Re: advice on choosing an AMD chipset
For me, fiddling with ventilation/cooling fans is a job for Archibald Harry Tuttle Nice one! I'm assuming you're referring to the movie Brasil. That's right. The business of cooling seems to be important in computing (see http://techreport.com/review/26279/amd-radeon-r9-295-x2-graphics-card-reviewed and http://primeurmagazine.com/weekly/AE-PR-07-14-104.html) I have become curious about the excavator/carrizo APU that AMD are working on. If it were powerful enough then you could cut out the Tuttle factor but still have good all round cpu and graphics performance. That would be convenient. -- Michael Fothergill Tempus fugit , sed Latini etiam sugit
Re: advice on choosing an AMD chipset
For business desktop use, I prefer onboard graphics for reliability. Also, most add-in cards require fans for cooling which gives you another point of failure while adding to the noise. Power requirements are higher when you want the graphics performance of the faster graphics cards. I agree here. I bought a fairly good graphics card for a PC I had and all of a sudden it died on me. I am not sure why but I think it may have overheated. For me, fiddling with ventilation/cooling fans is a job for Archibald Harry Tuttle For server use, you can get FX boards and install a very cheap video card with low power requirements and no fan. That's actually also my current desktop configuration (uses an HD6450 card with large heatsink) as well. Not running games, I find it works nicely. Regards Michael Fothergill Tempus fugit , sed Latini etiam sugit
advice on choosing an AMD chipset
Dear Folks, I am planning to order the components for a new PC that I will put together myself with a bit of help from the local PC store I use for repairs etc. At first I had thought to buy an FX 8350 motherboard plus fan and some RAM and a power supply e.g. Corsair Builder Series CXM 750W Modular 80 PLUS. The case could be a large one e.g. Cooler Master HAF X USB 3.0 XL ATX Case. Perhaps that is too big but it would have good ventilation. I would add a flash drive (SSD) and an optical drive and run with it for a number of months and then get a graphics card etc - probably an Nvidia one. I started looking at the AMD Kaveri A10-7850K processor and reviews comparing it with the FX8350 etc. At first it seemed that the FX8350 was faster per $ or £ than the Kaveri and that a separate graphics card like an Nvidia one was a better option according to various web sites I visited on the subject. But then I read about HSA (Heterogeneous System Architecture) and discovered that it had been used to make e.g. libre office run a lot more efficiently. I don't do gaming so I don't need powerful graphics acceleration. I began to realise that the graphics acceleration produced by the Kaveri processor would probably be adequate for my own requirements. From what I can see looking at some tests done by Phoronix it works a lot better than typical on board graphics would do on a conventional CPU set up. It also seems that the open source drivers work pretty well for Radeon graphics cards. My question to you is this: if I would choose the Kaveri processor (and probably not bother adding either an Nvidia card or an extra Radeon card) and run with it, how rapidly (e.g. 2- 3 years) do you think HSA enhancements and optimisations of popular packages used in Debian etc be created and incorporated into new releases (e.g. Jessie and beyond)? How much potential do you think HSA has? Regards Michael Fothergill
Re: advice on choosing an AMD chipset
On 11/11/14 01:09 PM, Michael Fothergill wrote: Dear Folks, I am planning to order the components for a new PC that I will put together myself with a bit of help from the local PC store I use for repairs etc. At first I had thought to buy an FX 8350 motherboard plus fan and some RAM and a power supply e.g. Corsair Builder Series CXM 750W Modular 80 PLUS. The case could be a large one e.g. Cooler Master HAF X USB 3.0 XL ATX Case. Perhaps that is too big but it would have good ventilation. I would add a flash drive (SSD) and an optical drive and run with it for a number of months and then get a graphics card etc - probably an Nvidia one. I started looking at the AMD Kaveri A10-7850K processor and reviews comparing it with the FX8350 etc. At first it seemed that the FX8350 was faster per $ or £ than the Kaveri and that a separate graphics card like an Nvidia one was a better option according to various web sites I visited on the subject. But then I read about HSA (Heterogeneous System Architecture) and discovered that it had been used to make e.g. libre office run a lot more efficiently. I don't do gaming so I don't need powerful graphics acceleration. I began to realise that the graphics acceleration produced by the Kaveri processor would probably be adequate for my own requirements. From what I can see looking at some tests done by Phoronix it works a lot better than typical on board graphics would do on a conventional CPU set up. It also seems that the open source drivers work pretty well for Radeon graphics cards. My question to you is this: if I would choose the Kaveri processor (and probably not bother adding either an Nvidia card or an extra Radeon card) and run with it, how rapidly (e.g. 2- 3 years) do you think HSA enhancements and optimisations of popular packages used in Debian etc be created and incorporated into new releases (e.g. Jessie and beyond)? How much potential do you think HSA has? Regards Michael Fothergill I haven't done a lot of research on the issue but I've used both. To get the latest chipsets and onboard graphics, you're pretty much limited to the A series processors. Once the A series came out, the FX processor boards seem to have stopped being made with onboard graphics. For business desktop use, I prefer onboard graphics for reliability. Also, most add-in cards require fans for cooling which gives you another point of failure while adding to the noise. Power requirements are higher when you want the graphics performance of the faster graphics cards. For server use, you can get FX boards and install a very cheap video card with low power requirements and no fan. That's actually also my current desktop configuration (uses an HD6450 card with large heatsink) as well. Not running games, I find it works nicely. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54626474.3090...@torfree.net
Re: advice on choosing an AMD chipset
For business desktop use, I prefer onboard graphics for reliability. Also, most add-in cards require fans for cooling which gives you another point of failure while adding to the noise. Power requirements are higher when you want the graphics performance of the faster graphics cards. For server use, you can get FX boards and install a very cheap video card with low power requirements and no fan. That's actually also my current desktop configuration (uses an HD6450 card with large heatsink) as well. Not running games, I find it works nicely. Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my query. Although the AMD processors are apparently not as fast as the Intel ones, I like them. You are encouraging me to get the Kaveri motherboard. Figuring these things out in isolation is not optimal. I have also been taking a bit of interest in the chips being sold by adapteva - the parallela set. They seem to be designed to work in tandem with an ARM processor of some kind unless I am mistaken. Regards Michael Fothergill -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54626474.3090...@torfree.net
