From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

My main desktop is showing its age. Some parts are new but the
processor, main board and graphics cards are over 16 years old. I need
to upgrade but I have several 2TB hard drives that have seen little use
that I do not want to just throw away.

Historically I have preferred AMD processors and their graphics cards.

Given those perameters, what combination of bits would you (anyone)
suggest that would give me decent performance when say, scrolling
browser pages or running a virtual machine on the main (Linux) host?

Thanks in advance,
--
Linux Mint 21.1 kernel version 5.15.0-87-generic Cinnamon 5.6.8
AMD Phenom II x4 955 CPU 16Gb Dram 2TB Barracuda
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

On 10/26/23 05:12 PM, this is what pinnerite wrote:

My main desktop is showing its age. Some parts are new but the
processor, main board and graphics cards are over 16 years old. I need
to upgrade but I have several 2TB hard drives that have seen little use
that I do not want to just throw away.

Historically I have preferred AMD processors and their graphics cards.

Given those perameters, what combination of bits would you (anyone)
suggest that would give me decent performance when say, scrolling
browser pages or running a virtual machine on the main (Linux) host?

Thanks in advance,

Not much demand here. I didn't hear "games" so you've got a simple task.

Not sure what case you get but some can hold a few drives. You can put the 2TB's in there for bulk data.
Of course you're putting in an SSD for boot. I have a 500G and my Linux is 100G, Windows 100G (optional), and of
course Windows eats up a few with those stupid extra partitions, and the remainder is space for the virtual machine
drives. VMs run much faster if the data is on the SSD, it is some wear but I don't run them much.

A power supply to support the 4TB spinners. One could be simple archival for backup images, several copies.

Linux doesn't take that much room. I have 31G and I've got a pretty full system. No games, so that might add a few.

All the other i/o stuff is as needed.
--
Linux Mint 21.2 Cinnamon
Al

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

On 2023-10-26, pinnerite <pinnerite@gmail.com> wrote:

My main desktop is showing its age. Some parts are new but the
processor, main board and graphics cards are over 16 years old. I need
to upgrade but I have several 2TB hard drives that have seen little use
that I do not want to just throw away.

Historically I have preferred AMD processors and their graphics cards.

Given those perameters, what combination of bits would you (anyone)
suggest that would give me decent performance when say, scrolling
browser pages or running a virtual machine on the main (Linux) host?

Thanks in advance,

If you want to enjoy Linux, with open source drivers and Wayland,
then go for AMD... anything recent you buy, want regret :P
--

7-77-777, Evil Sinner! https://www.linkedin.com/in/branimir-maksimovic-6762bbaa/
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

On 2023-10-26, Big Al <Bears@invalid.com> wrote:

On 10/26/23 05:12 PM, this is what pinnerite wrote:

My main desktop is showing its age. Some parts are new but the processor,
main board and graphics cards are over 16 years old. I need to upgrade but I >> have several 2TB hard drives that have seen little use that I do not want to >> just throw away.

Historically I have preferred AMD processors and their graphics cards.

Given those perameters, what combination of bits would you (anyone) suggest >> that would give me decent performance when say, scrolling browser pages or >> running a virtual machine on the main (Linux) host?

Thanks in advance,

Not much demand here. I didn't hear "games" so you've got a simple task.

Not sure what case you get but some can hold a few drives. You can put the 2TB's in there for bulk data. Of course you're putting in an SSD for boot.
I have a 500G and my Linux is 100G, Windows 100G (optional), and of course Windows eats up a few with those stupid extra partitions, and the remainder is space for the virtual machine drives. VMs run much faster if the data is on the SSD, it is some wear but I don't run them much.

A power supply to support the 4TB spinners. One could be simple archival for backup images, several copies.

Linux doesn't take that much room. I have 31G and I've got a pretty full system. No games, so that might add a few.

All the other i/o stuff is as needed.

Bare metal didn't saw Windows since 2008. On my machines...
I had to use it in VM. Because of last job, before I got retired...
Project manager, allowed me to port it to Linux, but that was major
work, and I didn't have enough time :P
Regarding games, I have ~450 and playing exclusively on Linux.
--

7-77-777, Evil Sinner! https://www.linkedin.com/in/branimir-maksimovic-6762bbaa/
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

On 10/26/23 06:23 PM, this is what Branimir Maksimovic wrote:

On 2023-10-26, Big Al <Bears@invalid.com> wrote:

On 10/26/23 05:12 PM, this is what pinnerite wrote:

My main desktop is showing its age. Some parts are new but the processor, >>> main board and graphics cards are over 16 years old. I need to upgrade but I
have several 2TB hard drives that have seen little use that I do not want to
just throw away.

Historically I have preferred AMD processors and their graphics cards.

Given those perameters, what combination of bits would you (anyone) suggest >>> that would give me decent performance when say, scrolling browser pages or >>> running a virtual machine on the main (Linux) host?

Thanks in advance,

Not much demand here. I didn't hear "games" so you've got a simple task.

Not sure what case you get but some can hold a few drives. You can put the >> 2TB's in there for bulk data. Of course you're putting in an SSD for boot. >> I have a 500G and my Linux is 100G, Windows 100G (optional), and of course >> Windows eats up a few with those stupid extra partitions, and the remainder >> is space for the virtual machine drives. VMs run much faster if the data is
on the SSD, it is some wear but I don't run them much.

A power supply to support the 4TB spinners. One could be simple archival >> for backup images, several copies.

Linux doesn't take that much room. I have 31G and I've got a pretty full
system. No games, so that might add a few.

All the other i/o stuff is as needed.

Bare metal didn't saw Windows since 2008. On my machines...
I had to use it in VM. Because of last job, before I got retired...
Project manager, allowed me to port it to Linux, but that was major
work, and I didn't have enough time :P
Regarding games, I have ~450 and playing exclusively on Linux.

I'd like to see that list but not here.
Are a lot on Steam?
--
Linux Mint 21.2 Cinnamon
Al

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

On 10/26/2023 5:12 PM, pinnerite wrote:

My main desktop is showing its age. Some parts are new but the
processor, main board and graphics cards are over 16 years old. I need
to upgrade but I have several 2TB hard drives that have seen little use
that I do not want to just throw away.

Historically I have preferred AMD processors and their graphics cards.

Given those perameters, what combination of bits would you (anyone)
suggest that would give me decent performance when say, scrolling
browser pages or running a virtual machine on the main (Linux) host?

Thanks in advance,

If you can still find an AM4 motherboard, you can stick a 5600G in it.
It is 6C 12T and does not use a lot of electricity.

I used an "MSI B550 Gaming Plus" motherboard. The B550 Southbridge uses 6-7W
or so, while the X570 uses 15W. AMD has some scheme where it uses two
South Bridge chips, as a means to getting more ports. And since I did my
build some time ago, my info is likely a bit stale by now, in terms of
what is available. An AM4 project now may be difficult, due to what
is left in the channel. There are probably lots of processors available,
while motherboards could be fewer than before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_AM4

The processor I replaced the 5600G with, it guzzles electricity and when
your back is turned, a few cores could rail and then it is back
to guzzling electricity. The Gaming Plus had enough VCore for a high
end processor (I use an additional fan on VCore, which is a typical
problem for modern builds with high end processors). VCore only
gets hot, when you're using all the cores.

[Picture]

https://i.postimg.cc/pLsp6jgm/Install-Ryzen-Master-To-Watch-Params.gif

The 5600G can't do that. The cap is lower. The automated cooling
system doesn't even engage on the 5600G. No fan speed changes while
you are using it. Whereas the fans do change speed when the high end
processor is in there. The "cap" in that picture, sees to it that
the CPU speed rises only to the point that there is no power headroom.
On all cores, the cores don't hit 5GHz, but hit some lower number.

Motherboards come in versions with a fan on the Southbridge, and
ones without a fan. The lower power one, doesn't have as many
whizzy USB ports on it, but it is still good enough. The B550 doesn't
need a fan (it has a passive heatsink). The X570 likely needs a Southbridge fan,
or, a larger passive heatsink. These can be whiny 40mm fans, for example.

The 5700G processor would also be a possibility. I picked this page, because
I wanted some wall power numbers. If you look at the chart, there is
a high end Intel at 277W. (To be fair to Intel, the 5950X I've got now,
the wall power is 224W when compressing with 7ZIP, and it will draw
that power all day long if compressing an entire hard drive sized item.)

https://www.anandtech.com/show/16824/amd-ryzen-7-5700g-and-ryzen-5-5600g-apu-review/2

For some purposes "you can never buy a big enough processor", but
then that is an outlier. Your daily activities, the 5600G is fine
with that. Same goes with RAM. You can never have enough RAM
"this one time". Then the rest of the time, there is RAM sitting
there unused.

If you go with AM5, you'll be buying DDR5 memory. You can see the same
kind of power pattern for motherboard Southbridge power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_AM5

If you go to the bottom of this page ("Zen 4" section),

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_AMD_processors

you might notice the AM5 processors don't have the equivalent of a 5600G (built-in graphics).
Just a 5600X equivalent (7600X, no built-in graphics). How an X may differ from a G,
is the missing graphics, but a plus on L3 cache (could be double the L3 cache). The Wiki doesn't have enough params for purchasing purposes.

If your processor does not have graphics, then you need a graphics
card to start the build with. The graphics card could cost a bit more
than the CPU, just for a garbage card. If you go too low in the graphics
card food chain, you get a card without a hardware video decoder and
with only x4 PCI Express lanes (not the x16 lanes the slot has).
These are GPUs that were bundled with laptops, and some fool stuck
them on a PCI Express card :-/ I will not buy these on principle,
mainly because these should have been 50, not 170. Such a shit card,
should be rock bottom money. They want too much, for something they
should never have made. Cards I can buy for a bit over 200, they
hhave x8 or x16 lanes.

A graphics card with "representative" content, "buzzword compliance",
could cost you 200 or so. The 5600G is selling for perhaps half the
price it launched at. The 5600G also comes with a cooler in the box.
it's an all-aluminium cooler (no Copper core, no heatpipes), which is
fine for a sipping-power processor.

*******

I can have trouble scrolling a web page, at 5GHz. (On one core,
my current CPU will just barely make it to 5Ghz. A Zen4 could go higher still.)

In a battle of wits, "software always wins". Poorly
written software, bloat, it can defeat a processor.
When my browser slows down, I delete cookies.sqlite (spite),
and webappsstore.sqlite (business). The web pages, are busy
filling up webappsstore.sqlite with garbage, and when it hits
around 10MB in size, things slow down. The browser does not respond
right away, to the mouse.

Other files I clean, have "+++" in the name, and those are folders.
That's the DOM storage.

Properly cleaning a browser will help even your current machine. My browser cache
is in RAM, and not on disk. I don't use cleaning applications, and
just have my own recipe (which may not be the best, but it's good enough).

I don't game, so I cannot recommend a "sweet spot" video card for gaming. They're all too expensive, as far as I'm concerned.

Modern gaming cards are "too fat" and take up too many slots.
Just the other day, a video card was announced, a 4060, that was
single slot (thinner). Just like the old days. But NVidia will
put a stop to that, and that card is never going to ship. NVidia
is the one that wants them fat. if a single slot card ships, the
AI people will buy all of them :-) Never underestimate those nitwits.
It's just like coin mining.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/colorful-allegedly-develops-single-slot-geforce-rtx-4060-ti-with-blower

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

pinnerite <pinnerite@gmail.com> writes:

My main desktop is showing its age. Some parts are new but the
processor, main board and graphics cards are over 16 years old. I need
to upgrade but I have several 2TB hard drives that have seen little use
that I do not want to just throw away.

Historically I have preferred AMD processors and their graphics cards.

Given those perameters, what combination of bits would you (anyone)
suggest that would give me decent performance when say, scrolling
browser pages or running a virtual machine on the main (Linux) host?

An AM4 board with a Ryzen 5600G and as much DDR4 RAM as you need, plus
an M.2 NVME SSD. You may or may not need to upgrade the power supply.

For a little more money, you can get the 5700G (8 cores instead of 6).

If you want to spend more money, you can buy an AM5 board (make sure
you get enough SATA ports for your HDD), a Ryzen 7600, DDR5 RAM, and
again an M.2 NVME SSD.

With a higher budget, you can put in any AM5 CPU, up to the 7950X3D,
but many of them come without cooler, so you may have to buy that
separately.

The AM5 CPUs have weaker graphics than the 5600G and 5700G, but enough
for scrolling browser pages.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

On 10/27/2023 4:10 AM, Anton Ertl wrote:

pinnerite <pinnerite@gmail.com> writes:

My main desktop is showing its age. Some parts are new but the
processor, main board and graphics cards are over 16 years old. I need
to upgrade but I have several 2TB hard drives that have seen little use
that I do not want to just throw away.

Historically I have preferred AMD processors and their graphics cards.

Given those perameters, what combination of bits would you (anyone)
suggest that would give me decent performance when say, scrolling
browser pages or running a virtual machine on the main (Linux) host?

An AM4 board with a Ryzen 5600G and as much DDR4 RAM as you need, plus
an M.2 NVME SSD. You may or may not need to upgrade the power supply.

For a little more money, you can get the 5700G (8 cores instead of 6).

If you want to spend more money, you can buy an AM5 board (make sure
you get enough SATA ports for your HDD), a Ryzen 7600, DDR5 RAM, and
again an M.2 NVME SSD.

With a higher budget, you can put in any AM5 CPU, up to the 7950X3D,
but many of them come without cooler, so you may have to buy that
separately.

The AM5 CPUs have weaker graphics than the 5600G and 5700G, but enough
for scrolling browser pages.

- anton

OK, I was mistaken. I finally found a list of CPUs with actual graphics data. AMD doesn't like to put that data in adverts, because it pisses off overclockers.

The 7000 series (with one recent exception), have 2 cores.

Table not complete. Had to search around. First three processors have an extra L3 die added.
This is not a complete shopping list, just a mix of mostly AM5, with the two AM4 cheap ones at the bottom.
The AM4 platform makes for a cheaper build.

https://www.amd.com/en/processors/ryzen https://web.archive.org/web/20211212005535/https://www.amd.com/en/processors/ryzen
https://www.amd.com/en/products/apu/amd-ryzen-5-5600g https://www.amd.com/en/products/apu/amd-ryzen-7-5700g

Model C T Boost Clock Base Clock Thermal Solution (PIB) Graphics Cores TDP L2 L3
Ryzen 9 7950X3D 16 32 Up to 5.7GHz 4.2GHz Not Included 2 120W 16MB 128MB
Ryzen 9 7900X3D 12 24 Up to 5.6GHz 4.4GHz Not included 2 120W 12MB 128MB
Ryzen 7 7800X3D 8 16 Up to 5.0GHz 4.2GHz Not included 2 120W 8MB 96MB

Ryzen 9 7950X 16 32 Up to 5.7GHz 4.5GHz Not included 2 170W 16MB 64MB
Ryzen 9 7900X 12 24 Up to 5.6GHz 4.7GHz Not included 2 170W 12MB 64MB
Ryzen 9 7900 12 24 Up to 5.4GHz 3.7GHz AMD Wraith Prism 2 65W 12MB 64MB
Ryzen 7 7700X 8 16 Up to 5.4GHz 4.5GHz Not included 2 105W 8MB 32MB
Ryzen 7 7700 8 16 Up to 5.3GHz 3.8GHz AMD Wraith Prism 2 65W 8MB 32MB
Ryzen 5 7600X 6 12 Up to 5.3GHz 4.7GHz Not included 2 105W 6MB 32MB
Ryzen 5 7600 6 12 Up to 5.1GHz 3.8GHz AMD Wraith Stealth 2 65W 6MB 32MB

Ryzen 5 7500F 6 12 Up to 5.0GHz 3.7GHz AMD Wraith Stealth --- 65W 6MB 32MB

Ryzen 7 5700G 8 16 Up to 4.6GHz 3.8GHz Wraith Stealth 8 65W 4MB 16MB
Ryzen 5 5600G 6 12 Up to 4.4GHz 3.9GHz Wraith Stealth 7 65W 3MB 16MB

The graphics strength pattern is weird, and makes me suspect a benchmark issue on 7950X.
Naturally, the 7000 series would use different graphics core series, than the 5000 series
(RDNA versus Zen?).

https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Radeon+Ryzen+9+7950X3D+16-Core&id=4761

Average G3D Mark: 1570 Average G2D Mark: 536

https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Radeon+Ryzen+9+7950X+16-Core&id=4652

Average G3D Mark: 5744 Average G2D Mark: 652

https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Radeon+Ryzen+9+7900X+12-Core&id=4659

Average G3D Mark: 3297 Average G2D Mark: 611

https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Radeon+Ryzen+9+7900+12-Core&id=4716

Average G3D Mark: 3263 Average G2D Mark: 602

https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Ryzen+7+5700G+with+Radeon+Graphics&id=4405

Average G3D Mark: 2808 Average G2D Mark: 815

https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Ryzen+5+5600G+with+Radeon+Graphics&id=4406

Average G3D Mark: 2574 Average G2D Mark: 779

For comparison, the 1050 Ti video card with 4GB VRAM, in this machine (fan doesn't spin when idle!).
Not really a gamer card, it's the "buzzword compliant" card from way back.

https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GTX+1050+Ti&id=3595

Average G3D Mark: 6303 Average G2D Mark: 650

*******

And yes, of course the CPUs have L1 cache, but who can be bothered to look that up.
If placed in the top table, this one would be listed as L2 8MB and L3 64MB.

5950X lists this in CPUZ as: L1 Data 16 x 32KB 8-way
L1 Instruction 16 x 32KB 8-way
L2 16 x 512KB 8-way
L3 2 x 32MB 16-way

Image of a 7950X in CPUZ. The L2 is twice as big. L2 and L3 are likely unified.

https://valid.x86.fr/cache/screenshot/tdz6br.png

Due to the spatial arrangement of cache, the behavior of cache is
segmented and might not "feel" as big as if the cache was in one
giant square on the chip. the bandwidth to the various caches may be
a limitation.

*******

When you get your new CPU, what generational change can you see ?
Memtest 6 shows some numbers (both machines tested with same version).
Due to throttles in software, new stuff never feels that much faster in the main OS.

Optiplex 780 E8400 5950X

L1 40GB/sec 270GB/sec
L2 18.5GB/sec 128GB/sec
L3 --- 48GB/sec
DRAM 14.9GB DDR3 @ 3.85GB/sec 15.8GB/sec (DDR4)

The cache only makes a big difference, in a few games, or when
using a multi-threaded compressor. For a lot of other uses,
those big L3s just keep the room warm.

Paul



--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

On 2023-10-26, Big Al <Bears@invalid.com> wrote:

On 10/26/23 06:23 PM, this is what Branimir Maksimovic wrote:

On 2023-10-26, Big Al <Bears@invalid.com> wrote:

On 10/26/23 05:12 PM, this is what pinnerite wrote:

My main desktop is showing its age. Some parts are new but the processor, >>>> main board and graphics cards are over 16 years old. I need to upgrade but I
have several 2TB hard drives that have seen little use that I do not want to
just throw away.

Historically I have preferred AMD processors and their graphics cards. >>>>
Given those perameters, what combination of bits would you (anyone) suggest
that would give me decent performance when say, scrolling browser pages or >>>> running a virtual machine on the main (Linux) host?

Thanks in advance,

Not much demand here. I didn't hear "games" so you've got a simple task. >>>
Not sure what case you get but some can hold a few drives. You can put the
2TB's in there for bulk data. Of course you're putting in an SSD for boot. >>> I have a 500G and my Linux is 100G, Windows 100G (optional), and of course >>> Windows eats up a few with those stupid extra partitions, and the remainder >>> is space for the virtual machine drives. VMs run much faster if the data is
on the SSD, it is some wear but I don't run them much.

A power supply to support the 4TB spinners. One could be simple archival >>> for backup images, several copies.

Linux doesn't take that much room. I have 31G and I've got a pretty full >>> system. No games, so that might add a few.

All the other i/o stuff is as needed.

Bare metal didn't saw Windows since 2008. On my machines...
I had to use it in VM. Because of last job, before I got retired...
Project manager, allowed me to port it to Linux, but that was major
work, and I didn't have enough time :P
Regarding games, I have ~450 and playing exclusively on Linux.

I'd like to see that list but not here.
Are a lot on Steam?

Some 400 Steam, around 50 GOG, and few Epic.
--

7-77-777, Evil Sinner! https://www.linkedin.com/in/branimir-maksimovic-6762bbaa/
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

On 10/27/23 08:41 AM, this is what Branimir Maksimovic wrote:

On 2023-10-26, Big Al <Bears@invalid.com> wrote:

On 10/26/23 06:23 PM, this is what Branimir Maksimovic wrote:

On 2023-10-26, Big Al <Bears@invalid.com> wrote:

On 10/26/23 05:12 PM, this is what pinnerite wrote:

My main desktop is showing its age. Some parts are new but the processor, >>>>> main board and graphics cards are over 16 years old. I need to upgrade but I
have several 2TB hard drives that have seen little use that I do not want to
just throw away.

Historically I have preferred AMD processors and their graphics cards. >>>>>
Given those perameters, what combination of bits would you (anyone) suggest
that would give me decent performance when say, scrolling browser pages or
running a virtual machine on the main (Linux) host?

Thanks in advance,

Not much demand here. I didn't hear "games" so you've got a simple task. >>>>
Not sure what case you get but some can hold a few drives. You can put the
2TB's in there for bulk data. Of course you're putting in an SSD for boot.
I have a 500G and my Linux is 100G, Windows 100G (optional), and of course >>>> Windows eats up a few with those stupid extra partitions, and the remainder
is space for the virtual machine drives. VMs run much faster if the data is
on the SSD, it is some wear but I don't run them much.

A power supply to support the 4TB spinners. One could be simple archival >>>> for backup images, several copies.

Linux doesn't take that much room. I have 31G and I've got a pretty full >>>> system. No games, so that might add a few.

All the other i/o stuff is as needed.

Bare metal didn't saw Windows since 2008. On my machines...
I had to use it in VM. Because of last job, before I got retired...
Project manager, allowed me to port it to Linux, but that was major
work, and I didn't have enough time :P
Regarding games, I have ~450 and playing exclusively on Linux.

I'd like to see that list but not here.
Are a lot on Steam?

Some 400 Steam, around 50 GOG, and few Epic.

Not a Steam person but maybe I should look into it. I've got the few Klondike, solitaire, mines etc, but nothing
explosive :-)
--
Linux Mint 21.2 Cinnamon
Al

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

On 10/26/23 16:40, Big Al wrote:

[snip]

Not much demand here.  I didn't hear "games" so you've got a simple task.

Virtual Machines can take a lot of RAM. Also, they're slow if you don't
have a NVMe for storage.

[snip]
--
60 days until the winter celebration (Monday, December 25, 2023 12:00 AM
for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our
inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the
state of facts and evidence." -- John Adams

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

On 10/27/2023 11:21 AM, Mark Lloyd wrote:

On 10/26/23 16:40, Big Al wrote:

[snip]

Not much demand here.  I didn't hear "games" so you've got a simple task.

Virtual Machines can take a lot of RAM. Also, they're slow if you don't have a NVMe for storage.

[snip]

You can put the whole thing in RAM.

I routinely put entire containers in RAM, temporarily, and
if the session is a "keeper", copy the container back to storage.

It typically has I/O limits, even with paravirtualization.
Only very recently did the I/O rate change.

On Linux, you can use TMPFS for the ramdisk. On Windows, there
is a separate utility, third party (OSFMount) which is handy
as ram storage for filesystems.

But before anyone gets carried away, the RAM does not add that much
to the experience, except reducing wear on your SSD if it is running
for a while. It was more of an "option" when the main storage was
hard drives, and the hard drives were slow.

A desktop limit today is 128GB, 4x32GB sticks, for about $400.
On AMD, the hardware could likely take more, say using 64GB sticks,
but they don't allow that. Because to them, we would be
"building cheap servers, biting into Epyc market".

Paul


--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 06:20:43 -0400
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

On 10/27/2023 4:10 AM, Anton Ertl wrote:

pinnerite <pinnerite@gmail.com> writes:

My main desktop is showing its age. Some parts are new but the
processor, main board and graphics cards are over 16 years old. I need
to upgrade but I have several 2TB hard drives that have seen little use
that I do not want to just throw away.

Historically I have preferred AMD processors and their graphics cards.

Given those perameters, what combination of bits would you (anyone)
suggest that would give me decent performance when say, scrolling
browser pages or running a virtual machine on the main (Linux) host?

An AM4 board with a Ryzen 5600G and as much DDR4 RAM as you need, plus
an M.2 NVME SSD. You may or may not need to upgrade the power supply.

For a little more money, you can get the 5700G (8 cores instead of 6).

If you want to spend more money, you can buy an AM5 board (make sure
you get enough SATA ports for your HDD), a Ryzen 7600, DDR5 RAM, and
again an M.2 NVME SSD.

With a higher budget, you can put in any AM5 CPU, up to the 7950X3D,
but many of them come without cooler, so you may have to buy that separately.

The AM5 CPUs have weaker graphics than the 5600G and 5700G, but enough
for scrolling browser pages.

- anton

OK, I was mistaken. I finally found a list of CPUs with actual graphics data. AMD doesn't like to put that data in adverts, because it pisses off overclockers.

The 7000 series (with one recent exception), have 2 cores.

Table not complete. Had to search around. First three processors have an extra L3 die added.
This is not a complete shopping list, just a mix of mostly AM5, with the two AM4 cheap ones at the bottom.
The AM4 platform makes for a cheaper build.

https://www.amd.com/en/processors/ryzen https://web.archive.org/web/20211212005535/https://www.amd.com/en/processors/ryzen
https://www.amd.com/en/products/apu/amd-ryzen-5-5600g https://www.amd.com/en/products/apu/amd-ryzen-7-5700g

Model C T Boost Clock Base Clock Thermal Solution (PIB) Graphics Cores TDP L2 L3
Ryzen 9 7950X3D 16 32 Up to 5.7GHz 4.2GHz Not Included 2 120W 16MB 128MB
Ryzen 9 7900X3D 12 24 Up to 5.6GHz 4.4GHz Not included 2 120W 12MB 128MB
Ryzen 7 7800X3D 8 16 Up to 5.0GHz 4.2GHz Not included 2 120W 8MB 96MB

Ryzen 9 7950X 16 32 Up to 5.7GHz 4.5GHz Not included 2 170W 16MB 64MB
Ryzen 9 7900X 12 24 Up to 5.6GHz 4.7GHz Not included 2 170W 12MB 64MB
Ryzen 9 7900 12 24 Up to 5.4GHz 3.7GHz AMD Wraith Prism 2 65W 12MB 64MB
Ryzen 7 7700X 8 16 Up to 5.4GHz 4.5GHz Not included 2 105W 8MB 32MB
Ryzen 7 7700 8 16 Up to 5.3GHz 3.8GHz AMD Wraith Prism 2 65W 8MB 32MB
Ryzen 5 7600X 6 12 Up to 5.3GHz 4.7GHz Not included 2 105W 6MB 32MB
Ryzen 5 7600 6 12 Up to 5.1GHz 3.8GHz AMD Wraith Stealth 2 65W 6MB 32MB

Ryzen 5 7500F 6 12 Up to 5.0GHz 3.7GHz AMD Wraith Stealth --- 65W 6MB 32MB

Ryzen 7 5700G 8 16 Up to 4.6GHz 3.8GHz Wraith Stealth 8 65W 4MB 16MB
Ryzen 5 5600G 6 12 Up to 4.4GHz 3.9GHz Wraith Stealth 7 65W 3MB 16MB

The graphics strength pattern is weird, and makes me suspect a benchmark issue on 7950X.
Naturally, the 7000 series would use different graphics core series, than the 5000 series
(RDNA versus Zen?).

https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Radeon+Ryzen+9+7950X3D+16-Core&id=4761

Average G3D Mark: 1570 Average G2D Mark: 536

https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Radeon+Ryzen+9+7950X+16-Core&id=4652

Average G3D Mark: 5744 Average G2D Mark: 652

https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Radeon+Ryzen+9+7900X+12-Core&id=4659

Average G3D Mark: 3297 Average G2D Mark: 611

https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Radeon+Ryzen+9+7900+12-Core&id=4716

Average G3D Mark: 3263 Average G2D Mark: 602

https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Ryzen+7+5700G+with+Radeon+Graphics&id=4405

Average G3D Mark: 2808 Average G2D Mark: 815

https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Ryzen+5+5600G+with+Radeon+Graphics&id=4406

Average G3D Mark: 2574 Average G2D Mark: 779

For comparison, the 1050 Ti video card with 4GB VRAM, in this machine (fan doesn't spin when idle!).
Not really a gamer card, it's the "buzzword compliant" card from way back.

https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GTX+1050+Ti&id=3595

Average G3D Mark: 6303 Average G2D Mark: 650

*******

And yes, of course the CPUs have L1 cache, but who can be bothered to look that up.
If placed in the top table, this one would be listed as L2 8MB and L3 64MB.

5950X lists this in CPUZ as: L1 Data 16 x 32KB 8-way
L1 Instruction 16 x 32KB 8-way
L2 16 x 512KB 8-way
L3 2 x 32MB 16-way

Image of a 7950X in CPUZ. The L2 is twice as big. L2 and L3 are likely unified.

https://valid.x86.fr/cache/screenshot/tdz6br.png

Due to the spatial arrangement of cache, the behavior of cache is
segmented and might not "feel" as big as if the cache was in one
giant square on the chip. the bandwidth to the various caches may be
a limitation.

*******

When you get your new CPU, what generational change can you see ?
Memtest 6 shows some numbers (both machines tested with same version).
Due to throttles in software, new stuff never feels that much faster in the main OS.

Optiplex 780 E8400 5950X

L1 40GB/sec 270GB/sec
L2 18.5GB/sec 128GB/sec
L3 --- 48GB/sec
DRAM 14.9GB DDR3 @ 3.85GB/sec 15.8GB/sec (DDR4)

The cache only makes a big difference, in a few games, or when
using a multi-threaded compressor. For a lot of other uses,
those big L3s just keep the room warm.

Paul

Thanks for the data. I fancy the 5700G but I need to control two
screens. I used the onboard graphics of the Phenom II until I found
that any action on one screen would affect whatever was happening on
the other.

To overcome that I disabled the onboard graphics and employed two
identical Radeon HD 4350 graphics cards.

That worked reasonably well for 16 years ago but I am hoping for an improvement. Will the 5700G's graphics serve two independent screens?

If not what are the options?
Should I search for a different processor and dual graphics card?
Then a motherboard that has all the necessary sockets.
I need one PCIe 2.0 x16 anyway.
--
Linux Mint 21.1 kernel version 5.15.0-87-generic Cinnamon 5.6.8
AMD Phenom II x4 955 CPU 16Gb Dram 2TB Barracuda
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

pinnerite <pinnerite@gmail.com> writes:

Thanks for the data. I fancy the 5700G but I need to control two
screens. I used the onboard graphics of the Phenom II until I found
that any action on one screen would affect whatever was happening on
the other.

To overcome that I disabled the onboard graphics and employed two
identical Radeon HD 4350 graphics cards.

That worked reasonably well for 16 years ago but I am hoping for an >improvement. Will the 5700G's graphics serve two independent screens?

You have to buy a motherboard that supports the graphics connectors
you are interested in, and there are some limitations (see <https://superuser.com/questions/1682414/5700g-reduces-refresh-rate-as-i-add-displays-what-limitation-am-i-hitting-here>),
but two 4K displays at 60Hz are possible (according to the web site
above).

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 21:54:31 GMT
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote:

pinnerite <pinnerite@gmail.com> writes:

Thanks for the data. I fancy the 5700G but I need to control two
screens. I used the onboard graphics of the Phenom II until I found
that any action on one screen would affect whatever was happening on
the other.

To overcome that I disabled the onboard graphics and employed two
identical Radeon HD 4350 graphics cards.

That worked reasonably well for 16 years ago but I am hoping for an >improvement. Will the 5700G's graphics serve two independent screens?

You have to buy a motherboard that supports the graphics connectors
you are interested in, and there are some limitations (see <https://superuser.com/questions/1682414/5700g-reduces-refresh-rate-as-i-add-displays-what-limitation-am-i-hitting-here>),
but two 4K displays at 60Hz are possible (according to the web site
above).

- anton

I am now thinking 2 x RX550 as my two identical HP screens are driven
by HDMI leads. That said, I wonder if I can find a CPU without on-board graphics?

Alan
--
Linux Mint 21.1 kernel version 5.15.0-87-generic Cinnamon 5.6.8
AMD Phenom II x4 955 CPU 16Gb Dram 2TB Barracuda
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

On 10/29/2023 3:49 PM, pinnerite wrote:

On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 21:54:31 GMT
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote:

pinnerite <pinnerite@gmail.com> writes:

Thanks for the data. I fancy the 5700G but I need to control two
screens. I used the onboard graphics of the Phenom II until I found
that any action on one screen would affect whatever was happening on
the other.

To overcome that I disabled the onboard graphics and employed two
identical Radeon HD 4350 graphics cards.

That worked reasonably well for 16 years ago but I am hoping for an
improvement. Will the 5700G's graphics serve two independent screens?

You have to buy a motherboard that supports the graphics connectors
you are interested in, and there are some limitations (see
<https://superuser.com/questions/1682414/5700g-reduces-refresh-rate-as-i-add-displays-what-limitation-am-i-hitting-here>),
but two 4K displays at 60Hz are possible (according to the web site
above).

- anton

I am now thinking 2 x RX550 as my two identical HP screens are driven
by HDMI leads. That said, I wonder if I can find a CPU without on-board graphics?

Just don't get the G series. Eg. 5600 vs 5600G.


--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

On 10/29/2023 7:20 PM, red floyd wrote:

On 10/29/2023 3:49 PM, pinnerite wrote:

On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 21:54:31 GMT
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote:

pinnerite <pinnerite@gmail.com> writes:

Thanks for the data. I fancy the 5700G but I need to control two
screens. I used the onboard graphics of the Phenom II until I found
that any action on one screen would affect whatever was happening on
the other.

To overcome that I disabled the onboard graphics and employed two
identical Radeon HD 4350 graphics cards.

That worked reasonably well for 16 years ago but I am hoping for an
improvement. Will the 5700G's graphics serve two independent screens?

You have to buy a motherboard that supports the graphics connectors
you are interested in, and there are some limitations (see
<https://superuser.com/questions/1682414/5700g-reduces-refresh-rate-as-i-add-displays-what-limitation-am-i-hitting-here>),
but two 4K displays at 60Hz are possible (according to the web site
above).

- anton

I am now thinking 2 x RX550 as my two identical HP screens are driven
by HDMI leads. That said, I wonder if I can find a CPU without on-board
graphics?

Just don't get the G series.  Eg.  5600 vs 5600G.

On integrated graphics, there is only so much crossbar bandwidth
available, before it unduly restricts the CPU access to memory.
The OPs monitors aren't near that point. Not even close.

The limitation could be encoded in some driver, or perhaps there
is a real crossbar problem above a certain point.

Whereas separate graphics cards, starting at $200+ with their own
VRAM, will have a lot more VRAM bandwidth. And the RAM access pattern is different (more independent fetches simultaneously).

Although they did find a case very recently, where a 48" wide gamer
monitor running at something stupid like 240Hz, the top end video
card could only drive it at half of the whizzy refresh rate. Oh, the
horror :-) What will the other kids think, if I can only go at
120Hz. I will be a laughingstock.

The cable standards, have to cover deep-color, high-refresh,
and high-resolution, all at the same time. The poor crossbar in
the video subsystem, is just a-melting. Every time you say
"yes, you can do X @ Y" , the other person will say "OK, now do it at 240Hz".

*******

Displayport to HDMI adaptation, is a passive adapter.

If a motherboard comes with Displayport and HDMI, you can
use a Displayport to HDMI cable or dongle to make the necessary
two HDMIs.

DP++ -----> HDMI (passive -- this is the modern case)

DP -----> HDMI (requires active adapter, maybe year 2008 or so)
(In this case, the DP does not have an HDMI-like mode inside)

That means that modern motherboards would be the first case,
and the adapter should be pretty cheap.

(A passive adapter for nine bucks)

https://www.amazon.com/DisplayPort-Adapter-Converter-Gold-Plated-Compatible/dp/B017Q8ZVWK/

Going in the other direction, from HDMI to DP, is twenty two bucks.

A lot has changed since the hundred-bucks-per-adapter days (some of the
active adapters used to be stupid money).

*******

I don't think 2 x RX550 is really necessary.

But it's the OPs money.

As to what the video card mobo slot(s) bandwidth is, you have to
check the block diagram and "spot the slot wiring". This is AM5.

https://www.angstronomics.com/p/site-launch-exclusive-all-the-juicy

The top video slot, usually has the best bandwidth.

The lower video slot, is usually inferior (x4 lanes instead of x16 lanes).
In many cases, still sufficient to run a card. At least, compared to the
PCIe slots we used to get.

I don't know if x8/x8 splits are all that popular with the mobo makers, although from a practical perspective, it's still plenty good enough.

The thing about PCIe Rev5, is it needs "re-drivers" to get across
the motherboard. The loss at that frequency is getting too high, so
the signals need regeneration.

Is there such a thing as "too fast". Hmmm. A PCIe rev5 NVMe runs
pretty hot and uses the electricity. They recommend a heatsink
on them, to reduce the risk of thermal throttling. If there are
chips on the underside of the NVMe, they'll be "warm". But it is
likely the controller chip, on top, which is hot. Some of the
heatsinks offered, are borderline silly (heatpipes).

But this will not prevent a PCIe Rev6 motherboard from showing up :-)
Bring a fat wallet.

Regarding the potential for PCIe Rev5 NVMe slots, check the slot
size carefully, to see if it is backward compatible with older
["inferior"] sticks. They were initially proposing the connector
would be a different width. If that is a problem, one of the
other NVMe slots on the mobo is likely to be a standard one.

Paul

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

pinnerite <pinnerite@gmail.com> writes:

I am now thinking 2 x RX550 as my two identical HP screens are driven
by HDMI leads.

Needless expense and two additional error sources.

AM4 boards with two HDMI ports are rare, buit you can get one with one
HDMI port and one DisplayPort, and then use a DP->HDMI cable (or maybe
the screens have alternative ports, then you don't need a special
cable).

That said, I wonder if I can find a CPU without on-board
graphics?

Certainly. All Ryzens <7000 without "G"/"GE". But it does not save
money. If you really have trouble driving all your screens with the
5700G graphics (which I don't expect), you can use it to drive one,
and buy a graphics card for the other. Or use the graphics card for
both (which usually is also possible).

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 22:35:22 -0400
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

On 10/29/2023 7:20 PM, red floyd wrote:

On 10/29/2023 3:49 PM, pinnerite wrote:

On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 21:54:31 GMT
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote:

pinnerite <pinnerite@gmail.com> writes:

Thanks for the data. I fancy the 5700G but I need to control two
screens. I used the onboard graphics of the Phenom II until I found
that any action on one screen would affect whatever was happening on >>>> the other.

To overcome that I disabled the onboard graphics and employed two
identical Radeon HD 4350 graphics cards.

That worked reasonably well for 16 years ago but I am hoping for an
improvement. Will the 5700G's graphics serve two independent screens? >>>

You have to buy a motherboard that supports the graphics connectors
you are interested in, and there are some limitations (see
<https://superuser.com/questions/1682414/5700g-reduces-refresh-rate-as-i-add-displays-what-limitation-am-i-hitting-here>),
but two 4K displays at 60Hz are possible (according to the web site
above).

- anton

I am now thinking 2 x RX550 as my two identical HP screens are driven
by HDMI leads. That said, I wonder if I can find a CPU without on-board
graphics?

Just don't get the G series.  Eg.  5600 vs 5600G.

On integrated graphics, there is only so much crossbar bandwidth
available, before it unduly restricts the CPU access to memory.
The OPs monitors aren't near that point. Not even close.

The limitation could be encoded in some driver, or perhaps there
is a real crossbar problem above a certain point.

Whereas separate graphics cards, starting at $200+ with their own
VRAM, will have a lot more VRAM bandwidth. And the RAM access pattern is different (more independent fetches simultaneously).

Although they did find a case very recently, where a 48" wide gamer
monitor running at something stupid like 240Hz, the top end video
card could only drive it at half of the whizzy refresh rate. Oh, the
horror :-) What will the other kids think, if I can only go at
120Hz. I will be a laughingstock.

The cable standards, have to cover deep-color, high-refresh,
and high-resolution, all at the same time. The poor crossbar in
the video subsystem, is just a-melting. Every time you say
"yes, you can do X @ Y" , the other person will say "OK, now do it at 240Hz".

*******

Displayport to HDMI adaptation, is a passive adapter.

If a motherboard comes with Displayport and HDMI, you can
use a Displayport to HDMI cable or dongle to make the necessary
two HDMIs.

DP++ -----> HDMI (passive -- this is the modern case)

DP -----> HDMI (requires active adapter, maybe year 2008 or so)
(In this case, the DP does not have an HDMI-like mode inside)

That means that modern motherboards would be the first case,
and the adapter should be pretty cheap.

(A passive adapter for nine bucks)

https://www.amazon.com/DisplayPort-Adapter-Converter-Gold-Plated-Compatible/dp/B017Q8ZVWK/

Going in the other direction, from HDMI to DP, is twenty two bucks.

A lot has changed since the hundred-bucks-per-adapter days (some of the active adapters used to be stupid money).

*******

I don't think 2 x RX550 is really necessary.

But it's the OPs money.

As to what the video card mobo slot(s) bandwidth is, you have to
check the block diagram and "spot the slot wiring". This is AM5.

https://www.angstronomics.com/p/site-launch-exclusive-all-the-juicy

The top video slot, usually has the best bandwidth.

The lower video slot, is usually inferior (x4 lanes instead of x16 lanes).
In many cases, still sufficient to run a card. At least, compared to the
PCIe slots we used to get.

I don't know if x8/x8 splits are all that popular with the mobo makers, although from a practical perspective, it's still plenty good enough.

The thing about PCIe Rev5, is it needs "re-drivers" to get across
the motherboard. The loss at that frequency is getting too high, so
the signals need regeneration.

Is there such a thing as "too fast". Hmmm. A PCIe rev5 NVMe runs
pretty hot and uses the electricity. They recommend a heatsink
on them, to reduce the risk of thermal throttling. If there are
chips on the underside of the NVMe, they'll be "warm". But it is
likely the controller chip, on top, which is hot. Some of the
heatsinks offered, are borderline silly (heatpipes).

But this will not prevent a PCIe Rev6 motherboard from showing up :-)
Bring a fat wallet.

Regarding the potential for PCIe Rev5 NVMe slots, check the slot
size carefully, to see if it is backward compatible with older
["inferior"] sticks. They were initially proposing the connector
would be a different width. If that is a problem, one of the
other NVMe slots on the mobo is likely to be a standard one.

Paul

Mmm. Very helpful.
I have usually gone for Gigabyte or Asus motherboards based on
published reviews in MicroMart (sadly no more) or other journals such
as Linux Format. Nowadays I am less confident of on-line reviews. Which
is why I suppose I am posting here.
There is nothing like professional personal experience.
Regards, Alan
--
Linux Mint 21.1 kernel version 5.15.0-87-generic Cinnamon 5.6.8
AMD Phenom II x4 955 CPU 16Gb Dram 2TB Barracuda
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

pinnerite wrote:

Historically I have preferred AMD processors and their graphics cards.

So did I.

In the 'old days' I used to assemble parts based on sale prices at my
nearby Fry's 'warehouse' (Fry's now dead), but the last few computers
I've bought weren't that type at all; also years ago now a couple of
refurb desktops w/ Win7, a refurb W10 laptop, an RPi3B+. Most of the
old things I've assembled from case, mobo, etc have since died.

Lately I've been considering an RPi4 or 5 w/ 8G. I've never gamed; I
don't need much in the way of resources. If I'm in that seat over there
I can do OK w/ that 1G RPi3B+ w/ current 'Raspbian' (now RPi OS).

My most common mode of 'operation' is to have 2 separate desktops up, sometimes 1 linux 1 W7 (for limited purposes), sometimes 2 linuxes.
--
Mike Easter
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

On 10/30/2023 4:22 AM, Anton Ertl wrote:

pinnerite <pinnerite@gmail.com> writes:

I am now thinking 2 x RX550 as my two identical HP screens are driven
by HDMI leads.

Needless expense and two additional error sources.

AM4 boards with two HDMI ports are rare, buit you can get one with one
HDMI port and one DisplayPort, and then use a DP->HDMI cable (or maybe
the screens have alternative ports, then you don't need a special
cable).

That said, I wonder if I can find a CPU without on-board
graphics?

Certainly. All Ryzens <7000 without "G"/"GE". But it does not save
money. If you really have trouble driving all your screens with the
5700G graphics (which I don't expect), you can use it to drive one,
and buy a graphics card for the other. Or use the graphics card for
both (which usually is also possible).

- anton

The main advantage of an internal graphics, is perhaps for initial test.

I used the internal on mine, for a couple months, before adding
a video card and turning the internal off. And that also freed up
the memory the frame buffer was using.

My monitor has low enough native resolution, that there is no
real difference between the video card output and the build-in.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114