My current primary box is a 400 MHz K6-III+, 256 MB of RAM, a 40 GB Seagate Barracuda IV ATA-100 hard drive, along with a Diamond Stealth 3D 3000 video card (with a whopping 4MB of RAM). The motherboard is Socket-7 with a 66 MHz FSB. This box is no powerhouse by today's standards, but is silent and an efficient office machine.
My starting point is a CPU supporting full hardware virtualization. Basically this is the sole reason for wanting new hardware because otherwise I am content with my primary box. I have been tinkering with GNU/Linux for five years or more and I plan on using Slackware (GNU/Linux) as my primary OS to host other virtual OSs.
My priorities for a new box:
1. Hardware virtualization.
2. Silence.
3. Energy conservation.
4. Speed.
5. Cost.
My first question is which CPU? I'm still researching like crazy (I think my eyeballs are turning square!). If possible these days, my current leaning is to do similarly as I did with my current box: use a laptop CPU in a desktop motherboard to reduce noise, cooling needs, and energy consumption. Of course, my criteria for native hardware virtualization limits my choices of CPUs.
Originally I was leaning toward an Intel Core 2 Duo. Yet, unlike my fortunate trick with my K6-III+ CPU, originally intended only for laptops, I was disappointed to learn that I cannot install a laptop Core 2 Duo (T series/Merom) into an LGA775 socket T (E series/Conroe). The Merom requires a Socket P. My search for an appropriate motherboard to use the laptop Core 2 Duos left me empty. There is the AOpen, but I want to use as much of my existing peripheral hardware as possible, especially my silent Seagate hard drives.
I have discovered that the Core Duo (Yonah) supports hardware virtualization. The Core Duos require a Socket M. Might I find a motherboard to use that CPU? Also, Core Duo is 32 bit rather than 64 bit and I wonder how that might affect me several years down the road should I want to update anything. Is 64 bit better for futureproofing? Probably.
Then there are the "energy efficient" AMD CPUs. Seems the AM2 socket is more universal than the LGA775 socket. With this line of CPUs, at 35W TDP, with no overclocking, and with built-in kernel support for power management and speed stepping, I suspect that passive cooling is very possible or even likely. I probably do not need to tinker with undervolting and underclocking but adding that extra tweak would be nice. Even if the CPU cooler fan remains connected, I guess that with my usage habits that either the fan never runs or runs at the slowest speed (inaudible). I'm not interested in the performance-per-watt advertising jargon because I am making such a significant leap from old hardware to modern hardware. My priorities are silence and energy consumption.
Can I passively cool a AMD CPU? How about the Intel Core 2 Duo?
Is a stock CPU cooler sufficient for passive cooling or do I need to invest in a third party heat sink (Thermalright, Ninja, etc.)? I get the feeling that several people here passively cool their dual core CPUs but I'd like to hear more explicit words.
What other criteria ought I consider with this basic starting point?
Do I need dual core or is single core sufficient for hardware virtualization? I do not expect to run dozens of virtual OSs, only one at a time. Yet, down the road as software matures, might I regret not having dual core? However, I'm not a developer, just a person who tinkers. Are there reasons not to buy a dual core?
Although I'm familiar with the Linux kernel, I never have used energy management with my old hardware. How well does the Linux kernel handle energy consumption in desktops, both Intel and AMD chips?. As a typical office user, I suspect my CPU idles a lot and I can conserve energy if the kernel is smart about that.
What kind of energy consumption can I realistically expect with a modern CPU when routinely I do little more than office related tasks? I want on-board graphics, which should help. Seems that even with a virtual OS running in the background, there will be a lot of idle time with such a box. Although in my priority list silence trumps energy conservation, I am also spoiled with the low energy consumption of my current K6-III+ box.
I would be grateful for some energy consumption reports from current users, of both CPU types.
For me, silence trumps all subsequent considerations, even if that means sacrificing or compromising. My current silent box has me terribly spoiled. Based upon my experience with my second box used for testing and a quiet-but-not-silent power supply fan, I will not settle for "quiet." I need silent (inaudible). My current system is the ultimate criteria. I have to match that kind of silence.
Compared to my current system I am resigned that any new system will increase energy consumption. That is disheartening and I will appreciate any tricks that will reduce energy consumption. I suspect a laptop CPU and on-board video/audio/LAN will help reduce energy consumption.
Regarding speed, bear in mind that any modern hardware I buy will be significantly faster than my current system. Having used my old hardware for so long, I am blissfully ignorant about current speed criteria. I am not qualified to know or understand any speed comparisons of modern hardware. Speed benchmarks simply fly right over my head.
Any modern hardware will seem incredibly fast to me, including integrated graphics. That is, I do not want to get caught up in the minutia of speed tests or the like as is the habit with many hardware review sites. Many of those reviewers do not live in the reality of the typical office user and to them, almost everything is slow.I have no interest in overclocking. I'm willing to sacrifice speed to gain silence and energy conservation.
I am not into computer games or 3D CAD or modeling. Modern integrated graphics will be more than I need and will be dramatically faster than my current hardware. With 1 GB of RAM or more, shared memory is a non-issue for a user like me. And although features like Beryl or Compiz are great eye-candy, they are low on my priority list.
Regarding videos and audio, my multimedia needs are modest at best. My current hardware adequately supports those needs. With new hardware I might play an occasional DVD movie or add a video capture card for occasional digital recording of late-late night movies, but this will not be an HTPC box. However, I'm not concerned about modern hardware satisfying those modest needs.
I'm not new to computers, just ignorant about the new hardware options. I'm still wading my way through the forum discussions and articles. I'm very much still in the research phase therefore I can wait several months for new developments that are scheduled to appear in the upcoming months.
I hope I'm not too verbose, but I figure the more info I provide the better the quality of the responses. Any thoughts, suggestions, or links are appreciated. Thanks for your patience and a great web site and forum!
.
Sounds as though a single core will satisfy my meager needs, but since posting I now am leaning toward future proofing a new box with dual core. Also, the advice about 64 bit affirms my original thoughts so perhaps I ought to just consider a dual core 64 bit CPU and be done with that section of my research.
but apparently virtualization can be more demanding that I thought so I'll modify my list to 2 GB.
