|
Those are the CPUs the newest models of the computers I'm interested in can use.
Anyway, as far as I know, the i7 / Ryzen 7 alone doesn't mean anything without the generation they belong to.
|
|
|
|
|
See...
Joan M wrote: the i7 / Ryzen 7 alone doesn't mean anything
sure. I have a 10 years old Dell with i7 in it...
Globally, Intel CPUs are more power hungry (not sure if it is an issue), but behave better with applications that do not scale out really well (mostly games), while ADM works better with applications that really use multi-threading...
I would say, that you should list the kind of application you use/develop(?) and start from there (in most cases there are recommendations on the product site)...
In any case - and if the prize is an issue - ADM tend to be cheaper about $20 per thread than Intel...
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, of course, but usually the industrial softwares I work with are not very prone to recommend the best specs on that field...
Have you seen my questions at the bottom of my post?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Base frequency means the minimum speed every process will have, if there is no urge the CPU will use it (as higher speed needs more power and generates more heat), however when the CPU 'feels' the pressure it will rise (in a pre-defined way) it's own speed, up to the boost limit...
In most cases a single core application does not mean that the core is dedicated, and the application may run on several physical cores. The boosting will work the same in this case too...
To use vmware with dedicated cores, you need to do the right configuration of your VM - which is not very advised... In most case your computer (with the right motherboard and frameware) will serve you well there...
What you need is to estimate how many cores you use on average (not peek)... If you can find one with a lower base and higher boost that can give you the right amount of cores, you should chose it...
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
OK, understood, then, if an application can't use more than one core by design, and the termal limit happens, a processor with a higher base frequency would give a better speed than one with a higher permitted "turbo".
Thanks for your comment!
|
|
|
|
|
Joan M wrote: If I would have 3 vmware virtual machines running at once... having more cores would be better (would each core be dedicated to one virtual machine)?
Unless VMware does things very differently than Hyper-V, which is what I use, then no, cores aren't dedicated to VMs - rather, when you define the VM, you're telling the hypervisor how many cores the virtual machine should see. If the VM is a low-priority one with very few tasks, you would probably want to give it a single core, but if the VM is hosting, say, a busy SQL DB and web server, you'd probably want to configure it so it has access to more cores to make the most of the hardware available.
[Edit]
In my mind, a "dedicated" core would mean it's no longer available to the host OS (nothing would be able to use it other than the guest VM), and that's not correct - that's my main point.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much for your answer.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a Ryzen 7 1800X and there is no mention of a "base frequency". It may mean the "memory clock", which appears to be fixed (1.2 Ghz), and lower than the peak speed (which is 3.70 Ghz in my case).
I'm happy with my Ryzen and it's 2 years old. (It's VR capable).
(And it's not "over-clocked", which is maybe where the base frequency comes in)
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
According to specifications the 1800X has a base frequency of 3.6 and boost of 4.0...
As today, there is no such thing as 'over clocked' CPU. Either the CPU has a fixed frequency, or it works on a range (most common today)...
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Every modern cpu works in a range of frequencies, from idle to boost (which is a frequency that the processor will keep for a brief amount of time)
Most Intel CPUs are sold either as "locked" or "unlocked", just the unlocked ones can be used for overclocking because they allow changing the configuration of voltages and frequencies.
If I remember correctly, AMD ones (or at least Ryzens) are all sold unlocked.
Overclocking is very much still alive, it's just the process of changing a setting from an app or the bios over the limit set by the manufacturer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe this helps a bit? Is about the 4800U though.
AMD Ryzen 7 4800U Review, Mind Boggling Performance at 15W
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFYdHkvRs2c&t=0s
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: This said, all the newer ones run at a much lower base frequency. Does this means the everyday tasks on programs prepared to run only on one core will run slower?
The base clock (frequency) is the frequency used when the cpu is idle, it has no impact on performance AFAIK, especially considering that during normal use, the cpu sits idle about 90% of the time, It surely matters a lot less than the max sustained clock or boost (instantaneous) clock speeds.
Quote:
In case we would have 3 single core designed programs running at the same time... Would windows set them to use a different core each?
No, Windows' scheduler handles everything, single thread apps can and often will be moved around, for... reasons :shrug:
If the processes don't use 100% of the core, they might even run on the same one, if the almighty scheduler says so
Quote:
If I would have 3 vmware virtual machines running at once... having more cores would be better (would each core be dedicated to one virtual machine)?
I don't know what exactly happens but I see 2 scenarios:
1. yes, the cores are dedicated to the vm instance and that's it, having more cores would mean that you can allocate more of them to the VMs (the usefulness of this may vary a lot, depending on your workload)
2. no, the scheduler handles the vm jobs exactly as it would with a normal host os process and the scheduler inside the guest os doesn't know that it's not running on an actual cpu but a virtual one*
Having more physical cores, might improve performance in this case too, **depending on the workload**
* it might and that could trigger some kind of optimization but... I have no idea, it probably depends on the combination of guest OS, host OS and virtualization app you're using (I'll leave this to someone more knowledgeable than me)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your explanation!
|
|
|
|
|
The frequency was an indicator of performance in the 90s. In the meantime, architectural details are way more important. IPC times frequency is a better metric, but even that's far from the whole picture. The way the cores & cache are organized can have a serious impact on performance as can the memory controller (not so long ago, AMD CPUs ran crappy with slow RAM, AFAIK AMD removed the heavy RAM dependency in their newer products).
If you want to know how well a given CPU will fare in your workloads (Cinebench is different from gaming is different from video editing), you have to benchmark yourself or read benchmarks. userbenchmark.com is a good place to start. I personally recommend Linus Tech Tips on YouTube. They cover CPUs (and hardware in general) in quite the detail, thoroughly refraining from simple answers such as "it's good" or "it sucks" because different workloads are indeed a thing.
Dedicating cores to VMs isn't a bad idea, and that Linus dude got a couple videos on that as well (i.e. "One CPU 6 video editors").
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, I've entered the userbenchmark page, but none of the processors I'm interested into are there,... ^^¡
I won't buy it tomorrow so I will keep an eye on that page.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Looking at your selected CPUs, TDM comes to mind:
i7-10875H: TDP = 45W is more of a desktop CPU. The others, postfixed with "U"" are designed for Notebooks etc.
Just wondering.
|
|
|
|
|
yes... I know...
Mostly I'm thinking on a Thinkpad T14s (pure ultrabook that can be maxed to 32GB RAM and configured with Intel or AMD processors), but I've also thought to get the Thinkpad P1 Gen 3[^] which is the one that has that processor, a Quadro graphics card and that can be upgraded to 64GB of RAM too.
I guess I'll end with the T14s, but I looked at the P1 because it is light enough, very powerful and has a 15" display which would make reading texts easier... getting old... ^^¡
In my case the P1 has only some sense when I have to import 3D designs into robot programming softwares, and when, from time to time (2 or 3 times per year) I need to open up to 3 virtual machines at once...
|
|
|
|
|
why do you think you need to change chips ?
what specific use scenarios do you think you need to handle that will require more cores, or faster cpu speed ?
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Bill,
I will get a new laptop soon, warranty of mine is about to expire and I can't afford being at who knows which customer company, get it broken and must wait 1 week to get a new one, therefore, I will get another one with a full 5 years warranty that covers even accidental damage 100% during all that time.
Then, as I'm buying a computer for the next 4 to 5 years, I'm trying to get the best that suits my needs.
Currently I've got several times my Thinkpad T460s lagging due to 100% processor work loads.
Outlook 365 is always open, multiple office documents are open too, the software I'm using to program (which sometimes it includes a 3D representation of a machine loaded into memory), sometimes I need multiple instances of Visual Studio running at once as the PLC/CNC programming software I use is integrated into VS...
Clearly whatever I'll buy will be better than what I have now (2 cores only) but it made me think when I saw my current CPU has a higher base frequency than what I will get next... And then, the turbo frequency is not sustained as the thermals will make it step down...
The worse cases are when I must start a full virtual Linux server, and 2 computers more to launch an old software that (thanks God I must not do usually) I need to perform some specific works.
And sometimes (not often either) I need to check 3D designs customers send me and then my laptop suffers...
Then, I can get any of those options in the original post... I think I will get a T14s (which is the natural replacement for my current computer). Now Lenovo offer Intel and AMD in some professional laptop series... and this is making it more difficult to choose...
Thunderbolt or not?
Less cores and higher base frequency or more cores and lower base frequency?
In Spain, as far as I know, there is not a physical shop where I can see them working and test them so I must get the computer by Internet, hence all those questions.
|
|
|
|
|
Looking at your list I would say CPU alone won't save you...
It is good to having a fast CPU with handful of threads, but you will need also a fast and large disk and plentiful of memory...
I for instance have a ADM FX 9xxx with 8 threads, but I also have 64 Gb memory and SSD all over the place...
In addition I use Linux, so it seems a total waste... 
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Of course!
I will get 32 GB of RAM, and a 1 or 2 TB SSD.
In all those computers RAM is dual channel and the SSD is nice, but, in case it would not be as nice as needed I could upgrade it to something better...
|
|
|
|
|
I've noticed for a week or more that some titles on BBC News site use a different font. Compare this with that. One uses a serif font while the other one uses a sans serif font.
Being a Saturday without much to do, I investigated a bit and found out that the serif font is a specially designed font (Reith font) that supposedly will make BBC site to stand out more and, among other things will "significantly reduce annual spend on licensing third-party owned fonts".
I'm not an expert but I'm wondering if forcing all browsers to download a font, isn't incurring additional bandwidth costs? In general is it advisable to design a site with a specific (and rare) font or use one of the many fonts already cached by browsers?
Also, years ago when I was learning the basics of font usage, I remember the advice to use serif fonts for the body of text (serifs guide the eye and make it easier to follow long paragraphs) and leave sans serif for headlines that stand out better. Is this still considered sound advice?
Add to these questions the visual inconsistency from one article to the next and I ask: why would BBC do that?
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
Ugh. 
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
I read the Johnson did cut funds because the BBC is too "woke" 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
