Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 46

Thread: Building The Linux Kernel In 60 Seconds

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,335

    Default Building The Linux Kernel In 60 Seconds

    Phoronix: Building The Linux Kernel In 60 Seconds

    In less than one minute, it's now possible to build the Linux kernel from source on a desktop...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTAyNjU

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    205

    Default agreed!

    This past week I built a 3930X matx system with 32GB ram for a demo for work. We do high performance number crunching (double precision and 64bit integer).

    This new system runs circles around our dual quad i7 xeons. On cpu intensive parallel tasks this is almost 2x faster per core ... btween 40% and 50% faster overall. For mixed loads (combined cpu and IO) it was on about 25% faster overall, although it may well be some of that could be IO bottlenecking.

    The past few generational jumps by intel has been amazing. The jump from core2 quad to nehalem was just as dramatic.

    Btw I really don't like these new radiators. They make installation that much harder. When installed it blocks access to one stick of ram, and worse yet all boards I've seen put the 8 pin power connector so it sits below the radiator and the power cable gets pinched between the radiator and that ram stick. (looks like that board doesn't have the power plug problem *but* it looks like it sacrifices mosfet cooling)
    Last edited by bnolsen; 12-11-2011 at 08:52 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Amazing. But price for it isn't so cool :P I know that ppl who need power buy this CPU, but other should be grateful for Core i5 or Core i7

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    in my point of view this is only marketing bullshit.

    you can do the same in a singlesocket solution and much cheaper with AMD

    Supermicro Motherboard H8SGL-F(230€)+AMD Opteron 6272 (470€)

    this solution is much cheaper and you can put more RAM into it and it beats the intel solution in performance.

    the intel solution is only better in single threated tasks.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    68

    Default Halt Di Klappe

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    in my point of view this is only marketing bullshit.

    Every time you post here you make it obvious that English is not a language that you use with great facility. Consequently, I'll use some German for you: HALT DIE KLAPPE.

    You contort yourself into a bretzen to defend the disaster that is Bulldozer, where AMD spent almost four years screaming MOAR COARS only to release a completely disappointing CPU. The server versions are still often slower than 2010 era Westmeres using less than half the cores! Even if you slap in 32 "cores" you'll only beat a 12 core Intel system that is almost 2 years old by about 20% in some benchmarks if you are lucky.. oh and those faster AMD systems cost more than twice the equivalent Intel setup (see here: http://arstechnica.com/business/news...atastrophe.ars)

    Here's an English word for you: hypocrisy. Go look it up and do some soul searching about how it applies to your posting history for AMD followed by you turning around and accusing Intel of "marketing bullshit"

    Further, you just come out with a blank assertion than the solution you put forth will somehow be faster than an Intel based setup. Let's ignore the fact that a 3930K would be much less expensive and still have nearly the same performance, meaning that an Intel based system could be much cheaper than your inflated price. Show us an actual benchmark run using your supposedly superior system. Slapping an extra 8 cores on and cutting the clockspeed by 50% from the desktop CPUs will not magically turn that chip into a winner.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    in my point of view this is only marketing bullshit.

    you can do the same in a singlesocket solution and much cheaper with AMD

    Supermicro Motherboard H8SGL-F(230€)+AMD Opteron 6272 (470€)

    this solution is much cheaper and you can put more RAM into it and it beats the intel solution in performance.

    the intel solution is only better in single threated tasks.
    Someone having similar Opteron system to what you mentioned should answer and confirm that.

    It does not beat in energy efficiency for sure though.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    in my point of view this is only marketing bullshit.

    you can do the same in a singlesocket solution and much cheaper with AMD

    Supermicro Motherboard H8SGL-F(230€)+AMD Opteron 6272 (470€)

    this solution is much cheaper and you can put more RAM into it and it beats the intel solution in performance.

    the intel solution is only better in single threated tasks.
    Note: I'm working with a WAY cheaper 3930X, not a 3960X!

    I have direct access to a quad 6168 system built last summer with 64GB ram. My experience compared with dual E5530's run side by side benchmarks highly threaded high precision geometric workflow showed the intels per core 1.5x faster than the amds (this is with hyperthreading turned ON).

    At the time it was encouraging to see the amds scale robustly to so many cores. The 48 core amd beat the intel on 2 of 3 tests, one test having a section that was single core only, that made the intel faster.

    Now, this 3930X thrashed the above dual intel system, being almost 2x faster per core in 2 of 3 tests. The quad 6168 still on mixed I/O load, the single socket 3930x wins on parallel/single mix, they both are close on the pure parallel cpu task.

    Note the two server systems have access to ~900MB/s sustained storage (tekram pcie raid6 hardware) whereas the 3930X only has a 120MB/s sata disk. Opening up IO on the 3930X might change the game.

    Btw I will concede IO throughput to the amd (the board has dual intel gigabits). The bus seems to handle more throughput (both network and disk) more smoothly than the dual E5530 system. I'm sorry I can't quantify this, it's not something on our critical path.
    Last edited by bnolsen; 12-11-2011 at 06:27 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    Someone having similar Opteron system to what you mentioned should answer and confirm that.

    It does not beat in energy efficiency for sure though.
    energy efficiency ?? you are joking the opteron is TDP: 115W

    the intel is TDP130 watt.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chuckula View Post
    Every time you post here you make it obvious that English is not a language that you use with great facility. Consequently, I'll use some German for you: HALT DIE KLAPPE.
    für mich zählt der inhalt und nicht solche banale oberflächlichkeit.

    Quote Originally Posted by chuckula View Post
    You contort yourself into a bretzen to defend the disaster that is Bulldozer, where AMD spent almost four years screaming MOAR COARS only to release a completely disappointing CPU. The server versions are still often slower than 2010 era Westmeres using less than half the cores! Even if you slap in 32 "cores" you'll only beat a 12 core Intel system that is almost 2 years old by about 20% in some benchmarks if you are lucky.. oh and those faster AMD systems cost more than twice the equivalent Intel setup (see here: http://arstechnica.com/business/news...atastrophe.ars)
    i don't care about how many cores do you use. i only care for speed per money. and speed per watt energy usage.

    Quote Originally Posted by chuckula View Post
    Further, you just come out with a blank assertion than the solution you put forth will somehow be faster than an Intel based setup. Let's ignore the fact that a 3930K would be much less expensive and still have nearly the same performance, meaning that an Intel based system could be much cheaper than your inflated price. Show us an actual benchmark run using your supposedly superior system. Slapping an extra 8 cores on and cutting the clockspeed by 50% from the desktop CPUs will not magically turn that chip into a winner.
    less clock speed means in fact a higher energy efficiency!
    more cores means more energy efficiency!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bnolsen View Post
    Note: I'm working with a WAY cheaper 3930X, not a 3960X!

    I have direct access to a quad 6168 system built last summer with 64GB ram. My experience compared with dual E5530's run side by side benchmarks highly threaded high precision geometric workflow showed the intels per core 1.5x faster than the amds (this is with hyperthreading turned ON).

    At the time it was encouraging to see the amds scale robustly to so many cores. The 48 core amd beat the intel on 2 of 3 tests, one test having a section that was single core only, that made the intel faster.

    Now, this 3930X thrashed the above dual intel system, being almost 2x faster per core in 2 of 3 tests. The quad 6168 still on mixed I/O load, the single socket 3930x wins on parallel/single mix, they both are close on the pure parallel cpu task.

    Note the two server systems have access to ~900MB/s sustained storage (tekram pcie raid6 hardware) whereas the 3930X only has a 120MB/s sata disk. Opening up IO on the 3930X might change the game.

    Btw I will concede IO throughput to the amd (the board has dual intel gigabits). The bus seems to handle more throughput (both network and disk) more smoothly than the dual E5530 system. I'm sorry I can't quantify this, it's not something on our critical path.
    a "6168" is not a AMD Opteron 6272

    a 3930X is more expensive 550-600€

    a opteron 6272 only: 470€

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •