Mailing List Archive

On Saturday, 13 April 2024 08:58:50 BST Dale wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> As most likely know, I have a older box I use for backups. The hard
> drives are encrypted which likes the CPU to have AES support. The
> Phenom CPUs don't seam to support AES from what I've seen. The specs
> for the mobo says the mobo does support the FX-6300 CPU tho which has
> AES support. Since the biggest thing I use that system for is my
> backups, would it be better to have the FX-6300 CPU which supports AES
> or the Phenom 1090T? Mobo only shows it supports the FX-6300 and no
> other FX series CPU. Could be that it doesn't support anything else,
> could be the list hasn't been updated. I dunno.
>
> Given the FX-6300 has a higher clocks speed, 3.8GHz versus 3.2GHz for
> the Phenom, I'd think the FX would be a upgrade, quite a good one at
> that. More L2 cache too. Both are 6 cores according to what I found.
> Anyone know something I don't that would make switching to the FX-6300 a
> bad idea?
>
> https://www.gigabyte.com/us/Motherboard/GA-770T-USB3-rev-10/support#support-> cpu
>
> You may have to click on CPU support to see it. Sometimes it goes to it
> directly, sometimes not. :/
>
> Thanks.
>
> Dale
>
> :-) :-)

I can't find where the link you provide mentions FX-6300, an AM3+ socket CPU,
being compatible with GA-770T-USB3-rev-10, an AM3 socket MoBo. The FX-6300
would definitely be a noticeable upgrade (higher base and boost frequency,
plus AES crypto), assuming you can find a MoBo to fit it on. You'll probably
find the cost of buying just the CPU of unknown provenance, which may well
have been cooked with overclocking, will more or less equal the cost of buying
a suitable MoBo + CPU + RAM already assembled. Or even a whole PC ready to
run:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/166707210724

You could get a better result if you start with a budget in mind and then fish
for the best performance combo you can bag with it.

Michael wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 April 2024 08:58:50 BST Dale wrote:
>> Howdy,
>>
>> As most likely know, I have a older box I use for backups. The hard
>> drives are encrypted which likes the CPU to have AES support. The
>> Phenom CPUs don't seam to support AES from what I've seen. The specs
>> for the mobo says the mobo does support the FX-6300 CPU tho which has
>> AES support. Since the biggest thing I use that system for is my
>> backups, would it be better to have the FX-6300 CPU which supports AES
>> or the Phenom 1090T? Mobo only shows it supports the FX-6300 and no
>> other FX series CPU. Could be that it doesn't support anything else,
>> could be the list hasn't been updated. I dunno.
>>
>> Given the FX-6300 has a higher clocks speed, 3.8GHz versus 3.2GHz for
>> the Phenom, I'd think the FX would be a upgrade, quite a good one at
>> that. More L2 cache too. Both are 6 cores according to what I found.
>> Anyone know something I don't that would make switching to the FX-6300 a
>> bad idea?
>>
>> https://www.gigabyte.com/us/Motherboard/GA-770T-USB3-rev-10/support#support-> cpu
>>
>> You may have to click on CPU support to see it. Sometimes it goes to it
>> directly, sometimes not. :/
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-) :-)
> I can't find where the link you provide mentions FX-6300, an AM3+ socket CPU,
> being compatible with GA-770T-USB3-rev-10, an AM3 socket MoBo. The FX-6300
> would definitely be a noticeable upgrade (higher base and boost frequency,
> plus AES crypto), assuming you can find a MoBo to fit it on. You'll probably
> find the cost of buying just the CPU of unknown provenance, which may well
> have been cooked with overclocking, will more or less equal the cost of buying
> a suitable MoBo + CPU + RAM already assembled. Or even a whole PC ready to
> run:
>
> https://www.ebay.com/itm/166707210724
>
> You could get a better result if you start with a budget in mind and then fish
> for the best performance combo you can bag with it.


Your right.  I misread that somehow.  Good thing I asked.  I could have
ordered a CPU that won't fit.  It's a FX-4130 I should be looking at. 
No idea where I got the FX-6300 from.  As you point out, it's not listed
on the specs page.  Still, the FX-4130 shows a faster clock and other
stuff I mentioned except it has 4 cores instead of 6.  I got it right
except for the model of the CPU.  According to this page it supports AES
for encryption as well. 


https://www.amd.com/en/support/cpu/amd-fx-series-processors/amd-fx-4-core-black-edition-processors/fx-4130#!


Now that I got the right model of CPU, still be a improvement?  I'm
mostly wanting to use this mobo I already have.  I just wish the
encryption was faster.  The loss of two cores may slow it down a lot,
despite having AES built in. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

On Saturday, 13 April 2024 12:12:04 BST Dale wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > On Saturday, 13 April 2024 08:58:50 BST Dale wrote:
> >> Howdy,
> >>
> >> As most likely know, I have a older box I use for backups. The hard
> >> drives are encrypted which likes the CPU to have AES support. The
> >> Phenom CPUs don't seam to support AES from what I've seen. The specs
> >> for the mobo says the mobo does support the FX-6300 CPU tho which has
> >> AES support. Since the biggest thing I use that system for is my
> >> backups, would it be better to have the FX-6300 CPU which supports AES
> >> or the Phenom 1090T? Mobo only shows it supports the FX-6300 and no
> >> other FX series CPU. Could be that it doesn't support anything else,
> >> could be the list hasn't been updated. I dunno.
> >>
> >> Given the FX-6300 has a higher clocks speed, 3.8GHz versus 3.2GHz for
> >> the Phenom, I'd think the FX would be a upgrade, quite a good one at
> >> that. More L2 cache too. Both are 6 cores according to what I found.
> >> Anyone know something I don't that would make switching to the FX-6300 a
> >> bad idea?
> >>
> >> https://www.gigabyte.com/us/Motherboard/GA-770T-USB3-rev-10/support#suppo
> >> rt-> cpu
> >>
> >> You may have to click on CPU support to see it. Sometimes it goes to it
> >> directly, sometimes not. :/
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Dale
> >>
> >> :-) :-)
> >
> > I can't find where the link you provide mentions FX-6300, an AM3+ socket
> > CPU, being compatible with GA-770T-USB3-rev-10, an AM3 socket MoBo. The
> > FX-6300 would definitely be a noticeable upgrade (higher base and boost
> > frequency, plus AES crypto), assuming you can find a MoBo to fit it on.
> > You'll probably find the cost of buying just the CPU of unknown
> > provenance, which may well have been cooked with overclocking, will more
> > or less equal the cost of buying a suitable MoBo + CPU + RAM already
> > assembled. Or even a whole PC ready to run:
> >
> > https://www.ebay.com/itm/166707210724
> >
> > You could get a better result if you start with a budget in mind and then
> > fish for the best performance combo you can bag with it.
>
> Your right. I misread that somehow. Good thing I asked. I could have
> ordered a CPU that won't fit. It's a FX-4130 I should be looking at.
> No idea where I got the FX-6300 from. As you point out, it's not listed
> on the specs page. Still, the FX-4130 shows a faster clock and other
> stuff I mentioned except it has 4 cores instead of 6. I got it right
> except for the model of the CPU. According to this page it supports AES
> for encryption as well.
>
>
> https://www.amd.com/en/support/cpu/amd-fx-series-processors/amd-fx-4-core-bl
> ack-edition-processors/fx-4130#!
>
>
> Now that I got the right model of CPU, still be a improvement? I'm
> mostly wanting to use this mobo I already have. I just wish the
> encryption was faster. The loss of two cores may slow it down a lot,
> despite having AES built in.
>
> Dale
>
> :-) :-)

I think the FX-4130 should give a noticeable improvement on crypto and a small
improvement on single thread processing (higher frequency and larger cache).
On the other hand it'll suffer on parallel tasks.

TBH I'd rather spend the $10 or so for a used FX-4130 on a more modern MoBo
plus CPU, than throw good money after bad.

On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 3:58?AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Given the FX-6300 has a higher clocks speed, 3.8GHz versus 3.2GHz for
> the Phenom, I'd think the FX would be a upgrade, quite a good one at
> that. More L2 cache too. Both are 6 cores according to what I found.
> Anyone know something I don't that would make switching to the FX-6300 a
> bad idea?

The most obvious issue is that you're putting money into a very obsolete system.

Obviously hardware of this generation is fairly cheap, but it isn't
actually the best bang for the buck, ESPECIALLY when you factor in
power use. Like most AMD chips of that generation (well, most chips
in general when you get that old), that CPU uses quite a bit of power
at idle, and so that chip which might cost you $35 even at retail
might cost you double that amount per year just in electricity.

If your goal is to go cheap you also need to consider alternatives.
You can get used hardware from various places, and most of it is 3-5
years old. Even commodity hardware of that age is far more powerful
than a 15 year old CPU socket and often it starts at $100 or so - and
that is for a complete system. Often you can get stuff that is
ex-corporate that has a fair bit of RAM as well, since a lot of
companies need to deal with compatibility with office productivity
software that might be a little RAM hungry. RAM isn't cheap these
days, and they practically give it away when they dispose of old
hardware.

The biggest issue you're going to have with NAS is finding something
with the desired number of drive bays, as a lot of used desktop
hardware is SFF (but also super-low-power, which is something
companies consider in their purchasing decisions when picking
something they're going to be buying thousands of).

Right now most of my storage is on Ceph on SFF PCs. I do want to try
to get future expansion onto NVMe but even used systems that support
much of that are kinda expensive still (mostly servers since desktop
CPUs have so few PCIe lanes, and switches aren't that common). One of
my constraints using Ceph though is I need a lot of RAM, which is part
of why I'm going the SFF route - for $100 you can get one with 32GB of
RAM and 2-3 SATA ports, plus USB3 and an unused 4-16x PCIe slot. That
is a lot of RAM/IO compared to most options at that price point (ARM
in particular tends to lack both - not that it doesn't support it, but
rather nobody makes cheap ARM hardware with PCIe+DIMM slots).

--
Rich

Michael wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 April 2024 12:12:04 BST Dale wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 13 April 2024 08:58:50 BST Dale wrote:
>>>> Howdy,
>>>>
>>>> As most likely know, I have a older box I use for backups. The hard
>>>> drives are encrypted which likes the CPU to have AES support. The
>>>> Phenom CPUs don't seam to support AES from what I've seen. The specs
>>>> for the mobo says the mobo does support the FX-6300 CPU tho which has
>>>> AES support. Since the biggest thing I use that system for is my
>>>> backups, would it be better to have the FX-6300 CPU which supports AES
>>>> or the Phenom 1090T? Mobo only shows it supports the FX-6300 and no
>>>> other FX series CPU. Could be that it doesn't support anything else,
>>>> could be the list hasn't been updated. I dunno.
>>>>
>>>> Given the FX-6300 has a higher clocks speed, 3.8GHz versus 3.2GHz for
>>>> the Phenom, I'd think the FX would be a upgrade, quite a good one at
>>>> that. More L2 cache too. Both are 6 cores according to what I found.
>>>> Anyone know something I don't that would make switching to the FX-6300 a
>>>> bad idea?
>>>>
>>>> https://www.gigabyte.com/us/Motherboard/GA-770T-USB3-rev-10/support#suppo
>>>> rt-> cpu
>>>>
>>>> You may have to click on CPU support to see it. Sometimes it goes to it
>>>> directly, sometimes not. :/
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Dale
>>>>
>>>> :-) :-)
>>> I can't find where the link you provide mentions FX-6300, an AM3+ socket
>>> CPU, being compatible with GA-770T-USB3-rev-10, an AM3 socket MoBo. The
>>> FX-6300 would definitely be a noticeable upgrade (higher base and boost
>>> frequency, plus AES crypto), assuming you can find a MoBo to fit it on.
>>> You'll probably find the cost of buying just the CPU of unknown
>>> provenance, which may well have been cooked with overclocking, will more
>>> or less equal the cost of buying a suitable MoBo + CPU + RAM already
>>> assembled. Or even a whole PC ready to run:
>>>
>>> https://www.ebay.com/itm/166707210724
>>>
>>> You could get a better result if you start with a budget in mind and then
>>> fish for the best performance combo you can bag with it.
>> Your right. I misread that somehow. Good thing I asked. I could have
>> ordered a CPU that won't fit. It's a FX-4130 I should be looking at.
>> No idea where I got the FX-6300 from. As you point out, it's not listed
>> on the specs page. Still, the FX-4130 shows a faster clock and other
>> stuff I mentioned except it has 4 cores instead of 6. I got it right
>> except for the model of the CPU. According to this page it supports AES
>> for encryption as well.
>>
>>
>> https://www.amd.com/en/support/cpu/amd-fx-series-processors/amd-fx-4-core-bl
>> ack-edition-processors/fx-4130#!
>>
>>
>> Now that I got the right model of CPU, still be a improvement? I'm
>> mostly wanting to use this mobo I already have. I just wish the
>> encryption was faster. The loss of two cores may slow it down a lot,
>> despite having AES built in.
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-) :-)
> I think the FX-4130 should give a noticeable improvement on crypto and a small
> improvement on single thread processing (higher frequency and larger cache).
> On the other hand it'll suffer on parallel tasks.
>
> TBH I'd rather spend the $10 or so for a used FX-4130 on a more modern MoBo
> plus CPU, than throw good money after bad.


I found a CPU for like $20 shipping and all but as you rightly and
correctly point out, you don't know what that poor thing has been
through.  Overclocking, poor cooling and any number of other things. 
Most people don't build them like I do.  I build a tank.  Lots of fans,
massive CPU cooler etc etc.  I might get a perfectly good CPU that
hasn't been abused at all, then again I might not.  The 1090T in there
now is one I bought used.  I ran stress-ng on it and it never missed a
beat. 

I think I'll stick with this for now.  Once I build a new rig, whenever
I can get back on track with that, this current rig will be used sort of
like a NAS box and backup rig.  It has AES support.  It works fairly
well.  The encryption still slows the speed down some but that's the way
it is. 

Dale

:-) 

My biggest thing right now, finding a mobo with plenty of PCIe slots. 
They put all this new stuff, wifi and such, but remove things I do need,
PCIe slots.  First thing I'd do, disable wifi.  I just don't need it. 
Only use wifi for my cell phone and printer.  I got my CPU picked out,
Ryzen 7900X.  Memory will depend on the mobo mostly.  I'll get back to
it eventually.  Maybe they will have what I need by then. 

Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 3:58?AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Given the FX-6300 has a higher clocks speed, 3.8GHz versus 3.2GHz for
>> the Phenom, I'd think the FX would be a upgrade, quite a good one at
>> that. More L2 cache too. Both are 6 cores according to what I found.
>> Anyone know something I don't that would make switching to the FX-6300 a
>> bad idea?
> The most obvious issue is that you're putting money into a very obsolete system.
>
> Obviously hardware of this generation is fairly cheap, but it isn't
> actually the best bang for the buck, ESPECIALLY when you factor in
> power use. Like most AMD chips of that generation (well, most chips
> in general when you get that old), that CPU uses quite a bit of power
> at idle, and so that chip which might cost you $35 even at retail
> might cost you double that amount per year just in electricity.
>
> If your goal is to go cheap you also need to consider alternatives.
> You can get used hardware from various places, and most of it is 3-5
> years old. Even commodity hardware of that age is far more powerful
> than a 15 year old CPU socket and often it starts at $100 or so - and
> that is for a complete system. Often you can get stuff that is
> ex-corporate that has a fair bit of RAM as well, since a lot of
> companies need to deal with compatibility with office productivity
> software that might be a little RAM hungry. RAM isn't cheap these
> days, and they practically give it away when they dispose of old
> hardware.
>
> The biggest issue you're going to have with NAS is finding something
> with the desired number of drive bays, as a lot of used desktop
> hardware is SFF (but also super-low-power, which is something
> companies consider in their purchasing decisions when picking
> something they're going to be buying thousands of).
>
> Right now most of my storage is on Ceph on SFF PCs. I do want to try
> to get future expansion onto NVMe but even used systems that support
> much of that are kinda expensive still (mostly servers since desktop
> CPUs have so few PCIe lanes, and switches aren't that common). One of
> my constraints using Ceph though is I need a lot of RAM, which is part
> of why I'm going the SFF route - for $100 you can get one with 32GB of
> RAM and 2-3 SATA ports, plus USB3 and an unused 4-16x PCIe slot. That
> is a lot of RAM/IO compared to most options at that price point (ARM
> in particular tends to lack both - not that it doesn't support it, but
> rather nobody makes cheap ARM hardware with PCIe+DIMM slots).
>


Right now, I have a three drive setup in a removable cage for the NAS
box.  The drives sit in my safe except when I'm updating the backups.  I
update about once a week or so.  It doesn't change as fast as it used
too.  If this main rig were to die, I'd use it as a temporary rig, then
focus on building a new rig.  The encryption is slow and makes the CPU
work hard. 

You are right, it is throwing money at old hardware.  It's just that I
have this hardware laying around anyway.  I have a old Dell that I've
thought about using as a torrent box.  I'm not sure it has enough memory
for that tho.  I think the Dell has the max of 4GBs of memory.  Current
NAS/backup box has 16GBs.  Main rig has 32GBs and I give it a good
workout when doing updates. 

I'm not familiar with Ceph but I've seen it mentioned before.  I'll go
google it.  See what it is.  I need a couple new drives to swap out
anyway.  LVM makes that pretty easy.  ;-) 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 8:11?AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My biggest thing right now, finding a mobo with plenty of PCIe slots.
> They put all this new stuff, wifi and such, but remove things I do need,
> PCIe slots.

PCIe and memory capacity seem to have become the way the
server/workstation and consumer markets are segmented.

AM5 gets you 28x v5 lanes. SP5 gets you 128x v5 lanes. The server
socket also has way more memory capacity, though I couldn't quickly
identify exactly how much more due to the ambiguous way in which DDR5
memory channels are referenced all over the place. Suffice it to say
you can put several times as many DIMMs into a typical server
motherboard, especially if you have two CPUs on it (two CPUs likewise
increases the PCIe capacity).

IT would be nice if there were switches out there that would let you
take a v5 PCIe slot on newer consumer hardware and break it out into a
bunch of v3/4 NVMe adapters (U.2, M.2, PCIe, whatever).

--
Rich

On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 8:20?AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Right now, I have a three drive setup in a removable cage for the NAS
> box.

If you only need three drives I'm sure you can find cheap used
hardware that will handle that. Odds are it will use way less power
and perform better than whatever you're going to upgrade your system
to.

> I'm not familiar with Ceph but I've seen it mentioned before.

Do NOT deploy Ceph with three drives on one host.

Ceph is what you think about using when you are tired of stacking HBAs
to cram a dozen SATA ports in a single host. It isn't what you'd use
for backup/etc storage.

Honestly, if you're just looking for backup drives I'd consider USB3
drives you just plug into a host and run in a zpool or whatever.
Export the filesystem and unplug the drives and you're done. That is
how I backup Ceph right now (k8s job that runs restic against ceph
dumping it on a zpool).

--
Rich

Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 8:11?AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> My biggest thing right now, finding a mobo with plenty of PCIe slots.
>> They put all this new stuff, wifi and such, but remove things I do need,
>> PCIe slots.
> PCIe and memory capacity seem to have become the way the
> server/workstation and consumer markets are segmented.
>
> AM5 gets you 28x v5 lanes. SP5 gets you 128x v5 lanes. The server
> socket also has way more memory capacity, though I couldn't quickly
> identify exactly how much more due to the ambiguous way in which DDR5
> memory channels are referenced all over the place. Suffice it to say
> you can put several times as many DIMMs into a typical server
> motherboard, especially if you have two CPUs on it (two CPUs likewise
> increases the PCIe capacity).
>
> IT would be nice if there were switches out there that would let you
> take a v5 PCIe slot on newer consumer hardware and break it out into a
> bunch of v3/4 NVMe adapters (U.2, M.2, PCIe, whatever).
>


I see lots of mobos with those little hard drives on a stick.  I think
they called NVME or something, may have spelling wrong.  For most
people, that is likely awesome.  For me, I think I'd be happy with a
regular SSD.  Given that, I'd like them to make a mobo where one can say
cut off/disable that NVME thing and make use of that "lane" as a PCIe
slot(s).  Even if that means having a cable that hooks to the mobo and
runs elsewhere to connect PCIe cards.  In other words, have one slot
that is expandable to say three or four slots with what I think is
called a back-plane.  That way if a user wants to use the NVME thing,
they can.  If they don't, they can disable it and go another route with
PCIe expansion.  Sort of reminds me of that SAS drive thing.  You have
one cable that branches out into several SATA drives or SAS drives
themselves.  I don't know a lot about SAS really.  May have to read up
on that with that new case that holds 18 drives tho.  O_o

I have considered getting a server type mobo and CPU for my new build. 
As you point out, they are packed with features I could likely use. 
Thing is, the price tag makes me faint and fall out of my chair.  Even
used ones that are a couple years old, in the floor I go.  -_-  I looked
up a SP5 AMD CPU, pushing $800 just for the CPU on Ebay, used.  The mobo
isn't cheap either.  I don't know if that would even serve my purpose. 
I may need something newer and even more expensive.   I'd have to be
able to put it in a regular case tho.  No room for rack mount stuff. 

The biggest thing I need PCIe slots for, drive controllers.  I thought
about buying a SAS card and having it branch out into a LOT of drives. 
Still, I might need two cards even then. 

It's like looking at the cereal isle in a store.  All those choices and
most of them . . . . are corn.  ROFL 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

P. S.  To all:  There was a news item recently about grub updates and
reinstalling to the hard drive when updating.  I just synced and there
is a new grub update.  Make sure to see if grub updates for you and if
so, don't forget to reinstall to the hard drive.  For old BIOS users,
usually a grub-install /dev/sda will do.  You EFI folks, you on your
own.  Gentoo wiki has the command.  I've never had EFI stuff, yet.  Hope
this heads up helps someone. 

Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 8:20?AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Right now, I have a three drive setup in a removable cage for the NAS
>> box.
> If you only need three drives I'm sure you can find cheap used
> hardware that will handle that. Odds are it will use way less power
> and perform better than whatever you're going to upgrade your system
> to.

I only run that thing about 1 to 2 hours a week, maybe a couple hours or
so more when updating the OS once a month.  It doesn't run much but the
new systems are very cheap on power usage and they do a ton more work. 
I recently bought a new A/C for my room.  A old A/C unit from a couple
decades ago pulled about 12 to 13 amps.  One I bought a few years ago,
about 7 to maybe 8 on a really hot day, and LOo compiling on top of
that.  ;-)  This new unit, dang thing pulls about 3 amps and still cools
really good.  All those are the same 12,000BTU rating.  Same brand
even.  A lot of stuff is getting more efficient.  To compensate for
that, the power companies go up on the KW rate.  O_O 

If I didn't have these old parts laying around that still work, I'd do
like you're thinking.  Still, you have a good point.  It is old. 


>> I'm not familiar with Ceph but I've seen it mentioned before.
> Do NOT deploy Ceph with three drives on one host.
>
> Ceph is what you think about using when you are tired of stacking HBAs
> to cram a dozen SATA ports in a single host. It isn't what you'd use
> for backup/etc storage.
>
> Honestly, if you're just looking for backup drives I'd consider USB3
> drives you just plug into a host and run in a zpool or whatever.
> Export the filesystem and unplug the drives and you're done. That is
> how I backup Ceph right now (k8s job that runs restic against ceph
> dumping it on a zpool).
>


I like LVM myself.  Right now, it serves my needs very well.  I tried
that NAS OS a while back but I ran into issues with it.  I switched the
box to Gentoo and LVM.  When I get ready to swap drives or something,
same commands as my main rig.  Nothing new to learn or remember.  And it
works fine. 

Still gonna google and see what Ceph is.  You've mentioned it before and
I think someone else has too.  Mostly, curious. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

On 13/04/2024 14:23, Dale wrote:
> I see lots of mobos with those little hard drives on a stick.  I think
> they called NVME or something, may have spelling wrong.  For most
> people, that is likely awesome.  For me, I think I'd be happy with a
> regular SSD.  Given that, I'd like them to make a mobo where one can say
> cut off/disable that NVME thing and make use of that "lane" as a PCIe
> slot(s).  Even if that means having a cable that hooks to the mobo and
> runs elsewhere to connect PCIe cards.  In other words, have one slot
> that is expandable to say three or four slots with what I think is
> called a back-plane.  That way if a user wants to use the NVME thing,
> they can.  If they don't, they can disable it and go another route with
> PCIe expansion.  Sort of reminds me of that SAS drive thing.  You have
> one cable that branches out into several SATA drives or SAS drives
> themselves.  I don't know a lot about SAS really.  May have to read up
> on that with that new case that holds 18 drives tho.  O_o

Read up on your mobo.

Certainly on mine, that thing where you can use NVME *OR* OCIe *OR* Sata
is a thing on mine.

There's a nice table in the mobo manual that tells you which combos are
supported.

Cheers,
Wol

Wols Lists wrote:
> On 13/04/2024 14:23, Dale wrote:
>> I see lots of mobos with those little hard drives on a stick.  I think
>> they called NVME or something, may have spelling wrong.  For most
>> people, that is likely awesome.  For me, I think I'd be happy with a
>> regular SSD.  Given that, I'd like them to make a mobo where one can say
>> cut off/disable that NVME thing and make use of that "lane" as a PCIe
>> slot(s).  Even if that means having a cable that hooks to the mobo and
>> runs elsewhere to connect PCIe cards.  In other words, have one slot
>> that is expandable to say three or four slots with what I think is
>> called a back-plane.  That way if a user wants to use the NVME thing,
>> they can.  If they don't, they can disable it and go another route with
>> PCIe expansion.  Sort of reminds me of that SAS drive thing.  You have
>> one cable that branches out into several SATA drives or SAS drives
>> themselves.  I don't know a lot about SAS really.  May have to read up
>> on that with that new case that holds 18 drives tho.  O_o
>
> Read up on your mobo.
>
> Certainly on mine, that thing where you can use NVME *OR* OCIe *OR*
> Sata is a thing on mine.
>
> There's a nice table in the mobo manual that tells you which combos
> are supported.
>
> Cheers,
> Wol
>
>


That's good to know.  I've looked at a few mobos but didn't see that in
the list of features.  I guess I need to dig deeper.  Still, I need
slots, either on the mobo or as a option to place elsewhere.  My current
mobo has all the PCIe slots in use.  To add another drive controller to
my current rig for example, I'd have to buy a new card that has more
ports. 

Thanks for that info. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Am Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 08:23:27AM -0500 schrieb Dale:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 8:11?AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> My biggest thing right now, finding a mobo with plenty of PCIe slots.
> >> They put all this new stuff, wifi and such, but remove things I do need,
> >> PCIe slots.
> > PCIe and memory capacity seem to have become the way the
> > server/workstation and consumer markets are segmented.
> >
> > AM5 gets you 28x v5 lanes. SP5 gets you 128x v5 lanes. The server
> > socket also has way more memory capacity, though I couldn't quickly
> > identify exactly how much more due to the ambiguous way in which DDR5
> > memory channels are referenced all over the place. Suffice it to say
> > you can put several times as many DIMMs into a typical server
> > motherboard, especially if you have two CPUs on it (two CPUs likewise
> > increases the PCIe capacity).
>
> I see lots of mobos with those little hard drives on a stick.  I think
> they called NVME or something, may have spelling wrong.

The physical connector is called M.2. The dimensions of the “sticks” are
given in a number such as 2280, meaning 22 mm wide and 80 mm long. There are
different lengths available from 30 to 110 mm. M.2 has different “keys”,
meaning there are several variants of electrical hookup. Depending on that,
it can support SATA, PCIe, or both. NVMe is a protocol that usually runs via
PCIe. So for a modern setup, one usually buys NVMe drives, meaning they are
connected via PCIe either directly to the CPU or over the chipset.

> For most
> people, that is likely awesome.  For me, I think I'd be happy with a
> regular SSD.  Given that, I'd like them to make a mobo where one can say
> cut off/disable that NVME thing and make use of that "lane" as a PCIe
> slot(s).  Even if that means having a cable that hooks to the mobo and
> runs elsewhere to connect PCIe cards. In other words, have one slot
> that is expandable to say three or four slots with what I think is
> called a back-plane.

There is also the other way around that: an adapter card for the M.2 slot
that gives you SATA ports.

> I have considered getting a server type mobo and CPU for my new build. 

The only reason I got a server board for my little 4-slot NAS is to get ECC
support. (Plus you don’t get non-server Mini-ITX with more than four SATAs).
But it runs the smallest i3 I could get. It’s a NAS, not a workstation. It
serves files, nothing more. I don’t mind if updates take longer than on a
Desktop, which is why I don’t see a point in speccing it out to the top
CPU-wise. This only adds cost to acquisition and upkeep.

I just did the profile switch to 23, and it rebuilt 685 packages in a little
over six hours, plus 1½ hours for gcc beforehand.

> As you point out, they are packed with features I could likely use. 

“Could likely”? Which features exactly? As you say yourself:

> Thing is, the price tag makes me faint and fall out of my chair.  Even
> used ones that are a couple years old, in the floor I go.  -_-  I looked
> up a SP5 AMD CPU, pushing $800 just for the CPU on Ebay, used.  The mobo
> isn't cheap either.  I don't know if that would even serve my purpose. 

Exactly. Those boards and CPUs are made to run servers that serve entire
SMBs so that the employees can work on stuff at the same time. As a one-man
entity, I don’t expect you’ll ever really need that raw power. If it’s just
for SATA ports, you can get controller cards for those.

> The biggest thing I need PCIe slots for, drive controllers.  I thought
> about buying a SAS card and having it branch out into a LOT of drives. 
> Still, I might need two cards even then. 

But it would be the most logical choice.

> It's like looking at the cereal isle in a store.  All those choices and
> most of them . . . . are corn.  ROFL 

Nice one.

--
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

I’ve been using vi for 15 years, because I don’t know with which command
to close it.

Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 08:23:27AM -0500 schrieb Dale:
>> Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 8:11?AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> My biggest thing right now, finding a mobo with plenty of PCIe slots.
>>>> They put all this new stuff, wifi and such, but remove things I do need,
>>>> PCIe slots.
>>> PCIe and memory capacity seem to have become the way the
>>> server/workstation and consumer markets are segmented.
>>>
>>> AM5 gets you 28x v5 lanes. SP5 gets you 128x v5 lanes. The server
>>> socket also has way more memory capacity, though I couldn't quickly
>>> identify exactly how much more due to the ambiguous way in which DDR5
>>> memory channels are referenced all over the place. Suffice it to say
>>> you can put several times as many DIMMs into a typical server
>>> motherboard, especially if you have two CPUs on it (two CPUs likewise
>>> increases the PCIe capacity).
>> I see lots of mobos with those little hard drives on a stick.  I think
>> they called NVME or something, may have spelling wrong.
> The physical connector is called M.2. The dimensions of the “sticks” are
> given in a number such as 2280, meaning 22 mm wide and 80 mm long. There are
> different lengths available from 30 to 110 mm. M.2 has different “keys”,
> meaning there are several variants of electrical hookup. Depending on that,
> it can support SATA, PCIe, or both. NVMe is a protocol that usually runs via
> PCIe. So for a modern setup, one usually buys NVMe drives, meaning they are
> connected via PCIe either directly to the CPU or over the chipset.
>


Ahh, that's why some of them look a little different.  I was wondering
about that.  Keep in mind, I've never seen one in real life.  Just
pictures or videos, or people talking about them on this list. 


>> For most
>> people, that is likely awesome.  For me, I think I'd be happy with a
>> regular SSD.  Given that, I'd like them to make a mobo where one can say
>> cut off/disable that NVME thing and make use of that "lane" as a PCIe
>> slot(s).  Even if that means having a cable that hooks to the mobo and
>> runs elsewhere to connect PCIe cards. In other words, have one slot
>> that is expandable to say three or four slots with what I think is
>> called a back-plane.
> There is also the other way around that: an adapter card for the M.2 slot
> that gives you SATA ports.
>

I didn't know that.  I looked on ebay, not sure exactly what to search
for or what they look like but, I found something that looks like
adapter.  I only see one SATA connector but more searching could find
something else. 


>> I have considered getting a server type mobo and CPU for my new build. 
> The only reason I got a server board for my little 4-slot NAS is to get ECC
> support. (Plus you don’t get non-server Mini-ITX with more than four SATAs).
> But it runs the smallest i3 I could get. It’s a NAS, not a workstation. It
> serves files, nothing more. I don’t mind if updates take longer than on a
> Desktop, which is why I don’t see a point in speccing it out to the top
> CPU-wise. This only adds cost to acquisition and upkeep.
>
> I just did the profile switch to 23, and it rebuilt 685 packages in a little
> over six hours, plus 1½ hours for gcc beforehand.
>
>> As you point out, they are packed with features I could likely use. 
> “Could likely”? Which features exactly? As you say yourself:
>

I've seen some server type mobos that have SAS connectors which gives
several options.  Some of them tend to have more PCIe slots which some
regular mobos don't anymore.  Then there is that ECC memory as well.  If
the memory doesn't cost to much more, I could go that route.  I'm not
sure how much I would benefit from it but data corruption is a thing to
be concerned about. 


>> Thing is, the price tag makes me faint and fall out of my chair.  Even
>> used ones that are a couple years old, in the floor I go.  -_-  I looked
>> up a SP5 AMD CPU, pushing $800 just for the CPU on Ebay, used.  The mobo
>> isn't cheap either.  I don't know if that would even serve my purpose. 
> Exactly. Those boards and CPUs are made to run servers that serve entire
> SMBs so that the employees can work on stuff at the same time. As a one-man
> entity, I don’t expect you’ll ever really need that raw power. If it’s just
> for SATA ports, you can get controller cards for those.
>

The problem with those cards, some of the newer mobos don't have as many
PCIe slots to put those cards into anymore.  I think I currently have
two such cards in my current rig.  The new rig would hold almost twice
the number of drives.  Obviously, I'd need cards with more SATA ports. 


>> The biggest thing I need PCIe slots for, drive controllers.  I thought
>> about buying a SAS card and having it branch out into a LOT of drives. 
>> Still, I might need two cards even then. 
> But it would be the most logical choice.
>
>> It's like looking at the cereal isle in a store.  All those choices and
>> most of them . . . . are corn.  ROFL 
> Nice one.
>


One reason I'm trying not to move to fast right now, besides trying to
save up money, I'm trying to find the right CPU, mobo and memory combo. 
None of them are cheap anymore.  Just the CPU is going to be around
$400.  The mobo isn't to far behind if I go with a non server one. 

I'm trying to weigh out lots of options at this point.  My budget keeps
getting in the way tho.  LOL 

Dale

:-)  :-)  

Am Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 08:04:15AM -0500 schrieb Dale:

> > The physical connector is called M.2. The dimensions of the “sticks” are
> > given in a number such as 2280, meaning 22 mm wide and 80 mm long. There are
> > different lengths available from 30 to 110 mm. M.2 has different “keys”,
> > meaning there are several variants of electrical hookup. Depending on that,
> > it can support SATA, PCIe, or both. NVMe is a protocol that usually runs via
> > PCIe. So for a modern setup, one usually buys NVMe drives, meaning they are
> > connected via PCIe either directly to the CPU or over the chipset.
> >
>
>
> Ahh, that's why some of them look a little different.  I was wondering
> about that.  Keep in mind, I've never seen one in real life.  Just
> pictures or videos, or people talking about them on this list. 

I use one in my 10-year-old PC. The board only provides PCIe 2.0×2 to the
slot, so I only get around 1 GB/s instead of 3 which the SSD can reach. But
I bought the SSD with the intention of keeping it in the next build and I
don’t notice the difference anyways.

> > There is also the other way around that: an adapter card for the M.2 slot
> > that gives you SATA ports.
> >
>
> I didn't know that.

I actually thought we mentioned it already in an earlier “NAS thingy”
thread. :)

https://www.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/comments/s0bf1d/m2_sata_expansion_anyone_use_something_like_this/
https://www.amazon.de/dp/B09FZDQ6ZB
Maybe you find something if you search for the controller chip (PCIe to
SATA): JMB585. From what I’ve just read though, the cheap chines adapters
don’t seem to be very sturdy. One person advised to put an adapter M.2 ?
normal PCIe into the M.2 and then use a normal-formfactor controller card.
After all, an M.2 slot is just a PCIe×4 slot with a different connector.

BTW: there are also NVMe SSDs in the old 2.5? format. This formfactor is
called U.2, but beware the enterprise-level prices.

> I've seen some server type mobos that have SAS connectors which gives
> several options.  Some of them tend to have more PCIe slots which some
> regular mobos don't anymore.  Then there is that ECC memory as well.  If
> the memory doesn't cost to much more, I could go that route.  I'm not
> sure how much I would benefit from it but data corruption is a thing to
> be concerned about. 
> […]
> The problem with those cards, some of the newer mobos don't have as many
> PCIe slots to put those cards into anymore.  I think I currently have
> two such cards in my current rig.  The new rig would hold almost twice
> the number of drives.  Obviously, I'd need cards with more SATA ports. 

Indeed consumer boards tend to get fewer normal PCIe slots. Filtering for
AM4 boards, the filter allowed me to filter up to 6 slots, whereas for AM5
boards, the filter stopped at 4 slots.
AM4: https://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=mbam4&xf=18869_5%7E20502_UECCDIMM%7E4400_ATX
AM5: https://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=mbam5&xf=18869_4%7E20502_UECCDIMM%7E4400_ATX

> One reason I'm trying not to move to fast right now, besides trying to
> save up money, I'm trying to find the right CPU, mobo and memory combo. 
> None of them are cheap anymore.  Just the CPU is going to be around
> $400.  The mobo isn't to far behind if I go with a non server one. 

One popular choice for home servers is AM4’s Ryzen Pro 4650G. That’s an APU
(so with powerful internal graphics), but also with ECC support (hence the
Pro moniker). The APU is popular because 1) on AM4 only APUs have graphics
at all, 2) it allows for use as a compact media server, as no bulky GPU is
needed.

Speaking of GPU: We’ve had the topic before, but keep in mind that if you go
with AM5, you don’t need a dGPU. Unless you go with one of those F
processors. So there is one more slot available.

--
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

Order is one half of your life, but the other half is nicer.

Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 08:04:15AM -0500 schrieb Dale:
>
>>> The physical connector is called M.2. The dimensions of the “sticks” are
>>> given in a number such as 2280, meaning 22 mm wide and 80 mm long. There are
>>> different lengths available from 30 to 110 mm. M.2 has different “keys”,
>>> meaning there are several variants of electrical hookup. Depending on that,
>>> it can support SATA, PCIe, or both. NVMe is a protocol that usually runs via
>>> PCIe. So for a modern setup, one usually buys NVMe drives, meaning they are
>>> connected via PCIe either directly to the CPU or over the chipset.
>>>
>>
>> Ahh, that's why some of them look a little different.  I was wondering
>> about that.  Keep in mind, I've never seen one in real life.  Just
>> pictures or videos, or people talking about them on this list. 
> I use one in my 10-year-old PC. The board only provides PCIe 2.0×2 to the
> slot, so I only get around 1 GB/s instead of 3 which the SSD can reach. But
> I bought the SSD with the intention of keeping it in the next build and I
> don’t notice the difference anyways.
>
>>> There is also the other way around that: an adapter card for the M.2 slot
>>> that gives you SATA ports.
>>>
>> I didn't know that.
> I actually thought we mentioned it already in an earlier “NAS thingy”
> thread. :)
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/comments/s0bf1d/m2_sata_expansion_anyone_use_something_like_this/
> https://www.amazon.de/dp/B09FZDQ6ZB
> Maybe you find something if you search for the controller chip (PCIe to
> SATA): JMB585. From what I’ve just read though, the cheap chines adapters
> don’t seem to be very sturdy. One person advised to put an adapter M.2 ?
> normal PCIe into the M.2 and then use a normal-formfactor controller card.
> After all, an M.2 slot is just a PCIe×4 slot with a different connector.
>
> BTW: there are also NVMe SSDs in the old 2.5? format. This formfactor is
> called U.2, but beware the enterprise-level prices.

It could have came up but slipped my mind.  Lots of things slip through
nowadays.  :/  Those you linked to are nice.  There are some PCIe cards
that go up to a dozen or so drives and still give pretty good speed.  A
PCIe card would be better for the new build, given the larger number of
sata ports.  Either way, I try to spread it across two connection
points.  Example, I have a data and crypt mount point each having three
hard drives.  All my data mount point drives are on one card.  All my
crypt mount point drives are on one card.  If one card quits all of a
sudden, that whole mount point is gone.  If needed, I could move drives
to the other card until I can replace the card. 


>> I've seen some server type mobos that have SAS connectors which gives
>> several options.  Some of them tend to have more PCIe slots which some
>> regular mobos don't anymore.  Then there is that ECC memory as well.  If
>> the memory doesn't cost to much more, I could go that route.  I'm not
>> sure how much I would benefit from it but data corruption is a thing to
>> be concerned about. 
>> […]
>> The problem with those cards, some of the newer mobos don't have as many
>> PCIe slots to put those cards into anymore.  I think I currently have
>> two such cards in my current rig.  The new rig would hold almost twice
>> the number of drives.  Obviously, I'd need cards with more SATA ports. 
> Indeed consumer boards tend to get fewer normal PCIe slots. Filtering for
> AM4 boards, the filter allowed me to filter up to 6 slots, whereas for AM5
> boards, the filter stopped at 4 slots.
> AM4: https://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=mbam4&xf=18869_5%7E20502_UECCDIMM%7E4400_ATX
> AM5: https://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=mbam5&xf=18869_4%7E20502_UECCDIMM%7E4400_ATX

My new build will be a Ryzen 9 7900X which is AM5.  I try to stick with
known good brands of mobos.  I currently use Gigabyte.  I'd be happy
with ASUS and a couple others.  Supermicron I think is a good brand for
server type gear.  I notice all the ones listed in your link for AM5 is
ASUS.  I don't recall ever having one but I've read they are good.  I
wouldn't hesitate to buy one of them.


>> One reason I'm trying not to move to fast right now, besides trying to
>> save up money, I'm trying to find the right CPU, mobo and memory combo. 
>> None of them are cheap anymore.  Just the CPU is going to be around
>> $400.  The mobo isn't to far behind if I go with a non server one. 
> One popular choice for home servers is AM4’s Ryzen Pro 4650G. That’s an APU
> (so with powerful internal graphics), but also with ECC support (hence the
> Pro moniker). The APU is popular because 1) on AM4 only APUs have graphics
> at all, 2) it allows for use as a compact media server, as no bulky GPU is
> needed.
>
> Speaking of GPU: We’ve had the topic before, but keep in mind that if you go
> with AM5, you don’t need a dGPU. Unless you go with one of those F
> processors. So there is one more slot available.
>


I prefer to have a separate video card.  That said, I don't require much
of a video card.  The biggest thing, it has to have at least two output
ports.  I use one port for my monitor and the other for watching TV.  If
the mobo comes with more than one port, I could go that route.  After
all, one could buy one really fast PCIe SATA controller and hook up a
lot of drives in that really fast video card slot, if they make such a
beast. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

P. S. In the middle of proofing this thing, I had company to show up. 
Then I did some garden work and some other things.  I hope his post
makes sense.  Sometimes I read a post several times before hitting
send.  By the time I got done to finish this, my train of thought was
long gone.  Reminds me of that Star Trek thing about space.  ROFL 

Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 08:04:15AM -0500 schrieb Dale:
>
>
>> I've seen some server type mobos that have SAS connectors which gives
>> several options.  Some of them tend to have more PCIe slots which some
>> regular mobos don't anymore.  Then there is that ECC memory as well.  If
>> the memory doesn't cost to much more, I could go that route.  I'm not
>> sure how much I would benefit from it but data corruption is a thing to
>> be concerned about. 
>> […]
>> The problem with those cards, some of the newer mobos don't have as many
>> PCIe slots to put those cards into anymore.  I think I currently have
>> two such cards in my current rig.  The new rig would hold almost twice
>> the number of drives.  Obviously, I'd need cards with more SATA ports. 
> Indeed consumer boards tend to get fewer normal PCIe slots. Filtering for
> AM4 boards, the filter allowed me to filter up to 6 slots, whereas for AM5
> boards, the filter stopped at 4 slots.
> AM4: https://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=mbam4&xf=18869_5%7E20502_UECCDIMM%7E4400_ATX
> AM5: https://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=mbam5&xf=18869_4%7E20502_UECCDIMM%7E4400_ATX
>
>

On the AM5 link, I found a mobo that I kinda like.  I still wish it had
more PCIe slots tho.  Still, with m.2 to SATA converter thing or a PCIe
card with a LOT of SATA ports or a SAS card, I could handle all the hard
drives, I think.  Anyway, I found the ASUS Prime X670-P which is quite
nice.  It has connections I've never heard of.  Still, may need them for
something.  I found the ASUS website and started looking for the specs
and such.  After I got the noscript thing sorted so the page would work,
I noticed something kinda awesome.  It supports not only the Ryzen 9
series but also supports Ryzen 5 series.  I looked up the Ryzen 5 7600X
and 8600G.  I think the X has no video and the G has video support.  I
haven't researched yet to see if the mobo requires the G since it has
video ports, two to be more precise which is the minimum I need. 
Anyway, those two CPUs are cheaper than the Ryzen 9 I was looking at.  I
could upgrade later on as prices drop.  I'm sure a new Ryzen is lurking
around the corner. 

I have a FX-8350 8 core CPU now.  Would the Ryzen 5's mentioned above be
a good bit faster, a lot, a whole lot?  I need to upgrade either way. 
Mobos tend to last around 10 years or so and I'm pushing that hard. 
With the new solid capacitors, some say they last a lot longer now. 
Still, I need more memory too.  32GBs just isn't much when running
Seamonkey, three Firefox profiles and torrent software.  I'm not running
out but at times, it's using a lot of it.  I was hoping for a mobo that
would handle more than 128GB but that is a lot of memory. 

I found a benchmark website that compares the two.  Link below.  It
claims about 80% faster.  In some ways, twice as fast. Sometimes those
bench tests don't reflect the real world to well.  Most of them seem to
test gaming speeds which isn't of much use anyway for me.  I'm more
about compiling and such.  Just wondering how much speed difference this
would make.  Maybe someone reading this did a similar upgrade or has
seen both in action.  If so, post and share your thoughts. 

This opens a new option that might be easier to accomplish.  Still wish
that mobo had more PCIe slots tho. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-5-7600X-vs-AMD-FX-8350/4130vs1489

https://www.asus.com/us/motherboards-components/motherboards/prime/prime-x670-p/helpdesk_qvl_cpu?model2Name=PRIME-X670-P

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 6:33?AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On the AM5 link, I found a mobo that I kinda like. I still wish it had
> more PCIe slots tho.

AM5 has 28 PCIe lanes. Anything above that comes from a switch on the
motherboard.

0.1% of the population cares about having anything on their
motherboard besides a 16x slot for the GPU. So, that's what all the
cheaper boards deliver these days. The higher end boards often have a
switch and will deliver extra lanes, and MAYBE those will go into
another PCIe slot (probably not wired for 16x but it might have that
form factor), and more often those go into additional M.2 slots and
USB3 ports. (USB3 is very high bandwidth, especially later
generations, and eats up PCIe lanes as a result.)

Keep in mind those 28 v5 lanes have the bandwidth of over 100 v3
lanes, which is part of why the counts are being reduced. The problem
is that hardware to do that conversion is kinda niche right now. It
is much easier to bifurcate a larger slot, but that doesn't buy you
more lanes.

> It supports not only the Ryzen 9
> series but also supports Ryzen 5 series.

That is because the 9 and 5 are branding and basically convey no
information at all besides the price point.

The Ryzen 7 1700X has about half the performance of the Ryzen 5 7600X,
and that would be because the first chip came out in 2017, and the
second came out in 2022 and is three generations newer.

Likewise the intel branding of "i3" or "i7" and so on also conveys no
information beyond the general price level they were introduced at.
You can expect the bigger numbers to offer more performance/features
than the smaller ones OF THE SAME GENERATION. The same branding keeps
getting re-applied to later generations of chips, and IMO it is
intentionally confusing.

> I looked up the Ryzen 5 7600X
> and 8600G. I think the X has no video and the G has video support.

Both have onboard graphics. The G designates zen1-3 chips with a GPU
built in, and all zen4 CPUs have this as a standard feature. The
7600X is zen4.

See what I mean about the branding getting confusing?

> I
> haven't researched yet to see if the mobo requires the G since it has
> video ports, two to be more precise which is the minimum I need.

All AM5 CPUs have GPUs, but in general motherboards with video outputs
do not require the CPU to have a GPU built in. The ports just don't
do anything if this is lacking, and you would need a dedicated GPU.

> Anyway, those two CPUs are cheaper than the Ryzen 9 I was looking at. I
> could upgrade later on as prices drop. I'm sure a new Ryzen is lurking
> around the corner.

Zen5 is supposedly coming out later this year. It will be very
expensive. Zen4 is still kinda expensive I believe though I haven't
gone looking recently at prices. I have a zen4 system and it was
expensive (particularly the motherboard, and the DDR5 is more
expensive, and if you want NVMe that does v5 that is more expensive as
well).

> I have a FX-8350 8 core CPU now. Would the Ryzen 5's mentioned above be
> a good bit faster, a lot, a whole lot?

So, that very much depends on what you're doing.

Single-thread performance of that 7600X is 2-3x faster. Total
performance is almost 5x faster. The 7600X will use moderately less
power at full load, and I'm guessing WAY less power at less than full
load. It will also have much better performance than those numbers
reflect for very short bursts of work, since modern CPUs can boost.

That's just pure CPU performance.

The DDR5 performance of the recent CPU is MUCH better than that of the
DDR3 you're using now. Your old motherboard might be PCIe v2 (I think
the controller for that was on the motherboard back then?). If so
each lane delivers 8x more bandwidth on the recent CPU, which matters
a great deal for graphics, or for NVMe performance if you're using an
NVMe that supports it and have a workload that benefits from it.

Gaming tends to be a workload that benefits the most from all of these
factors. If your system is just acting as a NAS and all the storage
is on hard drives, I'm guessing you won't see much of a difference at
all, except maybe in boot time, especially if you put the OS on an
NVMe.

If this is just for your NAS I would not drop all that money on zen4,
let alone zen5. I'd look for something older, possibly used, that is
way cheaper.

> Still, I need more memory too. 32GBs just isn't much when running
> Seamonkey, three Firefox profiles and torrent software.

Ok, if this is for a desktop you'll benefit more from a newer CPU.
RAM is really expensive though these days. Getting something
off-lease is going to save you a fortune as the RAM is practically
free in those. You can get something with 32GB of DDR4 for $150 or
less in a SFF PC.

> I'm not running
> out but at times, it's using a lot of it. I was hoping for a mobo that
> would handle more than 128GB but that is a lot of memory.

Any recent motherboard will handle 128GB. You'll just need to use
large DIMMs as the limit is on the number of channels/slots.

> Most of them seem to
> test gaming speeds which isn't of much use anyway for me. I'm more
> about compiling and such.

Compiling is similar to gaming, but tends to be more multi-threaded.
Unless you're building in tmpfs the storage and memory performance are
both very relevant. A modern CPU will have a noticeable improvement.

That said, if you just mean that you install packages on Gentoo once
in a while, I'm not sure I'd spend a fortune just to make my
background package updates happen faster. It is a nice-to-have
though.

If you're doing software development and often rebuild stuff, you'll notice it.

> This opens a new option that might be easier to accomplish. Still wish
> that mobo had more PCIe slots tho.

What you want exists - just not so much on consumer hardware. You'd
have to look for PCIe switches to try to get what you want.
Definitely possible if you use integrated graphics and then use the
16x slot for a switch, and can find something that does what you want.

If you want what you're looking for out of the box, this is the server
zen4 equivalent of the CPU you're looking at:
https://www.supermicro.com/en/products/motherboard/h13ssl-nt

All the RAM slots and PCIe slots you want, as well as M.2 slots and 8
SATA ports. I saw one on eBay (just the board) for under $900, and
you can imagine what it costs to fill the rest out. Suffice it to say
any website of an authorized seller will say "call us for pricing."

--
Rich

Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 6:33?AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On the AM5 link, I found a mobo that I kinda like. I still wish it had
>> more PCIe slots tho.
> AM5 has 28 PCIe lanes. Anything above that comes from a switch on the
> motherboard.
>
> 0.1% of the population cares about having anything on their
> motherboard besides a 16x slot for the GPU. So, that's what all the
> cheaper boards deliver these days. The higher end boards often have a
> switch and will deliver extra lanes, and MAYBE those will go into
> another PCIe slot (probably not wired for 16x but it might have that
> form factor), and more often those go into additional M.2 slots and
> USB3 ports. (USB3 is very high bandwidth, especially later
> generations, and eats up PCIe lanes as a result.)
>
> Keep in mind those 28 v5 lanes have the bandwidth of over 100 v3
> lanes, which is part of why the counts are being reduced. The problem
> is that hardware to do that conversion is kinda niche right now. It
> is much easier to bifurcate a larger slot, but that doesn't buy you
> more lanes.
>
>> It supports not only the Ryzen 9
>> series but also supports Ryzen 5 series.
> That is because the 9 and 5 are branding and basically convey no
> information at all besides the price point.
>
> The Ryzen 7 1700X has about half the performance of the Ryzen 5 7600X,
> and that would be because the first chip came out in 2017, and the
> second came out in 2022 and is three generations newer.
>
> Likewise the intel branding of "i3" or "i7" and so on also conveys no
> information beyond the general price level they were introduced at.
> You can expect the bigger numbers to offer more performance/features
> than the smaller ones OF THE SAME GENERATION. The same branding keeps
> getting re-applied to later generations of chips, and IMO it is
> intentionally confusing.
>
>> I looked up the Ryzen 5 7600X
>> and 8600G. I think the X has no video and the G has video support.
> Both have onboard graphics. The G designates zen1-3 chips with a GPU
> built in, and all zen4 CPUs have this as a standard feature. The
> 7600X is zen4.
>
> See what I mean about the branding getting confusing?
>

Yep.  I see that.  It's easy enough to confuse me.  Having something
that is inherently confusing just makes it worse.  I think some
manufacturers do this sort of thing on purpose.  Not just computer stuff
either. 

>> I
>> haven't researched yet to see if the mobo requires the G since it has
>> video ports, two to be more precise which is the minimum I need.
> All AM5 CPUs have GPUs, but in general motherboards with video outputs
> do not require the CPU to have a GPU built in. The ports just don't
> do anything if this is lacking, and you would need a dedicated GPU.
>

OK.  I read that a few times.  If I want to use the onboard video I have
to have a certain CPU that supports it?  Do those have something so I
know which is which?  Or do I read that as all the CPUs support onboard
video but if one plugs in a video card, that part of the CPU isn't
used?  The last one makes more sense but asking to be sure. 


>> Anyway, those two CPUs are cheaper than the Ryzen 9 I was looking at. I
>> could upgrade later on as prices drop. I'm sure a new Ryzen is lurking
>> around the corner.
> Zen5 is supposedly coming out later this year. It will be very
> expensive. Zen4 is still kinda expensive I believe though I haven't
> gone looking recently at prices. I have a zen4 system and it was
> expensive (particularly the motherboard, and the DDR5 is more
> expensive, and if you want NVMe that does v5 that is more expensive as
> well).

That could mean a slight price drop for the things I'm looking at then. 
One can hope.  Right??? 


>
> > I have a FX-8350 8 core CPU now. Would the Ryzen 5's mentioned above be
>> a good bit faster, a lot, a whole lot?
> So, that very much depends on what you're doing.
>
> Single-thread performance of that 7600X is 2-3x faster. Total
> performance is almost 5x faster. The 7600X will use moderately less
> power at full load, and I'm guessing WAY less power at less than full
> load. It will also have much better performance than those numbers
> reflect for very short bursts of work, since modern CPUs can boost.
>
> That's just pure CPU performance.
>
> The DDR5 performance of the recent CPU is MUCH better than that of the
> DDR3 you're using now. Your old motherboard might be PCIe v2 (I think
> the controller for that was on the motherboard back then?). If so
> each lane delivers 8x more bandwidth on the recent CPU, which matters
> a great deal for graphics, or for NVMe performance if you're using an
> NVMe that supports it and have a workload that benefits from it.
>
> Gaming tends to be a workload that benefits the most from all of these
> factors. If your system is just acting as a NAS and all the storage
> is on hard drives, I'm guessing you won't see much of a difference at
> all, except maybe in boot time, especially if you put the OS on an
> NVMe.
>
> If this is just for your NAS I would not drop all that money on zen4,
> let alone zen5. I'd look for something older, possibly used, that is
> way cheaper.
>

This wouldn't be for a NAS box.  The new build would become my main
rig.  My current rig would become the new NAS box.  The current CPU
supports AES so that should speed up encryption.  I'm undecided on
whether to strip out my Cooler Master case and put the new build in it
or put new build in the new case with massive drive capacity.  Putting
new build in the Cooler Master would make more sense.  Thing is, down
time.  No TV unless I can rig up a spare rig to use for a day or two. 
Keep in mind, gotta install Gentoo as well.  The large drive capacity of
the new case makes a lot more sense for the NAS box tho.  I do like the
Cooler Master.  It's massive.  However, it does sit comfortable next to
my desk.  The only downside, I have to watch when the DVD tray is out. 
It's at the perfect height for my knee to hit and break. 

Well, I have a lot going on here.  Right now, I have Seamonkey running,
mostly for email.  Web surfing isn't very good on a LOT of sites with
Seamonkey.  Three profiles of Firefox.  I have different profiles for
different things.  That way I can split up add-ons since some clash with
each other plus, I have enough tabs for each one already.  I also have
Qbittorrent running.  I have five instances of Dolphin running.  Konsole
with several tabs.  I quite often have Krusader running as root, I use
it to edit files owned and only accessible by root.  I also have
Smplayer running with a long playlist.  Sometimes my playlist can go
into the hundreds of videos.  I watch TV with it.  I also have a few
instances of mpv running at times as well.  On occasion, when I'm
downloading pics from cell phone or camera, I also have Digikam and
another instance of Dolphin running. 

I keep this rig busy even when I'm doing nothing but watching TV.  Right
now, I'm using right at 20GBs of memory.  To update things like gcc,
LOo, Firefox or that big qt package, I close at least two Firefox
profiles.  Sometimes, I close Seamonkey or at least restart it so it
uses a little less memory. 

I might add, simply right clicking on the desktop can take sometimes 20
or 30 seconds for the menu to pop up.  Switching from one desktop to
another can take several seconds, sometimes 8 or 10.  This rig is
getting slower.  Actually, the software is just getting bigger.  You get
my meaning tho.  I bet the old KDE3 would be blazingly fast compared to
the rig I ran it on originally. 


>> Still, I need more memory too. 32GBs just isn't much when running
>> Seamonkey, three Firefox profiles and torrent software.
> Ok, if this is for a desktop you'll benefit more from a newer CPU.
> RAM is really expensive though these days. Getting something
> off-lease is going to save you a fortune as the RAM is practically
> free in those. You can get something with 32GB of DDR4 for $150 or
> less in a SFF PC.

Given the new rig can have 128GBs, I assume it comes in 32GB sticks. 
I'd get 32GBs at first.  Maybe a month or so later get another 32GB. 
That'll get me 64Gbs.  Later on, a good sale maybe, buy another 32GB or
a 64GB set and max it out.  That's how I usually do it.  I always try to
buy sticks so that I don't have to remove any when upgrading tho. 


>> I'm not running
>> out but at times, it's using a lot of it. I was hoping for a mobo that
>> would handle more than 128GB but that is a lot of memory.
> Any recent motherboard will handle 128GB. You'll just need to use
> large DIMMs as the limit is on the number of channels/slots.
>

All the boards I'm looking at have four slots.  Plugs.  Whatever.  I
think I've only ever had one rig with just two slots.  It was given to
me so can't complain. 


>> Most of them seem to
>> test gaming speeds which isn't of much use anyway for me. I'm more
>> about compiling and such.
> Compiling is similar to gaming, but tends to be more multi-threaded.
> Unless you're building in tmpfs the storage and memory performance are
> both very relevant. A modern CPU will have a noticeable improvement.
>
> That said, if you just mean that you install packages on Gentoo once
> in a while, I'm not sure I'd spend a fortune just to make my
> background package updates happen faster. It is a nice-to-have
> though.
>
> If you're doing software development and often rebuild stuff, you'll notice it.
>
>> This opens a new option that might be easier to accomplish. Still wish
>> that mobo had more PCIe slots tho.
> What you want exists - just not so much on consumer hardware. You'd
> have to look for PCIe switches to try to get what you want.
> Definitely possible if you use integrated graphics and then use the
> 16x slot for a switch, and can find something that does what you want.
>
> If you want what you're looking for out of the box, this is the server
> zen4 equivalent of the CPU you're looking at:
> https://www.supermicro.com/en/products/motherboard/h13ssl-nt
>
> All the RAM slots and PCIe slots you want, as well as M.2 slots and 8
> SATA ports. I saw one on eBay (just the board) for under $900, and
> you can imagine what it costs to fill the rest out. Suffice it to say
> any website of an authorized seller will say "call us for pricing."
>

I've looked at server type boards.  I'd like to have one.  I'd like one
that has SAS ports.  Most of those can expand out and handle a lot of
drives.  I may not need PCIe cards or just one, maybe.  Thing is,
price.  I suspect they are very reliable and would last many years,
decades even.  The concern would be just getting to slow due to age and
software growing.  I wouldn't worry about it blowing smoke, just getting
to outdated.  Still, price tag.  Even used ones are not cheap.  I wish I
could tho.  I really wish I could.  Heck, if I had room and budget, I'd
have a rack type server.   O_O  LOL

I'm just glad I noticed I have some options to allow me to start this
and not rip my budget apart.  CPU, mobo and memory all at one time, not
cheap. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 9:33?AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> > All AM5 CPUs have GPUs, but in general motherboards with video outputs
> > do not require the CPU to have a GPU built in. The ports just don't
> > do anything if this is lacking, and you would need a dedicated GPU.
> >
>
> OK. I read that a few times. If I want to use the onboard video I have
> to have a certain CPU that supports it? Do those have something so I
> know which is which? Or do I read that as all the CPUs support onboard
> video but if one plugs in a video card, that part of the CPU isn't
> used? The last one makes more sense but asking to be sure.

To use onboard graphics, you need a motherboard that supports it, and
a CPU that supports it. I believe that internal graphics and an
external GPU card can both be used at the same time. Note that
internal graphics solutions typically steal some RAM from other system
use, while an external GPU will have its own dedicated RAM (and those
can also make use of internal RAM too).

The 7600X has a built-in RDNA2 GPU. All the original Ryzen zen4 CPUs
had GPU support, but it looks like they JUST announced a new line of
consumer zen4 CPUs that don't have it - they all end in an F right
now.

In any case, if you google the CPU you're looking at it will tell you
if it supports integrated graphics. Most better stores/etc have
filters for this feature as well (places like Newegg or PCPartPicker
or whatever).

If you don't play games, then definitely get integrated graphics.
Even if the CPU costs a tiny bit more, it will give you a free empty
16x PCIe slot at whatever speed the CPU supports (v5 in this case -
which is as good as you can get right now).

> That could mean a slight price drop for the things I'm looking at then.
> One can hope. Right???

Everything comes down in price eventually...

>
> I might add, simply right clicking on the desktop can take sometimes 20
> or 30 seconds for the menu to pop up. Switching from one desktop to
> another can take several seconds, sometimes 8 or 10. This rig is
> getting slower. Actually, the software is just getting bigger. You get
> my meaning tho. I bet the old KDE3 would be blazingly fast compared to
> the rig I ran it on originally.

That sounds like RAM but I couldn't say for sure. In any case a
modern system will definitely help.

> Given the new rig can have 128GBs, I assume it comes in 32GB sticks.

Consumer DDR5 seems to come as large as 48GB, though that seems like
an odd size.

> I'd get 32GBs at first. Maybe a month or so later get another 32GB.
> That'll get me 64Gbs. Later on, a good sale maybe, buy another 32GB or
> a 64GB set and max it out.

You definitely want to match the timings, and you probably want to
match the sticks themselves. Also, you generally need to be mindful
of how many channels you're occupying, though as I understand it DDR5
is essentially natively dual channel. If you just stick one DDR4
stick in a system it will not perform as well as two sticks of half
the size. I forget the gory details but I believe it comes down to
the timings of switching between two different channels vs moving
around within a single one. DDR RAM timings get really confusing, and
it comes down to the fact that addresses are basically grouped in
various ways and randomly seeking from one address to another can take
a different amount of time depending on how the new address is related
to the address you last read. The idea of "seeking" with RAM may seem
odd, but recent memory technologies are a bit like storage, and they
are accessed in a semi-serial manner. Essentially the latencies and
transfer rates are such that even dynamic RAM chips are too slow to
work in the conventional sense. I'm guessing it gets into a lot of
gory details with reactances and so on, and just wiring up every
memory cell in parallel like in the old days would slow down all the
voltage transitions.

> I've looked at server type boards. I'd like to have one. I'd like one
> that has SAS ports.

So, I don't really spend much time looking at them, but I'm guessing
SAS is fairly rare on the motherboards themselves. They probably
almost always have an HBA/RAID controller in a PCIe slot. You can put
the same cards in any PC, but of course you're just going to struggle
to have a slot free. You can always use a riser or something to cram
an HBA into a slot that is too small for it, but then you're going to
suffer reduced performance. For just a few spinning disks though it
probably won't matter.

Really though I feel like the trend is towards NVMe and that gets into
a whole different world. U.2 allows either SAS or PCIe over the bus,
and there are HBAs that will handle both. Or if you only want NVMe it
looks like you can use bifurcation-based solutions to more cheaply
break slots out.

I'm kinda thinking about going that direction when I expand my Ceph
cluster. There are very nice NVMe server designs that can get 24
drives into 2U or whatever, but they are very modern and cost a
fortune even used it seems. I'm kinda thinking about maybe getting a
used workstation with enough PCIe slots free that support bifurcation
and using one for a NIC and another for 4x U.2 drives. If the used
workstation is cheap ($100-200) that is very low overhead per drive
compared to the server solutions. (You can also do 4x M.2 instead.)
These days enterprise U.2 drives are the same price as SATA/M.2 for
the same feature set, and in U.2 you can get much larger capacity
drives. It might be a while before the really big ones start becoming
cheap though...

--
Rich

Am 2024-04-17 12:33, schrieb Dale:
> I found a benchmark website that compares the two.  Link below.  It
> claims about 80% faster.  In some ways, twice as fast. Sometimes those
> bench tests don't reflect the real world to well.  Most of them seem to
> test gaming speeds which isn't of much use anyway for me.  I'm more
> about compiling and such.  Just wondering how much speed difference
> this
> would make.  Maybe someone reading this did a similar upgrade or has
> seen both in action.  If so, post and share your thoughts. 
>

Hi Dale,

since Moore's Law isn't quite dead yet there is a significant
performance uplift in newer processor generations, especially with the
smaller 5nm process nodes of recent, after some years of stagnation at
14nm (your FX-8350 was manufactured at 32nm). With each process shrink
(32nm -> 28nm -> 22 nm -> 14nm -> 10nm -> 7nm -> 5nm) new CPUs can
deliver higher performance with the same power consumption or achieve
similar performance levels with lower power consumption.
Looking at the open-benchmarking default configuration kernel compile
benchmark (pts/build-linux-kernel-1.15.0), the Ryzen 5 7600 (slower
non-X) took ~101s to compile the kernel (based on 28 submitted results)
while the FX-8350 took ~422s for the same task (based on 4 submissions)
[1]. Unlike gaming, compiling tends to scale quite well with core count
and for the gentoo use-case the measured performance difference is in
most cases similar for different packages. There are many influencing
factors for benchmarking like running kernel version, activated options
and mitigations so YMMV, but you can test it yourself: there are ebuilds
for the phoronix-benchmark-suite in various overlays [2]. You can
perform the benchmark with $(phoronix-test-suite benchmark
pts/build-linux-kernel-1.15.0) with the "defconfig" test configuration
option.

Cheers,
Meik

[1]
https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/build-linux-kernel&eval=9cdcd82c9c47af9df17263e4312f634338dbf476#metrics
[2] https://gpo.zugaina.org/app-benchmarks/phoronix-test-suite

Am Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 01:18:39PM -0400 schrieb Rich Freeman:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 9:33?AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Rich Freeman wrote:
> >
> > > All AM5 CPUs have GPUs, but in general motherboards with video outputs
> > > do not require the CPU to have a GPU built in. The ports just don't
> > > do anything if this is lacking, and you would need a dedicated GPU.
> > >
> >
> > OK. I read that a few times. If I want to use the onboard video I have
> > to have a certain CPU that supports it? Do those have something so I
> > know which is which? Or do I read that as all the CPUs support onboard
> > video but if one plugs in a video card, that part of the CPU isn't
> > used? The last one makes more sense but asking to be sure.
>
> To use onboard graphics, you need a motherboard that supports it, and
> a CPU that supports it. I believe that internal graphics and an
> external GPU card can both be used at the same time. Note that
> internal graphics solutions typically steal some RAM from other system
> use, while an external GPU will have its own dedicated RAM (and those
> can also make use of internal RAM too).

You can usually set the amount of graphics memory in the BIOS, depending on
your need and RAM budget.

> The 7600X has a built-in RDNA2 GPU. All the original Ryzen zen4 CPUs
> had GPU support, but it looks like they JUST announced a new line of
> consumer zen4 CPUs that don't have it - they all end in an F right
> now.

Yup.
G-series: big graphics for games n stuff, over 3 GFlops
F-Series: no graphics at all
rest: small graphics (around 0.8 GFlops max), ample for desktops and media

X-Series: high performance
non-X: same as X, but with lower frequencies

The X series are boosted to higher frequencies which give you a bit more
performance, but at the cost of disproportionally increased power
consumption and thus heat. They are simply run above the sweet spot in order
to get the longest bargraph in benchmarks. You can “simulate” a non-X by
running an X at a lower power target which can be set in the BIOS. In fact
once I have a Ryzen, I thing I might limit its frequency to a bit below
maximum just to avoid this inefficient region.

But I’ll be buying a G anyways. Its architecture is different, as it is
basically a mobile chip in a desktop package.

As to the qestion about 5/7/9 in the other mail: it’s just a tier number.
The more interesting is the 4-digit number. 600s and below are 6-core chips,
700 and 800 have 8 cores, 900s have 12 cores or more.

The thousands give away the generation. AM5 is denoted by 7xxx. (Though
there is another numbering scheme that does it quite differently, like
7845H.)

> In any case, if you google the CPU you're looking at it will tell you
> if it supports integrated graphics.

I also recommend Wikipedia. It has tables of all kinds of stuff. Including
all processors and their core features.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Ryzen_processors

> If you don't play games, then definitely get integrated graphics.
> Even if the CPU costs a tiny bit more, it will give you a free empty
> 16x PCIe slot at whatever speed the CPU supports (v5 in this case -
> which is as good as you can get right now).

Not to mention a cut in power draw.

> > I might add, simply right clicking on the desktop can take sometimes 20
> > or 30 seconds for the menu to pop up. Switching from one desktop to
> > another can take several seconds, sometimes 8 or 10. This rig is
> > getting slower.

Wut. I am running plasma 6 on a Surface Go 1 whose Pentium Gold was slow
even when it came out. It is half as fast as your 8350 and does not have
such problems.
Benchmark FX 8350: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?id=1780
Benchmark Pentium Gold: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?id=3300

You have NVidia, right? Did you try the other graphics driver (i.e.
proprietary ?? foss)? Do those delays disappear if you disable 3D effects
with Shift+Alt+F12?


> That sounds like RAM but I couldn't say for sure. In any case a
> modern system will definitely help.

Well, is the RAM full? My 10 years old PC has 32 Gigs and still runs very
smooth (with Intel integrated graphics).

> > Given the new rig can have 128GBs, I assume it comes in 32GB sticks.
>
> Consumer DDR5 seems to come as large as 48GB, though that seems like
> an odd size.

Actually, my product search page finds sticks with up to 96 GB. I believe
the 48 size was introduced because for those to whom 32 was too small, 64
was too expensive. DDR5 still is relatively pricey due to its higher
electrical requirements.

--
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

It’s quiet in the shadow, because you can’t hear the light.

Meik Frischke wrote:
> Am 2024-04-17 12:33, schrieb Dale:
>> I found a benchmark website that compares the two.  Link below.  It
>> claims about 80% faster.  In some ways, twice as fast. Sometimes those
>> bench tests don't reflect the real world to well.  Most of them seem to
>> test gaming speeds which isn't of much use anyway for me.  I'm more
>> about compiling and such.  Just wondering how much speed difference this
>> would make.  Maybe someone reading this did a similar upgrade or has
>> seen both in action.  If so, post and share your thoughts. 
>>
>
> Hi Dale,
>
> since Moore's Law isn't quite dead yet there is a significant
> performance uplift in newer processor generations, especially with the
> smaller 5nm process nodes of recent, after some years of stagnation at
> 14nm (your FX-8350 was manufactured at 32nm). With each process shrink
> (32nm -> 28nm -> 22 nm -> 14nm -> 10nm -> 7nm -> 5nm) new CPUs can
> deliver higher performance with the same power consumption or achieve
> similar performance levels with lower power consumption.
> Looking at the open-benchmarking default configuration kernel compile
> benchmark (pts/build-linux-kernel-1.15.0), the Ryzen 5 7600 (slower
> non-X) took ~101s to compile the kernel (based on 28 submitted
> results) while the FX-8350 took ~422s for the same task (based on 4
> submissions) [1]. Unlike gaming, compiling tends to scale quite well
> with core count and for the gentoo use-case the measured performance
> difference is in most cases similar for different packages. There are
> many influencing factors for benchmarking like running kernel version,
> activated options and mitigations so YMMV, but you can test it
> yourself: there are ebuilds for the phoronix-benchmark-suite in
> various overlays [2]. You can perform the benchmark with
> $(phoronix-test-suite benchmark pts/build-linux-kernel-1.15.0) with
> the "defconfig" test configuration option.
>
> Cheers,
> Meik
>
> [1]
> https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/build-linux-kernel&eval=9cdcd82c9c47af9df17263e4312f634338dbf476#metrics
> [2] https://gpo.zugaina.org/app-benchmarks/phoronix-test-suite
>
>


If one just compares the kernel compile time, about 4 times faster.  I'm
not expecting the accuracy one needs to build a space ship.  ;-)  That's
a pretty good way to measure because with Gentoo, compiling a kernel is
a very common thing.  As you said, it scales well.  Compiling gcc would
be a good one to if they have default USE flags.  Obviously if one
system has a lot of USE flags enabled and another is the bare minimum,
there will be a difference not related to CPU speed.  Rich made a good
point too.  Speed isn't just influenced by the CPU.  Memory speed and
even the speed of accessing data drive, spinning rust, SSD or whatever,
also affects a system. 

When I get this new rig built and you see me post about it, remind me
and I'll install that benchmark test and send in the results.  I like
doing things like that because it helps others too.  I just wish there
was a centralized place for them all.  Right now, there are likely
dozens of them and each with their own method. 

Thanks for that info.  I'm making progress and planning a way to
purchase all this.  It's still not cheap but cheaper than it was before
I found out I could get a cheaper CPU and upgrade later. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

On 2024-04-17, Frank Steinmetzger <Warp_7@gmx.de> wrote:

>> If you don't play games, then definitely get integrated graphics.
>> Even if the CPU costs a tiny bit more, it will give you a free empty
>> 16x PCIe slot at whatever speed the CPU supports (v5 in this case -
>> which is as good as you can get right now).
>
> Not to mention a cut in power draw.

And one fewer fan to listen to.

[.I was also pretty annoyed with NVidia when they stopped offering
fanless Quadro boards. I'm a big fan of fanless]