CPUs & Graphics cards: suitability for LL

[bitsnpcs]

.

[TheDead]

Hi,

I shopped around and seems like the Rizen familly (R5) for equivalent "range" of CPU Versus Intel's (i5) are faster for heavy workload and almost on par for regular stuff.
Seems to be also a little cheaper as a platform. I think I'll go back AMD on my next PC. It's been awhile AMD, more than a decade, glad you're back!

Cheers!
... and I'm sorry again for my earlier and quite stupid/uneducated post... I modified it. :-S

[m654321]

seems like the Rizen familly (R5) for equivalent "range" of CPU Versus Intel's (i5) are faster for heavy workload and almost on par for regular stuff

That's useful to know - many thanks.
I'm now looking at energy consumption - though either an R5 or i5 setup might be suitable, it has to be one that's going to be low on energy consumption, when idling or not playing games.  I notice the Intel chips have a big difference between the 'baseline' and 'turbo' e.g say 2.4 & 3.8 GHz, but Rizen chips have less difference. I guess this means AMD chips are more energy hungry, which is what I've heard.

Though my dead Asus G750JS was rated at 2.4/3.5GHz, the Htop app showed it would idle at significantly less than 1GHz, thereby saving energy when not busy.  Do Rizen, or AMD chips in general, tick over at a low speeds when idling, or doing simple admin tasks, or do they just run faster most of the time, irrespective of the load? 

[TheDead]

Do Rizen, or AMD chips in general, tick over at a low speeds when idling, or doing simple admin tasks, or do they just run faster most of the time, irrespective of the load? 

When idling seems newer CPUs are quite similar, +-5W or so. But, when using Multithreading on more heavy tasks, yep, AMD is a power-monger.Read a few articles and this link shows what seems to be the general concensus, in a nice little graph :
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors...erclocki-0Note : Depending on platform, motherboard and different integrated components power consumption can vary, sometimes significantly.

Cheers!

[m654321]

this link shows what seems to be the general concensus, in a nice little graph :
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors...erclocki-0

Many thanks for this link - some very useful comparisons between AMD Ryzen & Intel Core i CPUs.
It confirms that while idling there's hardly any difference between the two CPU types, but once a
load is applied, the Intel chips use significantly less energy. So maybe, regardless of the drawbacks
of Intel chips (UEFI, spectre, meltdown, etc) this might be the choice to save on energy bills and
save the planet.

In the same vein, I came across an interesting statistic recently:
2% of the world's PCs are apparently used for gaming, but these consume 20% of global computing power ...  :o

[TheDead]

If power is a concern, you'll have to check video card power too.
It's been about a year but I was only able to find that an nVidia 1050 Ti was the fastest one I could get with NO additional power plug.It was also the only one available in low-profile PCI-Express.

Checking speed Vs watts in one step, total power usage is another. Also raw power Vs "gaming" power is diffrent.
Wattages compared.
https://www.newegg.com/insider/how-to-choose-graphics-card/

If interested in raw power (i.e. data  mining) the AMD RX 560 wins
https://www.quora.com/Which-graphics-car...ia-and-AMD

About 61W. The lowest wattage and cheapest it the AMD RX 560 (2GB, slowest in gaming, more raw data mining power maybe with 1024 streams with I guess is like cores)
About 66W. Middle is the nVidia 1050. (less nvidia CUDA cores (650), 2GB memory)
About 71W. Fastest is still 1050 Ti (more nvidia CUDA cores (768) , 4GB memory)

With an additional power connector, the wattage just to a minimum 120W-150W :-O .

BUT... the 1050 came out Q4 2016. I'm pretty sure it's only a question of time for the nVidia 2050 to come out.If it has no additional connector, I'm pretty sure this will destroy all these informations

Cheers!