(02-15-2019, 01:05 PM)TheDead link Wrote: this link shows what seems to be the general concensus, in a nice little graphMany thanks for this link - some very useful comparisons between AMD Ryzen & Intel Core i CPUs.:
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors...erclocki-0
It confirms that while idling there's hardly any difference between the two CPU types, but once a
load is applied, the Intel chips use significantly less energy. So maybe, regardless of the drawbacks
of Intel chips (UEFI, spectre, meltdown, etc) this might be the choice to save on energy bills and
save the planet.
In the same vein, I came across an interesting statistic recently:
2% of the world's PCs are apparently used for gaming, but these consume 20% of global computing power ... :o
64bit OS (32-bit on Samsung[i] netbook) installed in [i]Legacy mode on MBR-formatted SSDs (except pi which uses a micro SDHC card):
2017 - Raspberry pi 3B (4cores) ~ [email protected] - LibreElec, used for upgrading our Samsung TV (excellent for the task)
2012 - Lenovo G580 2689 (2cores; 4threads] ~ [email protected] - LL3.8/Win8.1 dual-boot (LL working smoothly)
2011 - Samsung NP-N145 Plus (1core; 2threads) ~ Intel Atom [email protected] - LL 3.8 32-bit (64-bit too 'laggy')
2008 - Asus X71Q (2cores) ~ Intel [email protected] - LL4.6/Win8.1 dual-boot, LL works fine with kernel 4.15
2007 - Dell Latitude D630 (2cores) ~ Intel [email protected] - LL4.6, works well with kernel 4.4; 4.15 doesn't work
2017 - Raspberry pi 3B (4cores) ~ [email protected] - LibreElec, used for upgrading our Samsung TV (excellent for the task)
2012 - Lenovo G580 2689 (2cores; 4threads] ~ [email protected] - LL3.8/Win8.1 dual-boot (LL working smoothly)
2011 - Samsung NP-N145 Plus (1core; 2threads) ~ Intel Atom [email protected] - LL 3.8 32-bit (64-bit too 'laggy')
2008 - Asus X71Q (2cores) ~ Intel [email protected] - LL4.6/Win8.1 dual-boot, LL works fine with kernel 4.15
2007 - Dell Latitude D630 (2cores) ~ Intel [email protected] - LL4.6, works well with kernel 4.4; 4.15 doesn't work