The Vent and Rant Thread

[CRussel]

I'm loving my i7-5820. Only have 32 GB of DDR4 RAM with it, but it'll hold 128GB if I need it. Right now, 32 GB is enough, but I've got slots for another 32 GB without having to use 16GB DDR4 DIMMs. The price on this CPU was in the sweet spot, but going up to a 5830 kicked it out of reason.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

I love it (not) when people make statements like:

"It's going to take at least another 10 years before home computers will need more than 8GB of RAM."

Really?

Look at that attachment below. I'm just converting a few e-books. OK; I'm running a conversion of three Delphi Classics, each being 15K+ pages. Maybe not the most common task, but if I had more cores and more RAM...

Granted, normally my e-books are not that large, but often enough, I do run three or four CD -> FLAC rips at once.

I'm actually thinking of looking into a 6-core i7 / Xeon somewhere this year, even dropping in core speed if need be. I did upgrade this computer a few years ago from a dual core E8500 at 3.16 GHz to a quad core Q8400 at 2.67 GHz, and never regretted it one bit. I'd take an 8 core i7 at 2.4 GHz over a 6c/3.2GHz or 4c/3.6GHz any time. (If the prices are comparable.)

My own 'puter?: I'm running an Intel Core i7 CPU, 3.07GHZ...and I'm running 18gigs--yes, 18gigs--of RAM. Win7, 64-bit.

Granted, it's a bit more than a "home computer," but nor is it a Sun Workstation. And I still manage to suck up all the available RAM on a not-infrequent basis.

FWIW. I'm pretty sure that 8gigs will be something in the past just as 1MB is now--eventually. The more is available, the more progammers make greedy programs and apps that suck it right up. ;-)

Hitch

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Still waiting for those....!!

Hitch

I've got them on my phone but don't know how to get them here without putting them on my computer first. I'll be at my computer tomorrow

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by CRussel

I'm loving my i7-5820. Only have 32 GB of DDR4 RAM with it, but it'll hold 128GB if I need it. Right now, 32 GB is enough, but I've got slots for another 32 GB without having to use 16GB DDR4 DIMMs. The price on this CPU was in the sweet spot, but going up to a 5830 kicked it out of reason.

So, running 64GB without using 16GB DIMM's means you're running an 8-slot board... and DDR4 even. That's quite expensive. Now you've got 'only' 32GB, but can double that; what do you do that requires THAT much memory?

I can use up 8GB easily, as you have already seen. If I had the CPU-power and memory, I would have either converted more books at once, or would have started a few FLAC-conversions alongside calibre; I think I can use up 16 GB in day-to-day use. If I decide to put all of that in the background and start experimenting with the Windows 10 preview, or leave out two cores and start running a game, I think I can also use 24, maybe 32GB.

I can't imagine using 64GB except when running a bunch of high-memory virtual machines for server purposes.

Originally Posted by Hitch

FWIW. I'm pretty sure that 8gigs will be something in the past just as 1MB is now--eventually. The more is available, the more progammers make greedy programs and apps that suck it right up. ;-)

Yes, programs do use more and more memory, but not always because they're just greedy or badly written. Great pains are taken to avoid using the hard drive, because that is the slowest component in the computer, nowadays (even if you're using an SSD). Everything is loaded and kept in memory as much as possible.

Then there is the data. Who would have predicted that an amateur photographer would be juggling around 24 MPix photo's without blinking an eye? 10 years ago, 6-8 MPix pictures where the norm, with more megapixels for the pro's and really big camera's.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Hitch

My own 'puter?: I'm running an Intel Core i7 CPU, 3.07GHZ...and I'm running 18gigs--yes, 18gigs--of RAM. Win7, 64-bit.



Granted, it's a bit more than a "home computer," but nor is it a Sun Workstation. And I still manage to suck up all the available RAM on a not-infrequent basis.



FWIW. I'm pretty sure that 8gigs will be something in the past just as 1MB is now--eventually. The more is available, the more progammers make greedy programs and apps that suck it right up. ;-)



Hitch

My old Packard Bell ran Windows 3.1 and came with 2 MB RAM. When I upgraded to 18 MB, I thought the system had become a real powerhouse.

[Katsunami]

PS: I've been looking into AMD, because they have 8 and 12-core CPU's that are affordable enough for me to look into. As far as I've been able to determine, the most powerful consumer CPU they now have is the 8-core FX-8350; but it can't hold a candle against the fastest 4-core i7 at this time. Even though it only has 4 cores, the i7 is almost 30% faster. (Granted, it's also twice as expensive.)

The same is true for the Opteron lines; in some instances, AMD needs a dual-Opteron setup to keep up with a single Xeon when looking at the same overall price levels.

I think it might be worthwhile to look into a dual Xeon setup again (I had one, based on a socket 604 board, from 2004-2007, before I got this computer). That might be a bit overkill though.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

My old Packard Bell ran Windows 3.1 and came with 2 MB RAM. When I upgraded to 18 MB, I thought the system had become a real powerhouse.

LOL. I can remember the transitions my 486 went through in the 90's.

1994: 80486 DX/2 66MHz, 4MB RAM, 250MB HDD, OS/2 3.0
1995: 80486 DX/2 66MHz, 8MB RAM, 250MB HDD, 2x CDROM, Soundcard, OS/2 3.0 with WinOS/2
1996: 80486 DX/2 80MHz(1), 8MB RAM, 500MB(2) HDD, 2x CDROM, Soundcard, WNT4 / DOS 6.22
1997: 80486 DX/2 100Mhz(3), 16MB RAM, 2x 500MB HDD, 2x CDROM, Soundcard, WNT4 / DOS 6.22
1998: No change. At the end of the year I sold the computer to upgrade to a Pentium II 350 MHz, 128 MB, 8GB HDD, SBLive!, 40x SCSI CDROM, 6x SCSI burner. Still running Windows NT 4.0, with 3rd party USB stack to be able to use a USB scanner (edit: one of the very few scanners that specifically supported that USB-stack.)

That 486 was one powerhouse of a machine in those 4 years. Because of the CPU-overclock, I was able to run games on it that would normally require a Pentium 60 to run. After selling it, that computer ran in that configuration for at least another 3 years before I lost track of its new owner.

(1) I set the mainboard bus to 40 MHz instead of 33 MHz.
(2) The 250MB HDD went bust.
(3) I set the bus to 50 MHz, but had to replace the cooler by a bigger one as well.

[CRussel]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

So, running 64GB without using 16GB DIMM's means you're running an 8-slot board... and DDR4 even. That's quite expensive. Now you've got 'only' 32GB, but can double that; what do you do that requires THAT much memory?

Well, a lot of what I do are server loads -- specifically, I run multiple virtual machines concurrently. I write about computers and specifically about Windows Servers more than anything else. So I often have to simulate a fairly complex enterprise environment. With the current book, that means I've got 8 iterations of Windows Server running, and a couple of clients, all on my personal workstation. I'm actually pushing up against that 32 GB of RAM limitation, but hoping to hold off on filling the other 4 slots until 16 GB DIMMs are widely available.

The cost wasn't too bad, actually. I reused an existing case, power supply, video card and hard disks. New motherboard, CPU & cooler, and RAM. Total cost was under $1k. I moved an SSD over from another machine that is nearing EoL, and that's the front side of my VM storage, with four old 500GB hard disks in a Windows Storage Spaces array for the back end. They're slow, but with the SSD in front, it's not an issue. The big thing that kept the costs within target was buying only a i7-5820, not a higher model in the line, and buying a solid, low-end, X99 motherboard. I don't need or WANT to overclock, and I don't need WiFi on the motherboard, or other things that push the price up. Overall, the setup wasn't cheap, but it was a fully justified business expense and has solid growth potential. I can crank the RAM up, I can swap out those HDs for SSDs, and when i7 prices come back down into something approaching rationality, I can even upgrade the CPU if I need to. I don't need high end graphics capability, since I don't game, so the current graphics card should be good for quite a while.

I can use up 8GB easily, as you have already seen. If I had the CPU-power and memory, I would have either converted more books at once, or would have started a few FLAC-conversions alongside calibre; I think I can use up 16 GB in day-to-day use. If I decide to put all of that in the background and start experimenting with the Windows 10 preview, or leave out two cores and start running a game, I think I can also use 24, maybe 32GB.

I can't imagine using 64GB except when running a bunch of high-memory virtual machines for server purposes.

Exactly what I'm doing. And why having one of the new 8 slot X99 boards made sense. Though the VM I have that is using the most memory right now is the client machine running as a VDI machine, testing stuff in Win10.

Yes, programs do use more and more memory, but not always because they're just greedy or badly written. Great pains are taken to avoid using the hard drive, because that is the slowest component in the computer, nowadays (even if you're using an SSD). Everything is loaded and kept in memory as much as possible.

Then there is the data. Who would have predicted that an amateur photographer would be juggling around 24 MPix photo's without blinking an eye? 10 years ago, 6-8 MPix pictures where the norm, with more megapixels for the pro's and really big camera's.

Yes, SSDs have made a qualitative improvement over HDDs, but they're still a lot slower than RAM. And having more RAM encourages the OS to keep more stuff in memory, increasing the likelihood that the next bit of code or data you need will be in RAM, not on an SSD or HDD.

Overall, I bought this workstation expecting to not have to buy a new one for at least a couple of years, and even when I do, this one will recycle down to other workloads. It's life expectancy in my environment is 6-8 years.

[CRussel]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

PS: I've been looking into AMD, because they have 8 and 12-core CPU's that are affordable enough for me to look into. As far as I've been able to determine, the most powerful consumer CPU they now have is the 8-core FX-8350; but it can't hold a candle against the fastest 4-core i7 at this time. Even though it only has 4 cores, the i7 is almost 30% faster. (Granted, it's also twice as expensive.)

The same is true for the Opteron lines; in some instances, AMD needs a dual-Opteron setup to keep up with a single Xeon when looking at the same overall price levels.

I think it might be worthwhile to look into a dual Xeon setup again (I had one, based on a socket 604 board, from 2004-2007, before I got this computer). That might be a bit overkill though.

FWIW, the machine this replaced was an AMD. It had 6 cores, but really wasn't even close to my 3 year old i7 laptop. I hate to say it, but AMD is just not competitive these days. And I do hate to say it, because we all owe a big debt to AMD for pushing into the current x64 world. If Intel had had their way, we'd have been in a completely different, far less compatible, and far more expensive 64-bit computing environment. My first x64 machine was an Acer Ferrari laptop running XP x64 Edition. And that was >10 years ago. The laptop, by the way, was finally retired by my neighbour a couple of months ago. But I won't bother giving him this AMD motherboard I just retired. It's only 5 years old, has 6 cores and 16 GB of RAM, but it's a total dog. I've got an Intel HP desktop machine from the same era that I'll probably give him, instead. It's still quite viable for everyday use.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by CRussel

Overall, I bought this workstation expecting to not have to buy a new one for at least a couple of years, and even when I do, this one will recycle down to other workloads. It's life expectancy in my environment is 6-8 years.

I'm doing the same. This computer is old now, almost touching 7 years, but because it has 8GB RAM, an SSD, and a quad-core CPU that is still comparable to a high-end Pentium or low-end i3, it can still be used for day-to-day tasks. When converting 15.000-page books or FLAC-files, I'm really starting to notice how far it's falling behind.

The original configuration had an C2D E8500/3.16 and an nVidia 9600GT and a 74GB 10K Raptor HDD for booting. As I don't game a lot, and if I do it's old titles, I can make due with a mid-end graphics card. In 2011, I upgraded the system to a C2Q Q8400/2.67, GTX 560 Ti, and an SSD.

After Windows 10 hits the market, and assuming I like it, I'm going to build a new system, which will probably have a 6-core i7, 16GB RAM with the possibility of 32GB, and the successor of the nVidia GTX 970 graphics card. Three years later, the graphics card can be replaced, the memory can be upgrded, and then it can go another three years.

My current computer will be re-installed and function as a legacy gaming rig.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by CRussel

...because we all owe a big debt to AMD for pushing into the current x64 world. If Intel had had their way, we'd have been in a completely different, far less compatible, and far more expensive 64-bit computing environment.

Maybe so... do you think they would really have pushed Itanium into the consumer market? That would not have been fun, because AFAIK, it would have needed emulation to run older software.

That would have REALLY made a rant-worthy post for this topic

[CRussel]

Yes, that's EXACTLY what they were pushing. And yes, it would have been more than RANT-worthy. They were way late to the party, and it was only AMD actually delivering the hardware, while MS delivered the OS, that forced Intel to grudgingly deliver a (very late) x64 processor. Which is why all the Windows distributions had an \amd64 folder, even when installing on an Intel x64. And boy, didn't Intel hate THAT.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by CRussel

Yes, that's EXACTLY what they were pushing. And yes, it would have been more than RANT-worthy. They were way late to the party, and it was only AMD actually delivering the hardware, while MS delivered the OS, that forced Intel to grudgingly deliver a (very late) x64 processor.

I can remember that... wasn't it the first Opteron, that made 64-bit hardware affordable in 2003? (edit: Yes.)

Which is why all the Windows distributions had an \amd64 folder, even when installing on an Intel x64. And boy, didn't Intel hate THAT.

Suck it up Intel... there is enough stuff that AMD has had to license/use from Intel.

While I can't say I 'hate' AMD (or ATI), I don't really like them either. Every time I encounter something known as "weird shit", it almost always is on a computer running an AMD part, be it a CPU or graphics card. Maybe it's just me :X But, as you say, we need another force in the market to prevent an Intel monopoly.

=====

Regarding CPU and mainboard, I've been looking into that. The i7-5820 costs €400 over here, and the cheapest mainboard is the Gigabyte GA-X99-UD4 at €200, which can handle up to 64GB RAM.

When comparing the 5820 to the 4790, there is not a big difference.... The difference is 15%. However, the setup is *much* more expensive because the CPU is +/- €100 extra, the mainboard is twice as expensive as I would pay for a good socket 1150, and DDR4 memory is almost twice as expensive as DDR3. (Dutch prices.)

A mainboard, 6-core i7-5820, 16GB setup would cost me €800 at least.
A mainboard, 4-core i7-4790K, 16GB setup would cost me €500 on average; less if I wanted to.

While I would normally take the i7-5820 over the i7-4790K, even at a somewhat higher price, >= €300 extra for 15% performance gain (and a LOT of performance loss when not using all cores) is a bit much I think. In addition, I won't ever fill up those 8 memory slots to hold 64GB before the entire computer gets obsolete.

The difference in price is a quite powerful graphics card such as the GTX 970 or it's successor, and I think that, if the i7-4790K becomes too old to handle stuff, the i7-5820 will be as well, because of the marginal difference.

(By comparison, the upgrade from the E8500 to the Q8400 boosted the performance of this computer by about 40%, not to mention the HDD->SSD and 9600GT -> GTX 560 upgrades, and because I could sell the older hardware at OK prices, it wasn't an expensive upgrade either.)

Maybe I'm yet sticking to a 4 core i7 and DDR3... except if something drastically changes in the next 6 months.

[wodin]

My first computer had 4 KB (yes that's right Kilo Bits) of RAM, which I hacked by stacking and soldering memory chips and connecting them with wire wrap wire to a whole 16 KB.

My second computer had 640 KB which I blew out to a whole Megabit. After all Mr. Gates said that no PC could use or indeed need more ram than a Megabit!

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by wodin

My first computer had 4 KB (yes that's right Kilo Bits) of RAM, which I hacked by stacking and soldering memory chips and connecting them with wire wrap wire to a whole 16 KB.

4KB? 4KB? You were lucky! My first computer had 1024 bytes of SRAM, an 8-digit, seven-segment LED display, a hexadecimal keyboard, and was programmed in 6502 machine code!