[kwlug-disc] OT: New Intel desktop/laptop CPUs

[Rashkae]

Insurance Squared Inc. wrote:
> Does anyone running linux really need new hardware anymore?  It must be a real 
> niche app if you're running linux on the desktop and needing more speed than 
> hardware from 5+ years ago. Maybe I could see a memory upgrade to a meg or 
> two...but that's it. 
> 
> I'm as keen on new hardware as the next geek.  But I bought a decent machine 
> about 5 years ago and I have 0 requirements in the office to upgrade my 
> hardware.  I did upgrade my memory - but not because it needed it, because I was 
> treating myself.  The upgrade from 512m to 3 gigs made absolutely no 
> difference.  My pentium 4 on a 533 FSB motherboard rocks everything I need in my 
> daily work.  And my office servers are from even longer ago than that.  I'm not 
> sure if Paul would even take my hand me down hardware :).
> 
> I'd like to go out and buy a new $1000 machine, but if I did, I'm certain that 
> where I'd be is exactly where I am right now but lighter by a $1000.
> 
> So what gives?   Why does someone running linux in a reasonably normal 
> environment need to upgrade his hardware at any point  between 2005 and 2015?
> 

Decoding HD video on CPU (which most of us need, unless configuring the 
Nvidia decoding, whatever they call it again) requires Dual core, and 
probably benefits from 64-bit hardware.

Hard drive IO latency is always a big bottleneck, and the larger/faster 
drives you buy now would provide near twice as good performance as 
drives of 5 years ago, even if you still only use 6GB.

Video encoding, I can assure you, is much faster on quad core system.