Best processors for Suse 11.1?

English Hardware
#1

I am trying to decide on which harware to upgrade to and need expert advice. Do I go for dual core 32bit or 64bit, Intel or AMD? I don’t want to spend a fortune but would like to be able to do the following.

  • Run XEN virtual machine so I can run Windows 98, and maybe XP with Linux (don’t laugh, have a reason!)
  • Dual boot Win XP to do some analogue video editing. Programs like Cinelerra only work with digital inputs.

I’m keen to go with an AMD processor as they are cheaper than Intel but I think they have all gone to 64bit.

If I go with Intel I am looking at a processor like the E6300

I understanding that 64bit processors are not yet stable with Linux - is this true?

I enjoy experimenting and must say I have enjoyed Suse since 9.2
Any help in choosing the next step forward would be appreciated.

#2

On 10/17/2009 02:06 PM, garthkh wrote:
>
> I am trying to decide on which harware to upgrade to and need expert
> advice. Do I go for dual core 32bit or 64bit, Intel or AMD? I don’t want
> to spend a fortune but would like to be able to do the following.
> * Run XEN virtual machine so I can run Windows 98, and maybe XP with
> Linux (don’t laugh, have a reason!)
> * Dual boot Win XP to do some analogue video editing. Programs like
> Cinelerra only work with digital inputs.
>
> I’m keen to go with an AMD processor as they are cheaper than Intel but
> I think they have all gone to 64bit.
>
> If I go with Intel I am looking at a processor like the E6300
>
> I understanding that 64bit processors are not yet stable with Linux -
> is this true?

Absolutely NOT. I am running two 64-bit systems with AMD dual-core
machines and they are absolutely stable.

When I am testing new kernel releases, I find more problems with my
32-bit systems than with my 64-bit ones. Why? I think it is because
most developers use 64-bit systems.

#3

Nope, not true. 64-bit in Linux is VERY mature, even more so than its competitors like Windows so I’d say go with AMD and with 64-bit (make sure to pick a CPU with HW virtualization extensions)

#4

garthkh wrote:
> I am trying to decide on which harware to upgrade to and need expert
> advice. Do I go for dual core 32bit or 64bit, Intel or AMD? I don’t want
> to spend a fortune but would like to be able to do the following.
> * Run XEN virtual machine so I can run Windows 98, and maybe XP with
> Linux (don’t laugh, have a reason!)

Pretty much anything that has VT (SVX) virtual instruction support
will work well.

> * Dual boot Win XP to do some analogue video editing. Programs like
> Cinelerra only work with digital inputs.
>
> I’m keen to go with an AMD processor as they are cheaper than Intel but
> I think they have all gone to 64bit.

Yes… I’d shop around… AMD or Intel… whoever has the best
deal. Oddly, even though Intel CPUs are more expensive (usually),
a whole system or even barebone Intel could be cheaper.

>
> If I go with Intel I am looking at a processor like the E6300

That one has the VT instructions… so I’d say that’s ok. It’s
too low end for my taste… but ok.

Do you have a budget set? That might help with some recommendations.
I usually try to get the most for my money… others simply
try to buy the cheapest thing they can find. I recommend the
“budget” approach over dumpster diving.

>
> I understanding that 64bit processors are not yet stable with Linux -
> is this true?

Not true. However sometimes there are applications and/or drivers
that aren’t ready for 64bit… but this has gotten a lot better.
Often times, were talking about proprietary stuff… for example
64bit flash… it’s available now. 64bit Java is just a problem
in general (I don’t care what platform you use)… but that has
also gotten better. I know there are some drivers out there
that have issues… but don’t remember which ones (good chance
you don’t need those drivers).

I’d recommend going 64bit.

>
> I enjoy experimenting and must say I have enjoyed Suse since 9.2
> Any help in choosing the next step forward would be appreciated.

I’ve run both. Both work well. There are some generations where
AMD is better (believe it or not). AMD hasn’t won the performance
crown for quite some time. With that said, you’re not going to
find a 8 socket Intel system out there :slight_smile:

AMD does beat Intel sometimes on the very high end. But it depends
on what you are doing… out of your price range no doubt though
(does cost a fortune… well… for some anyhow).

#5

You don’t need to run XEN for Win 98 & XP, you can do those in Virtual Box very conveniently.

The problem you may have with booting XP directly is getting the drivers together.

From what I can see, AMD have a performance advantage at the low-mid end, which appears to be where you’re looking. The sort of system recommended now for gaming will look well over-specced to you Low End AMD Gaming Dropping a graphics card for example is an obvious saving.

I have run for couple years, AMD 64 X2 5600+ 2.8Ghz dual core box with 4GiB RAM (rather similar specs to the Intel process your mentioned), and it has performed very stably, with both 32bit and 64bit versions of openSUSE. With RAM so cheap I would go for 4GB and use 64bit Linux, 32 bit Guest OSes are no problem.

Building a box today, I’d probably go a little higher in the range perhaps a Phenom II X3 system. Though the Athlon II X2 is cheap and attractive, the lack of L3 cache not serious, it is so new it likely would require a flash of BIOS to support it. The Athlon II X2 clock rates won’t exceed the flagship Phenom II X4’s, for marketing reasons. I don’t see much point in the Athlon II X3/X4’s as they have smaller L2 cache per core, and I don’t see very parrellelisable workloads (except when compiling). So I’d prefer a faster dual core system.