[NBLUG/talk] Intermittent USB failures getting worse; search for new motherboard becomes more urgent (long)

[Lincoln Peters]

On Friday 16 March 2007 08:40, Sean wrote:
> First, Newegg sells the FX-70 (socket L1 a.k.a. socket F) for $50
> cheaper than TigerDirect:
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103862

I'll keep that in mind.

>
> My understanding is that Linux does not really care how many
> processors (or cores in this case) a system has. The question is do
> you have enough concurrently running processes that require enough CPU
> usage to pack in a certain number of cores. I think four 2.8GHz cores
> would be quite significant for most every-day servers, let alone a
> desktop.

The way I use my desktop isn't exactly typical.  I like to be able to do lots 
of things all at the same time, and I often switch tasks when I find myself 
waiting for the computer to do something.

Although as I think about it, I'd probably get better results if I just load 
as much RAM as I can afford onto it.  But if I can go for dual-core or better, 
I will.

>
> Your question about latency is a good question. It has to do with how
> long it takes memory to give up requested data, and has to do with the
> number of cycles required to retreive the data. The latency range of
> the memory will depend on the architecture of the RAM module. The mobo
> you mentioned uses DDR, so the latency will be, on average, higher
> than what you were used to with DDR. Of course the latency will vary
> between manufacturers. This article may help with the concept of
> latency:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAS_Latency

I was actually looking at the exact same article last night.  What I was 
looking for was practical implications, as opposed to just the theory behind 
it.

>
> RAM voltage only really comes into play if you wish to overclock your
> system. RAM voltage is rather minimal, and the overall system power is
> much more influenced by the power eaten by your video card and
> processor(s). I haven't done any research into the new AMD quad CPUs,
> but the Intel Core Duo supposedly (at least for dual core CPUs)
> presented the lowest power consumption per GHz (I think the term used
> is "per cycle", but I can't remember or sure). I'll have leave the
> details of power consumption to others.

I think that (at least for me) not having enough RAM is more of a bottleneck 
than not having a fast enough CPU.  So overclocking isn't a big deal.

On the other hand, I have interests in scientific computing, so if I could 
overclock without sacrificing reliability...

>
> As for VGA vs DVI, DVI ports do supposedly offer better resolution,
> but the images appear to be just fine if you use a DVI to VGA adapter.

That's the impression I got using the DVI-to-VGA adapter with my MacBook Pro.

>
> I haven't yet done any research to read benchmarks comparing the new
> quad core CPUs, so at this time I do not know which is better. I'm
> sure someone else in this group has done the research and can tell
> you. If I don't see someone else tell you I'll try to look it up and
> post what I find.

None of the consumer-level websites I've visited thus far offered quad-core 
CPU's (although I'm still searching), so that may not be an issue.  Even if I 
can find them, I might not be able to afford them.


-- 
Lincoln Peters		<sampln at sbcglobal.net>

Do not drink and drive.