm open
to the idea of switching. As far as speed goes, if I built a new rig
that is using a reasonably cost CPU and memory, would I see any real improvements?
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 7:35 AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com <mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com>> wrote:
<SNIP>
Another question. My rig is getting a bit aged. I have a AMD FX-8350 8 core CPU running at 4GHz. I also have 32GBs of memory. I've read that Intel currently has the best bang for buck on CPUs nowadays. I'm open
to the idea of switching. As far as speed goes, if I built a new rig
that is using a reasonably cost CPU and memory, would I see any real improvements?
I think it all depends on what you're going to use the machine for and whether you really use all your CPU for extended periods of time.
For all the hours my machines run they are mostly idle, in the sense
that even if I'm keeping the machine busy watching a movie, doing
backups, browsing the web, even on my older machines none of those
use more than 10-15% of my older machines. The only two things I do
which drove the purchase of my new machine were:
1) Studio level audio recording using Mixbus32C (the for-pay version
of the Open Source project called Ardour)
2) Astrophotography photo processing using the for-pay program
called PixInsight.
Mixbus32C issues are more based around real-time performance
and use of both the Linux and Windows versions, and being able
to transfer projects back and forth between both platforms. I've
never heard you talk about using Windows, nor doing anything
that takes real-time capabilities so that probably doesn't apply.
PixInsight is the processor hog. It can use all my 32GB memory
(and more) and it can run for hours using 100% of my CPU so
it's the one that drove my eventual purchase of a Ryzen 9 5950X.
PixInsight has a benchmark program built in and all the results
are open to look at:
https://pixinsight.com/benchmark/index.php?sort=cpu&os=all
Interestingly I didn't find your processor even on the list and
the top says it covers about 3000 CPU models. You might
take a look at this when you boil your processor choices down
to 2 or 3.
Note that for the specific processor type you can open up the
group and look at individual machines. Most/many include what
motherboard they were running so that can assist you making
choices also.
Hope this helps,
Mark
Mark Knecht wrote:
Another question. My rig is getting a bit aged. I have a AMD FX-8350 8
core CPU running at 4GHz. I also have 32GBs of memory. I've read that Intel currently has the best bang for buck on CPUs nowadays. I'm open to the idea of switching. As far as speed goes, if I built a new rig that is using a reasonably cost CPU and memory, would I see any real improvements?
I think it all depends on what you're going to use the machine for and whether you really use all your CPU for extended periods of time.
[…]
PixInsight has a benchmark program built in and all the results
are open to look at:
https://pixinsight.com/benchmark/index.php?sort=cpu&os=all
Interestingly I didn't find your processor even on the list
Sometimes a CPU that costs $500 can only be just a fraction faster than a $200 CPU.
Given that my rig, as you point
out, sits here and waits on me to do something most of the time, that's
a lot of money for something I won't see much time savings on. I might
add tho, I do sometimes convert videos from 1080p to 720p. That makes
the CPU max out pretty good. Compiling Libreoffice, Firefox etc also
maxes out the CPU but those are what, once a month or so???
I was also wondering what a mobo/CPU/memory combo would cost nowadays. Maybe someone who recently built a decent rig recalls how much they paid
for those three. I don't go cheap on power supply but I don't require a
lot for a video card or anything. Some spend half their money on a
video card alone but I just don't need anything that fancy.
I got a Nvidia GeForce GTX 650 that drives both my monitor and my TVs through a splitter and it does just fine.
This is some good info tho. Maybe someone who built a rig recently can chime in on costs, US dollar would be nice. ;-)
Am Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 07:45:25AM -0500 schrieb Dale:
Mark Knecht wrote:
[…]
PixInsight has a benchmark program built in and all the results
are open to look at:
https://pixinsight.com/benchmark/index.php?sort=cpu&os=all
Interestingly I didn't find your processor even on the list
That’s probably because the FX processors are ooooold. Old and hungry. ^^
Am Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 07:45:25AM -0500 schrieb Dale:
Mark Knecht wrote:This! My mini PC with its passive 10 W Celeron N5100 is enough for desktop use, including encrypted storage. But maybe not for Gentoo. :)
Another question. My rig is getting a bit aged. I have a AMD FX-8350 8 >>>> core CPU running at 4GHz. I also have 32GBs of memory. I've read that >>>> Intel currently has the best bang for buck on CPUs nowadays. I'm open >>>> to the idea of switching. As far as speed goes, if I built a new rig >>>> that is using a reasonably cost CPU and memory, would I see any realI think it all depends on what you're going to use the machine for and
improvements?
whether you really use all your CPU for extended periods of time.
That’s probably because the FX processors are ooooold. Old and hungry. ^^[…]
PixInsight has a benchmark program built in and all the results
are open to look at:
https://pixinsight.com/benchmark/index.php?sort=cpu&os=all
Interestingly I didn't find your processor even on the list
Sometimes a CPU that costs $500 can only be just a fraction faster than aThat’s still the case today for those impatient gamer enthusiasts who are after the “longest bars” [in benchmarks]. The same goes for power consumption. With Zen 4, AMD of course launched the fastest X-processors first with a gargantuan power demand. A few months later the non-X were released. They used 40 % or so less power at a performance cost of maybe 10
$200 CPU.
% (not actual numbers, but figuratively speaking from memory).
Given that my rig, as you pointIntel and AMD are giving themselves quite a race these days about who offers more bang for the buck, or rather, more bang. In the past, Intel used to
out, sits here and waits on me to do something most of the time, that's
a lot of money for something I won't see much time savings on. I might
add tho, I do sometimes convert videos from 1080p to 720p. That makes
the CPU max out pretty good. Compiling Libreoffice, Firefox etc also
maxes out the CPU but those are what, once a month or so???
have more to offer at the lower end (below 100 € CPUs, like Pentiums and i3’s, while AMD was milking the market with high-end chips due to their limited manufacturing capacities).
If you want to save money and aim for a low-cost AMD APU (processor with integrated graphics), you can get an older 3000-series Ryzen for a two-digit price. It’ll still be much faster than your old FX at a fraction of the power consumption. Like the 4300G, which is twice as fast for half the electricity. With today’s processors, basically none of the socktetable models are too slow unless you have specific performance requirements.
With each generation, the architecture becomes more efficient, meaning more instructions per cycle, lower consumption and so on. The max frequency is
not really the driving force behind performance increase anymore due to efficiency issues at higher frequencies.
Here are some benchmark comparisons from cpubenchmark.net:
Processor year power cores single-core score multi-core score FX-8350 2012 125 W 8/8 1580 6026
i5-4590 2014 84 W 4/4 2086 5356
i5-10400 2020 65 W 6/12 2580 12258
R3 4300G 2020 65 W 4/8 2557 11017
R5 5600G 2021 65 W 6/12 3185 19892
R5 7600X 2022 145 W 6/12 4213 28753
Sources:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html#desktop-thread https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8350+Eight-Core&id=1780 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-4590+%40+3.30GHz&id=2234
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-10400+%40+2.90GHz&id=3737
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+3+4300G&id=3808 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+5+5600G&id=4325 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+5+7600X&id=5033
You can see the increase in performance. My old i5-4590, at half the cores, can keep up with your FX, even though it is only 1½ years younger. Ryzens used to be more efficient in multi workloads (look at the 2020 entries). But I’m not too sure about current generations due to Intel’s big-little concept.
DDR5 and PCIe5 have higher requirements at signal quality, making the boards and components much more expensive (and, again, more power hungry). That’s why, even though DDR4 platforms are on their way out technologically, they are still an economically sound choice.
I was also wondering what a mobo/CPU/memory combo would cost nowadays.Any current Intel non-F CPU (F means no graphics) can cover your graphics need. Finally, AMD caught up and started shipping a minimal graphics chip in all of their processors with Zen 4, but as I said, that platform is still expensive.
Maybe someone who recently built a decent rig recalls how much they paid
for those three. I don't go cheap on power supply but I don't require a
lot for a video card or anything. Some spend half their money on a
video card alone but I just don't need anything that fancy.
I got a Nvidia GeForce GTX 650 that drives both my monitor and my TVsHow cute. This should be about twice as fast as the integrated graphics in
through a splitter and it does just fine.
my 8-year-old i5. So you’ll be fine with *any* integrated graphics (which will also cut down on idle consuption, compared with a dGPU).
This is some good info tho. Maybe someone who built a rig recently canAs mentioned, DDR5 is still expensive. With DDR4 platforms getting older, their prices are going down. The Ryzen 5 5600G is an excellent and efficient processor (it’s basically a laptop chip in a desktop socket) and currently can be had for around 125 € (including taxes of course, not sure about US prices). It has over twice the single- and thrice the multi-core performance of your FX chip. Its graphics are way overkill for you, but you never know. ;-)
chime in on costs, US dollar would be nice. ;-)
If you want to keep yout GPU, there’s also the Ryzen 5 5500, it has no graphics and is only minutely slower than the 5600G, but can be had for less than 100 €.
So, in summary (talking German consumer prices, meaning all taxes included, but I think you can assume very similar $ pricse) for a not too fancy¹ system:
Processor 120 € (or up top 150 € for a current i3/i5)
RAM 60 € 32 GB DDR4 (cheap RAM, low latency costs more, but has no real use
for your use case)
Board 100..120 € depending on I/O needs and quality.
Going DDR5 means an increase in budget by at least 100 € for a 32 GB system.
¹ As far as I can see, compiling packages is the most taxing thing you do,
which is why I don’t see you needing a big-rig processor. (Though I
understand the nice feeling you get from having one.)
Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
If you want to save money and aim for a low-cost AMD APU (processor with integrated graphics), you can get an older 3000-series Ryzen for a two-digit
price. It’ll still be much faster than your old FX at a fraction of the power consumption. Like the 4300G, which is twice as fast for half the electricity. With today’s processors, basically none of the socktetable models are too slow unless you have specific performance requirements. […]
Here are some benchmark comparisons from cpubenchmark.net:
[…]
You can see the increase in performance. My old i5-4590, at half the cores,
can keep up with your FX, even though it is only 1½ years younger. Ryzens used to be more efficient in multi workloads (look at the 2020 entries). But
I’m not too sure about current generations due to Intel’s big-little concept.
I was also wondering what a mobo/CPU/memory combo would cost nowadays. >> Maybe someone who recently built a decent rig recalls how much they paid >> for those three. I don't go cheap on power supply but I don't require a >> lot for a video card or anything. Some spend half their money on aAny current Intel non-F CPU (F means no graphics) can cover your graphics need. Finally, AMD caught up and started shipping a minimal graphics chip in
video card alone but I just don't need anything that fancy.
all of their processors with Zen 4, but as I said, that platform is still expensive.
I got a Nvidia GeForce GTX 650 that drives both my monitor and my TVsHow cute. This should be about twice as fast as the integrated graphics in my 8-year-old i5. So you’ll be fine with *any* integrated graphics (which
through a splitter and it does just fine.
will also cut down on idle consuption, compared with a dGPU).
[…]
This is all good info. I went to Tom's Hardware and found their list by computing power. I try to find a generic power rating since what I use
my rig for is more generic. No need looking at a chart for gaming.
;-) Anyway, I was looking at a somewhat costly Ryzen 7 5800x3d or a
Ryzen 7 7700.
Plus, if the video stops working, replace card instead of whole mobo.
I also have to have two outputs. One for desktop, one for TV.
One other thing, the mobos I keep finding have few PCIe slots. Some
have 2 maybe 3. That's getting to be to few for me.
Then my next thing, a case. The cases I find have a ton of lights, which
I hate, but as far as layout and such, they suck. Some cost a arm and leg and they are worthless to me.
I found one the other day that is fairly plain, holds 8 or 10 hard drives and has reasonably good cooling. I'm hoping I can get it.
Usually I look forward to building a new rig. Trying to find things I
like takes the fun out of it. I'll get there tho. Eventually.
Gamer boards tend to skimp on ports, because those people generally care mostly for their GPU (plus design and RGB).
Here, Linus is showcasing an 8-drives storage machine in a Fractal Define R4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpJViwtct5g
And here a system with 18 drives 🤪 in a Fractal Define 7XL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAy9N1vX76o
<<<SNIP>>>
With each generation, the architecture becomes more efficient, meaning more instructions per cycle, lower consumption and so on. The max frequency is
not really the driving force behind performance increase anymore due to efficiency issues at higher frequencies.
Here are some benchmark comparisons from cpubenchmark.net:
Processor year power cores single-core score multi-core score FX-8350 2012 125 W 8/8 1580 6026
i5-4590 2014 84 W 4/4 2086 5356
i5-10400 2020 65 W 6/12 2580 12258
R3 4300G 2020 65 W 4/8 2557 11017
R5 5600G 2021 65 W 6/12 3185 19892
R5 7600X 2022 145 W 6/12 4213 28753
Sources:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html#desktop-thread https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8350+Eight-Core&id=1780 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-4590+%40+3.30GHz&id=2234
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-10400+%40+2.90GHz&id=3737
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+3+4300G&id=3808 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+5+5600G&id=4325 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+5+7600X&id=5033
You can see the increase in performance. My old i5-4590, at half the cores, can keep up with your FX, even though it is only 1½ years younger. Ryzens used to be more efficient in multi workloads (look at the 2020 entries). But I’m not too sure about current generations due to Intel’s big-little concept.
DDR5 and PCIe5 have higher requirements at signal quality, making the boards and components much more expensive (and, again, more power hungry). That’s why, even though DDR4 platforms are on their way out technologically, they are still an economically sound choice.
<<<SNIP>>>
¹ As far as I can see, compiling packages is the most taxing thing you do,
which is why I don’t see you needing a big-rig processor. (Though I
understand the nice feeling you get from having one.)
It's been a while. I been getting some things ready for garden time and
a few spring projects as well. I looked at a few lists of CPU
processors. This is a bit pricey but I may try to buy a AMD Ryzen 9
5900X 12-Core @ 3.7 GHz. It has 4 more cores but clock speed is a
little slower.
Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
<<<SNIP>>>
With each generation, the architecture becomes more efficient, meaning more
instructions per cycle, lower consumption and so on. The max frequency is not really the driving force behind performance increase anymore due to efficiency issues at higher frequencies.
Here are some benchmark comparisons from cpubenchmark.net:
Processor year power cores single-core score multi-core score FX-8350 2012 125 W 8/8 1580 6026
i5-4590 2014 84 W 4/4 2086 5356
i5-10400 2020 65 W 6/12 2580 12258
R3 4300G 2020 65 W 4/8 2557 11017
R5 5600G 2021 65 W 6/12 3185 19892
R5 7600X 2022 145 W 6/12 4213 28753
Sources:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html#desktop-thread https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8350+Eight-Core&id=1780 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-4590+%40+3.30GHz&id=2234
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-10400+%40+2.90GHz&id=3737
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+3+4300G&id=3808 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+5+5600G&id=4325 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+5+7600X&id=5033
[…]
It's been a while. I been getting some things ready for garden time and
a few spring projects as well. I looked at a few lists of CPU
processors. This is a bit pricey but I may try to buy a AMD Ryzen 9
5900X 12-Core @ 3.7 GHz. It has 4 more cores but clock speed is a
little slower. Even just comparing number of cores and the fairly close clock speed, that alone should make it a bit faster. Add in that they
make them run code more efficiently now, should be a good bit better. I usually try to aim for 4 or 5 times more processing power. I suspect
this may help with encryption as well since newer CPUs have extra code
just for that on there now. Most of the mobos also handle a lot more
memory as well. I have 32GBs now. Most support 64GB and I think I saw
a 128GB version somewhere.
Just comparing CPU to CPU, what would you expect as far as increase in speed? I'm not expecting a exact number, just curious as to how much difference I could reasonably expect.
Thanks for any light you can shed on this. Googling just leads to a ton
of confusion. What's true 6 months ago is wrong today. :/ It's hard
to tell what still applies.
I used to use the bogomips number as a rough guide. Thing is, the new
CPU has a lower bogomips number than my current CPU does. That doesn't
seem right.
So, I guess that number no longer means much. So, I went
digging on the site you linked to. I found this but not sure what to
make of it.
https://openbenchmarking.org/vs/Processor/AMD+Ryzen+9+5900X+12-Core,AMD+FX-8350+Eight-Core
Some tests, my CPU is faster. Most, the new one is faster.
I'm trying to figure if I'd be better in the
long run to buy that expensive CPU or pick one of the cheaper ones you mentioned. I started off with a 4 core on current rig and went to 8
core and slightly higher frequency. Money wise it was pretty painless.
I could do that again with new rig.
Bogomips seems to be veeeery simple, because it takes the current frequency into account. So the number will be low when your PC idles and very high
when you compile something. The “bogo” stands for bogus for a reason.
Of course, only you can answer that in the end. Write down what you need and what you care about. Weigh those factors. Then decide. Raw CPU power, electricity bill, heat budget (cooling, noise, dust), the “new and shiny” factor (like DDR5), and price. As I mentioned earlier, the 7xxx-X series are hotheads. But when run with a lower power budget, they are very efficient (which is basically what the non-X do).
On 27/03/2023 01:18, Dale wrote:
Thanks for any light you can shed on this. Googling just leads to a ton
of confusion. What's true 6 months ago is wrong today. :/ It's hard
to tell what still applies.
Well, back in the days of the megahurtz wars, a higher clock speed
allegedly meant a faster CPU. Now they all run about 5GHz, and anything faster would break the speed of light ... so how they do it nowadays I
really don't know ...
Of course, only you can answer that in the end. Write down what you need and
what you care about. Weigh those factors. Then decide. Raw CPU power, electricity bill, heat budget (cooling, noise, dust), the “new and shiny”
factor (like DDR5), and price. As I mentioned earlier, the 7xxx-X series are
hotheads. But when run with a lower power budget, they are very efficient (which is basically what the non-X do).
Are they actually hotheads on an energy consumed per unit of work
basis? As you say, they're efficient. If the CPU has 2x the power
draw, but does 2.5x as much work in a unit of time than the "cooler"
CPU you're comparing it to, then actually doing any job is going to
consume less electricity and produce less heat - it is just doing it
faster.
[…]
A recent trend is upping the power draw of CPUs/GPUs to increase their throughput, but as long as efficiency remains the same, it creates
some thermal headaches, but doesn't actually make the systems use more
energy for a given amount of work. Of course if you throw more work
at them then they use more energy.
Back in the day, CPUs were sold to run at an optimum work point, meaning a compromise between silicon wafer yield, power consumption and performance. Some of the chips were so good, they had the potential for overclocking, meaning they are stable enough to be clocked higher and to handle the heat. (But at no guarantee from the manufacturer, I presume. So if you grill it, it’s your loss.)
Compiles will speed up no matter what CPU you choose. But where else do you need compute power? Video transcodes can be done in the background, and
there is also a limit to what parallelisation can achieve. Encryption is
also a non-issue for you. Even my 10 year old i3 in the NAS can encrypt over 1 GB per second, IIRC.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 303 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 81:55:17 |
Calls: | 6,807 |
Calls today: | 3 |
Files: | 12,328 |
Messages: | 5,400,979 |