Non-intel benchmarks on Conroe vs AMD's AM2 FX62

[The little lost angel]

Yes there install sucks, this is how it works:

The installer (you cliked) creates a link:

whereis firefox
firefox: /usr/bin/firefox /etc/firefox /usr/lib/firefox /usr/share/firefox /usr/share/man/man1/firefox.1.gz

ls -l /usr/bin/firefox
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 22 2006-01-28 17:31 /usr/bin/firefox -> ../lib/firefox/firefox*

So you could test if now typing
firefox
in an xterm starts it up?
If it does make an icon for it on the desktop?

Firefox starts but it's the original 1.0.7 that came with the
distribution. Looking into the firefox file, it seems that they
hardcoded the folder where the shell script is calling firefox from
i.e MOZ_USER_DIR=".mozilla/firefox"

Although I could be wrong about it given my inexperience with Linux at
this point.

If I attempted to start by using ./firefox-bin it will give me an
error about libmozjs.so not found. doing a whereis libmozjs.so doesn't
appear to return any results.

 

[chrisv]

I'd be waiting more than a couple of months! Let the shake-out
happen.

Are you advocating waiting, for some future "shake-out" or price
reduction? Why is that more reasonable than waiting for an entirely
new and promising CPU?

DO you think these things are going to be free?

No, I do not think they will be free. Strange question...

I do think that consumers will benefit, perhaps even immediately, by
having Intel competitive again. Indeed, they may have already, given
recent price-cuts. If Intel has FUD'ed AMD, they've also FUD'ed their
own current CPU products.

In any event, the value should be fair. It's not like they're going
to suddenly start charging us more, in terms of dollars per unit
performance, than what they are today (or what AMD will be charging
then).

No, buy what you need when you need it.

If you really "need" it, yes. However, for most people, there's quite
a bit of slop in the time-frame where they will "need" a new PC
(unless the old one dies). That's where "want" comes in, and I'm
afraid that not all "wants" are purely logical and precisely timed for
maximal value/dollar, whether it's a new PC or a new car. I think
this is especially true of enthusiasts, for whom these devices are not
merely tools, but something that they think is "cool" - there's not
much cooler than a brand new CPU design on a brand new manufacturing
process.

The performance difference simply
won't be astronomical. Those days are *long* gone.

Astronomical? No. Significant? Very possible. From early reports,
this may be the biggest leap in desktop CPU performance that we've had
in some years.

After all, A64, while a very elegant design, didn't really leap us
forward in performance - it basically performs like an Athlon clocked
at whatever frequency. AMD's recent dominance in the performance
arena is mostly the result of Intel falling on it's arse with "Net
Burst".

I do not disagree with the "if your old machine ain't cutting it, get
a new one now" rule. But, given the flexibility that most of us have
regarding our old machine "cutting it", and the new CPU due shortly,
I'd say it's a very reasonable decision at this time to wait and see
how this thing performs.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

Firefox starts but it's the original 1.0.7 that came with the
distribution. Looking into the firefox file, it seems that they
hardcoded the folder where the shell script is calling firefox from
i.e MOZ_USER_DIR=".mozilla/firefox"

Although I could be wrong about it given my inexperience with Linux at
this point.

If I attempted to start by using ./firefox-bin it will give me an
error about libmozjs.so not found. doing a whereis libmozjs.so doesn't
appear to return any results.

Ok, the way to find an exectuable (that is in the path) is 'whereis'.
the way to find 'any' file is 'locate'
Before you use 'locate' however you should run 'updatedb'.
It makes sense to run 'updatedb from a script 'crontab' once a day.
It makes a list of all files on your system (using 'find').

locate libmozjs.so
/root/compile/firefox/firefox/libmozjs.so
/usr/lib/firefox/libmozjs.so

So perhaps have a look in where you untarred firefox, in my case in
/root/compile/firefox/, (but I did not use source, it is just a dir name),
if libmozjs.so is there copy it to /usr/lib/firefox.
Then type
ldconfig

If it does not, I have put one here for you:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/libmozjs.so

 

[chrisv]

(e-mail address removed) says...

Why? As Felger&co. pointed out to me today 19" (1280x1024) LCD
displays are going for $200 now, including shipping. 20.1"
displays are going for $300. Whay would anyone put up with a
postage stamp.

Because it's already bought and paid for, and it works fine? Going
from 1024x768 to 1280x1024 does not really make a big difference, for
many applications. For many people, the only way to get a substantial
improvement in their computing life is to get something so big that
they can fit two applications side-by-side - something like these:

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APP...oa/wo/0.RSLID?mco=955BB9EF&nclm=AppleDisplays

...and that purpose died with the last century.

Not true. Indeed, rare is the Web page that doesn't fit fine in
1024x768. (In fact, a lot of them, annoyingly, are still designed to
fit on a 640x480 display.)

 

[chrisv]

Yep, immeasurable stupidity,

On your part.

and that's for the company that is headed
now by a professional marketeer...

So he almost certainly knows more about it than you do.

 

[Keith]

Are you advocating waiting, for some future "shake-out" or price
reduction? Why is that more reasonable than waiting for an entirely
new and promising CPU?

Either I'd buy now or wait for a shakeout (and possible price
reductions). If I needed a system, I'd likely not wait at all
though. I certainly don't buy FUD (I don't buy FX62s either).

No, I do not think they will be free. Strange question...

Then why all the hype? (that's a rhetorical question).

I do think that consumers will benefit, perhaps even immediately, by
having Intel competitive again. Indeed, they may have already, given
recent price-cuts. If Intel has FUD'ed AMD, they've also FUD'ed their
own current CPU products.

That's all I see is FUD. Yes, it seems they have Osborned
themselves.

In any event, the value should be fair. It's not like they're going
to suddenly start charging us more, in terms of dollars per unit
performance, than what they are today (or what AMD will be charging
then).

Intel has always been more expensive than AMD. Why would this
change?

If you really "need" it, yes. However, for most people, there's quite
a bit of slop in the time-frame where they will "need" a new PC
(unless the old one dies). That's where "want" comes in, and I'm
afraid that not all "wants" are purely logical and precisely timed for
maximal value/dollar, whether it's a new PC or a new car. I think
this is especially true of enthusiasts, for whom these devices are not
merely tools, but something that they think is "cool" - there's not
much cooler than a brand new CPU design on a brand new manufacturing
process.

Oh, so this is all about bragging rights? Maybe that's why I buy
what's available, rather than FUD. I'm really not much concerned
abut tomorrow's promises, other than a technical curiosity or
perhaps an investment. The latter doesn't seem to be Intel's
motivation (or they've hit another 'burg).

Astronomical? No. Significant? Very possible. From early reports,
this may be the biggest leap in desktop CPU performance that we've had
in some years.
FUD

After all, A64, while a very elegant design, didn't really leap us
forward in performance - it basically performs like an Athlon clocked
at whatever frequency. AMD's recent dominance in the performance
arena is mostly the result of Intel falling on it's arse with "Net
Burst".

Nonsense. If it's used as an Athlon it's not much, but if the
features are used it's far faster than an equivalently clocked
Athlon (which isn't all that bad either). If they're not used,
well...

I do not disagree with the "if your old machine ain't cutting it, get
a new one now" rule. But, given the flexibility that most of us have
regarding our old machine "cutting it", and the new CPU due shortly,
I'd say it's a very reasonable decision at this time to wait and see
how this thing performs.

If you're prepared to wait a year, perhaps. If not, buy when the
time is right.

 

[Keith]

Because it's already bought and paid for, and it works fine?

Going
from 1024x768 to 1280x1024 does not really make a big difference, for
many applications.

Sure it does. If you have many applications it makes a *big*
difference. ;-)

It's a pretty crappy digital photograph that's less than 1280x1024
(1.3Mpixel).

For many people, the only way to get a substantial
improvement in their computing life is to get something so big that
they can fit two applications side-by-side - something like these:

Right now (and I've just started for the day) I have nine windows
open on my desktop and 20 in the task bar open. One is Excel and
one is my program editor. Who knows how many files are open in
them.

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APP...oa/wo/0.RSLID?mco=955BB9EF&nclm=AppleDisplays

Have the Dell version of the one on the left (same panel, IIRC) as
my second display at home and it was a *LOT* cheaper than that
(less than half). Apple do know how to squeeze money...

Not true. Indeed, rare is the Web page that doesn't fit fine in
1024x768. (In fact, a lot of them, annoyingly, are still designed to
fit on a 640x480 display.)

You only do one thing at a time and have only one application open
at a time? I'm doing things on at least two computers at a time
and leave scads of windows all over the place (messy desk policy).

 

[Keith]

On your part.


So he almost certainly knows more about it than you do.

....or is running from his stock holders and has to do something,
*anything*.

 

[Keith]

Not everybody uses CAD you know

Everyday office work on 1024x768 on a 15" is fair enough. A lot people
don't even change from the default resolution, which is like 800x600
for WinXP.

....at 60Hz, I know. However the "normal" display was 15" when I
bought my P75 in 1994. I was running 1024x768 on that. (went to
19" 1280x1024 in '00 and 2x19"s in '04).

Quite a few older folks I help out PREFER lower resolution because
higher res are too tiny for their eyes. Changing font sizes only
doesn't help because other stuff like pictures emailed to them still
look small.

I don't "see" it. Fonts are much crisper with higher resolutions.
I'm certainly not young (35 and have no trouble with high
resolutions (and usually *tiny* fonts). My pictures more often
than not spill over a 1024x768 screen. I think the reason most
people run with the default resolution is that they haven't a clue
how to change it (like 60Hz) and haven't tried anything else.

Glad to know you guys can get US$200 19" LCD from, but around here, a
15"/17" are stuck around US$200~220, while something like Viewsonic
19" starts around US$250 and range up to 430 depending on models. A
Viewsonic 20" would be around US$500.

My 20" Dell was $380. My vintage 15" cost more than $200 in 1994
dollars. This stuff is getting cheap!

Although $50 doesn't sound like much to you, to most people making
their buys esp for office, that's almost 10% of the system price.

....and has been for some time, even though the price of both has
fallen by 5 in the mean time.

There are still people buying US$120 17" CRT simply because of the
price. Those cheap tubes would suck at above 1024x768.

At 17", 1024x768 is OK, but 600x800?

 

[chrisv]

...and you're advocating a processor that no one has seen? <yikes>

Not <yikes> at all, actually.

What I advocated was waiting for the new processor, with the
assumption that one was becoming dissatisfied with one's current
machine, and therefore contemplating immediate replacement. I.E. it
does not "work fine" for them.

I think that many people "still using 15" LCD at home or office" are
sufficiently-satisfied so as not be contemplating immediate
replacement. I.E. it "works fine" for them.

Sure it does. If you have many applications it makes a *big*
difference. ;-)

Not IMO. IMO, one's life doesn't really improve much unless one can
actually fit apps side-by side and not have to do so much "flipping"
of apps to the top.

It's a pretty crappy digital photograph that's less than 1280x1024
(1.3Mpixel).

Most that won't fit into 1024x768 won't fit into 1280x1024, either.
So, you still have to pan or shrink. Is the bigger monitor "better"?
Well, sure.

Right now (and I've just started for the day) I have nine windows
open on my desktop and 20 in the task bar open. One is Excel and
one is my program editor. Who knows how many files are open in
them.

Again, no huge advantage for the 19" monitor there, IMO.

I should note that I am a proponent of bigger monitors. I've had a
21" CRT at home for years. However, IMO it's a luxury that most
people could easily live without - 1024x768 is not functionally much
inferior to 1280x1024.

Now, if one was becoming dissatisfied with their current monitor, and
were planning on buying a new one anyway, I think they'd be nuts not
to go for the 19-incher, for the small cost adder. (Note how this
fits with my CPU argument.)

Have the Dell version of the one on the left (same panel, IIRC) as
my second display at home and it was a *LOT* cheaper than that
(less than half). Apple do know how to squeeze money...

They do.

You only do one thing at a time and have only one application open
at a time? I'm doing things on at least two computers at a time
and leave scads of windows all over the place (messy desk policy).

See above.

 

[chrisv]

Either I'd buy now or wait for a shakeout (and possible price
reductions). If I needed a system, I'd likely not wait at all
though. I certainly don't buy FUD (I don't buy FX62s either).

I think waiting a short period of time for a newly-designed CPU is a
much better reason to wait than are future price reductions.
Ground-up new CPU designs are a rare occurrence sometimes worth
waiting for. Price reductions are always going to lie in the future,
and are the worst reason of all to wait, IMO.

Intel has always been more expensive than AMD.

In recent years, not enough more to care, IMO.

I've recently recommended AMD to friends and family, because they were
the better technology at the time - NOT because they could get X
performance for $950 instead of $980 or whatever.

Why would this change?

I don't think it will, but see above.

Oh, so this is all about bragging rights?

Buying something because one thinks it's "cool" or for "pride of
ownership" does not equal wanting to "brag" about it. Even if
"bragging rights" is a subset of the reasons why people buy cool new
things, it does not make buying cool new things "all about" bragging
rights, as you erroneously suppose above.

Maybe that's why I buy what's available, rather than FUD.

No one has suggested that anyone buy any FUD. What has been suggested
is that, at this point in time and for people currently considering
upgrading their computers, waiting for the new CPU is a very
reasonable decision. Rare is the situation where buying now vs.
waiting a couple months is going to make a huge difference in
someone's life, and then we'll know for sure how good the new CPU is.

I'm really not much concerned
abut tomorrow's promises, other than a technical curiosity or
perhaps an investment. The latter doesn't seem to be Intel's
motivation (or they've hit another 'burg).

Not all people are as pragmatic about these things as you are, Keith.
That doesn't make them "as stupid as they come".

 

[Jim Prescott]

I don't "see" it. Fonts are much crisper with higher resolutions.
I'm certainly not young (35 and have no trouble with high
resolutions (and usually *tiny* fonts).

Your eyes are still young; presbyopia usually kicks in right around 40.

I like the idea of high-resolution and just cranking up fontsize
as needed but in practice too many programs (both Windows and X11)
handle this poorly; text ends up truncated because it is trying to
print in too small a box.

My 20" Dell was $380. My vintage 15" cost more than $200 in 1994
dollars. This stuff is getting cheap!

So are the computers. At the low-end you can get a whole computer
with 17" CRT for <$380. A monitor is an excellent place to spend
extra money but it is frequently a tough sell when I try to spec
systems for others.

 

[George Macdonald]

I'd be waiting more than a couple of months! Let the shake-out
happen. DO you think these things are going to be free? No, buy
what you need when you need it. The performance difference simply
won't be astronomical. Those days are *long* gone.

....or wait till AMD comes back with their answer in another 6-8 months.;-)

 

[George Macdonald]

Same here, particularly printing. Most annoying.


Seamonkey? Seamonkey?!!! I've heard opera is goodness too.

Yeah, the name Mozilla was not allowed for the Mozilla suite after Firefox
went live and Mozilla incorporated (or something like that) so they
adopted the name the project had during development: Seamonkey... so it's
basically the further development on the old Mozilla suite. IOW a Netscape
Navigator/E-mail that works.

I tried Opera once - I guess I missed the religious experience it was
supposed to bring.

 

[George Macdonald]

Given that graphics cards are so much more powerful these days, running them
at 1024x768 is equivalent to running them at 640x480 in the past. Further,
games no longer necessarily have the option to run at 640x480. For instance,
the only game I have installed at the moment is Far Cry, and the lowest
resolution for it is 800x600. I wouldn't be surprised if the lowest
resolution for some other games is 1024x768.

We're not talking about "running" games - look at the benchmarks: last time
I looked 640x480 was still being used to "compare" CPU impact.

 

[George Macdonald]

Hmm, what kind of bugs and glitches? Though I admit the memory
footprint is getting bigger and bigger, there hasn't really been any
show stopping issues that I've noticed apart from the usual "this site
has been designed only to work with IE". But then faking the useragent
header allows FF to work even on some of them

Of course, my experience with FF is almost entirely on Windows.

Windows for me too - there's a whole host of glitches... such as it seems
to be unable to remember a Download folder once you've changed it a couple
of times: it flits back & forth seemingly on a whim. I've also noticed
mysterious slowdown on loading pages - reboot to err, fix. Whether it's
been acknowledged or not, I'd swear it still has the resource bug which
monotonically reduces resources and increases memory footprint. It totally
craps out on me regularly... usually when I'm deep in several Tabs which
are cross-referenced.<grrrrr> I also miss the Preferences method for
things like Image/Animation control vs. about:config. Yes, I know about
"extensions" but don't want to spend time figuring which one(s) I need.

With Linux, well, I guess not even starting up is a major bug but I
can't seriously attribute it to FF 1.5 when it could well be I didn't
install it properly. all I did was download, unzip/tar into
/home/firefox, double clicked on the file with the description that
says executable, loading... then nothing!

Maybe try Seamonkey?... though I believe they both use the same "engine",
so who knows if it'll act better.

 

[The little lost angel]

...or wait till AMD comes back with their answer in another 6-8 months.;-)

That would be too long to wait for somebody already on the verge of
upgrading. 1~2 month or so is reasonable, 6 to 8 months isn't.

 

[The little lost angel]

Maybe try Seamonkey?... though I believe they both use the same "engine",
so who knows if it'll act better.

I've been trying so many "new" things, I'm getting a headache
FF's problem is likely due to my inexperience with
paths/locations/shell scripts on Linux more than anything else.

1.07 works fine but I just like having the same 1.5 on both my Windws
and Linux environment. Fotunatey for me, Firefox has never given me
any trouble that wasn't the site's developer's issue (read: IE only
designs) so I'm not that keen on changing it.

 

[The little lost angel]

Ok, the way to find an exectuable (that is in the path) is 'whereis'.
the way to find 'any' file is 'locate'
Before you use 'locate' however you should run 'updatedb'.
It makes sense to run 'updatedb from a script 'crontab' once a day.
It makes a list of all files on your system (using 'find').

locate libmozjs.so
/root/compile/firefox/firefox/libmozjs.so
/usr/lib/firefox/libmozjs.so

So perhaps have a look in where you untarred firefox, in my case in
/root/compile/firefox/, (but I did not use source, it is just a dir name),
if libmozjs.so is there copy it to /usr/lib/firefox.
Then type
ldconfig

The funny thing is, I've found libmozjs.so it's in the same folder as
firefox which is /home/myusername/firefox but firefox won't run 1.5 it
still starts 1.07 which is in /usr/lib somewhere

Do programs on Linux only run if I stuff them in /usr/lib?

Personally, I still think Linux file organisation is wholly unnatural.
I would had stuck user programs in /user/prog(rams) not /lib(rary)

 

[The little lost angel]

Your eyes are still young; presbyopia usually kicks in right around 40.

*cough* despite his name, Keith's actually a woman in terms of age
mentality thus adopts the convention of counting his age in a
processor with registers bigger than 3bits... pPP

But I agree, that he's got pretty good eyes at his age