Does this system work optimal on Ubuntu?

[Liam Proven]

On 15 September 2010 14:41, Joep L. Blom <jlblom at neuroweave.nl> wrote:
> Liam Proven wrote:
>> On 15 September 2010 12:41, Wouter van Vliet <wouter.van.vliet at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>> I'm looking into buying a new computer, and as much as I know about certain aspects of the whole computing world, I haven't really been keeping myself updated on which hardware is good and in particular what works good together with Ubuntu.
>>> What I've put together is the following:
>>> CPU: AMD Athlon II X2 250 3.0GHz AM3
>>> Mainboard: ASUS M4A785T-M DDR3 AM3 S-940
>>> RAM: 4GB DDR3 1333MHz CL9 Geil (2x2GB)
>>> Grafikkort: 1024MB ASUS GeF GT220 G DI DDR2 PCI-E
>>> Harddisk: 750GB Samsung 7200rpm 32MB SATA2
>>> Harddisk SSD: 40GB Intel X25-V SSD SATA 2.5 Retail
>>> Kabinet: Cooler Master Elite 310 Orange/Sort u/PSU
>>> Strømforsyning: 500W Inter-Tech SL-500 120mm
>>> CPU Køler:Arctic Cooling Alpine 64 GT S-939/940
>>> Silent Kit: Silent opgradering Step 1 25dB
>>> DVD Drev: 48x16x Lite-On DVD Sort PATA
>>> Netkort Trådløst: Linksys Wireless 300Mbps PCI
>>> Kortlæser:All-in-1 Intern kortlæser sort
>>> The store where I'm planning to order from has a neat component-select system, so here's a link to the system as well: http://fcomputer.dk/?show=system_show&systemlinkid=95372
>>> The main things are in the first few lines I guess, CPU, Mainboard and Graphical card. So, if anybody has any bid on how to make this system better - very much appreciated.
>>> Thanks in advance!
>>> Wouter
>>
>> It does not look bad at all, but the AMD chip is a rather low-end,
>> budget processor for a machine with 4GB of RAM, an SSD and a largish
>> hard disk. I would suggest looking at an Intel Core i5 and a suitable
>> motherboard, which should outperform the AMD chip by quite a large
>> margin.
>>
>> Core i3 are the budget low-end Intel chips now; Core i5 are midrange
>> and Core i7 are high-end. If you can afford it, the higher-end chips
>> use the LGA 1366 socket, which is a good thing if your budget permits.
>> It has a triple-channel memory interface whereas the lower-end chips
>> use an LGA1156 socket with just dual-channels to memory.
>>
>> AMD have, I fear, dropped the ball in terms of CPU performance these
>> days, and while some of their chips are good for budget systems, for
>> mid-range and high-end PCs, Intel comprehensively beat them.
> Liam,
> I tend to disagree. I'm running a system with AMD Phenom II 4-core, much
> like the one the OP, asks of a modest 2.8 Gb speed and it is actually at
> par if not slightly better than the Intel 4-cores. I suggest you to look
> at the bench marks in Tom's hardware (although all benchmarks are
> imperfect). At least in the Netherlands AMD gives a better performance
> for the bucks (euro's). But I agree that  an Athlon II is a little outdated.
> My 2 cents
> Joep

:¬)

Well, that's fair enough.

I don't tend to follow all the hardware sites that often any more. My
main source for guidance these days is Custom PC magazine here in the
UK, as I used to write the "Inside Linux" column for the mag in its
early years and they still send me a free contributors' subscription!

For instance:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/buyers-guide/2010/09/07/pc-hardware-buyer-s-guide-september-2010/3

CPC tests all the latest CPUs against each other constantly, and Intel
/always/ comes out on top and has done since the Core2 line came out.
The Corei3/5/7 line just increased the lead.

In the market for real budget chips, AMD still has some good products.
It took a strong lead when the "Sledgehammer" chips came out (Athlon64
& Opteron), but Core2 took the lead back and AMD has really had
nothing new since then.

Another example:
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/alist/processor

(I was the staff technical writer for PC Pro magazine in the mid-1990s.)

I used to read Tom's H/W frequently in the early days, but its
insistence on splitting every article over 3,464,753 pages with no
single-page "print view" is very irritating, and sometimes I feel that
they add in pages and pages and pages and pages of graphs and tests
that show nothing useful or interesting, just to make the articles
longer and more impressive and to get more banner-ad revenues. (Not
from me - I run AdBlock+ on all my machines.)

Looking for an overall chart of CPU performance on Tom's, where of
course there are 457536 pages of results, I found this:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/3DMark-Vantage-Overall-Performance,2416.html

I am not sure I trust an artificial benchmark such as 3DMark all that
much, but I note that all the top spots are Core i7, then half way
down, a 2.66GHz Core i5 (a midrange chip) beats an AMD Phenom II Black
Edition (a premium expensive overclockers' special) that is running at
3.4GHz.

Unless AMD has some radical architectural overhaul coming, it has lost
the race now, I'm afraid.

Lest I come across as some Intel fanboy, I'm not. My own home PC is an
AMD box and so was the one before that, and before that, then there
was an Intel Pentium II, and before that it was a Cyrix. :¬)

The Pentium 4 was a dreadful abomination, all the Celerons are, as is
the Atom and all the so-called "Pentium Dual Core" CPUs. But AMD
kicked Intel hard, right where it hurt, with Athlon64, and Intel woke
up and moved. After the humiliating climb-down of having to licence
AMD's 64-bit instruction set, I think it will be a long time before
Intel lets itself get overtaken like that again.

The Core processors were OK, the Core 2 was brilliant and the Core
i3/5/7 are better still.

AMD changed the direction of the whole PC industry for the better, but
I don't think it has the capability to do it again. The Fusion stuff
looks interesting but it is not enough.

-- 
Liam Proven • Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • MSN: lproven at hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508