|
Maybe 23 years already defines me as such 
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: Maybe 23 years
Wow, didn't realise you were that young.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm 23 years OLD... Counting backward nowadays...
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
If it's anything like my own experience, expect new people to be brought in so things are now run the way the larger company wants them to be. You'll see it as overhead that you never realized you needed, because your previous small company managed to do just fine without it. You'll probably feel that what these people contribute to your day-to-day work experience is not positive.
Expect to start cursing multiple levels of useless managers, barriers to be put in place every step of the way in the name of security, corporate red tape, the lawyer department to be involved in every decision, HR, and no longer being able to ask a quick, simple question to someone and immediately act upon the response; instead, you'll fill forms, submit requests, and wait for weeks if not months for a committee to review anything at all.
You'll go from being able to yelling out over the cubicles, "I need to reboot [MachineXYZ], anybody logged into it?" to having it scheduled to take place on a Saturday a few weeks down the road at 3:00am.
Dilbert isn't just a satirical cartoon about work life at a large corporation; it's a documentary.
|
|
|
|
|
And no more generalists; just specialists. Except they can't seem to "slot" you since you are just there.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
On the other hand, it might be a turn for the better.
You never know, the big company must be doing something right. At least historically.
Just make sure you have an exit strategy!
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Never stop dreaming - Freddie Kruger
|
|
|
|
|
I have spent a lot of time with smaller companies too. They are, by far, my preference. I now work for a very large company. We have thousands of employees, are top ten in our industry in the world, and are privately owned. That last thing changes things A LOT. It has resulted in us have a rather flat, wide organization. I have three bosses and the next one higher is the owner. That is a much, much better way to run things I think. In my previous large company, I had four bosses in just this division. It was a horrible place to work.
In your case, a lot will depend on how they are organized and the nature of the bosses. Hopefully, you do not get the standard issue MBAs that Dilbert is written about. Best of luck.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
My observation is that
- In a small company, person is important and process is less important (or unimportant), whereas
- In a large company, process is everything; person is much less important.
|
|
|
|
|
Imagine the small company as being like the gear in an analog clock that spins really fast from which all other activity is divided. The imagine the big gear moving ever so slowly as it moves the hour hand ponderously through a 12 hour cycle. That's the difference between how a small vs. large company works.
|
|
|
|
|
Currently I own a computer with a i7-6600U processor. Soon I will replace it.
There is a lot of fuzz about AMD vs Intel nowadays...
And I have doubts to understand the figures:
My current CPU:
The Intel i7-6600U[^] has 2 cores and 4 threads, a base frequency of 2.6GHZ and a max frequency of 3.4GHz with 4MB Cache.
The ones I'm doubting to get:
The Intel i7-10610U[^] has 4 cores and 8 threads, a base frequency of 1.8GHz and a max frequency of 4.9GHz with 8MB Cache.
The Ryzen 7 PRO 4750U[^] has 8 cores and 16 threads, a base frequency of 1.7GHz and a max frequency of 4.1GHz with 8MB Cache.
The Intel i7-10875H[^] has 8 cores and 16 threads, a base frequency of 2.3GHz and a maximum frequency of 5.10GHz with a 16MB Cache.
This said, all the newer ones run at a much lower base frequency. Does this means the everyday tasks on programs prepared to run only on one core will run slower?
In case we would have 3 single core designed programs running at the same time... Would windows set them to use a different core each?
If I would have 3 vmware virtual machines running at once... having more cores would be better (would each core be dedicated to one virtual machine)?
Thank you very much for your time and help.
![Beer | [beer]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Why you are the i7 / Ryzen 7 comparison...
There are newer CPUs out there...
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Those are the CPUs the newest models of the computers I'm interested in can use.
Anyway, as far as I know, the i7 / Ryzen 7 alone doesn't mean anything without the generation they belong to.
|
|
|
|
|
See...
Joan M wrote: the i7 / Ryzen 7 alone doesn't mean anything
sure. I have a 10 years old Dell with i7 in it...
Globally, Intel CPUs are more power hungry (not sure if it is an issue), but behave better with applications that do not scale out really well (mostly games), while ADM works better with applications that really use multi-threading...
I would say, that you should list the kind of application you use/develop(?) and start from there (in most cases there are recommendations on the product site)...
In any case - and if the prize is an issue - ADM tend to be cheaper about $20 per thread than Intel...
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, of course, but usually the industrial softwares I work with are not very prone to recommend the best specs on that field...
Have you seen my questions at the bottom of my post?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Base frequency means the minimum speed every process will have, if there is no urge the CPU will use it (as higher speed needs more power and generates more heat), however when the CPU 'feels' the pressure it will rise (in a pre-defined way) it's own speed, up to the boost limit...
In most cases a single core application does not mean that the core is dedicated, and the application may run on several physical cores. The boosting will work the same in this case too...
To use vmware with dedicated cores, you need to do the right configuration of your VM - which is not very advised... In most case your computer (with the right motherboard and frameware) will serve you well there...
What you need is to estimate how many cores you use on average (not peek)... If you can find one with a lower base and higher boost that can give you the right amount of cores, you should chose it...
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
OK, understood, then, if an application can't use more than one core by design, and the termal limit happens, a processor with a higher base frequency would give a better speed than one with a higher permitted "turbo".
Thanks for your comment!
|
|
|
|
|
Joan M wrote: If I would have 3 vmware virtual machines running at once... having more cores would be better (would each core be dedicated to one virtual machine)?
Unless VMware does things very differently than Hyper-V, which is what I use, then no, cores aren't dedicated to VMs - rather, when you define the VM, you're telling the hypervisor how many cores the virtual machine should see. If the VM is a low-priority one with very few tasks, you would probably want to give it a single core, but if the VM is hosting, say, a busy SQL DB and web server, you'd probably want to configure it so it has access to more cores to make the most of the hardware available.
[Edit]
In my mind, a "dedicated" core would mean it's no longer available to the host OS (nothing would be able to use it other than the guest VM), and that's not correct - that's my main point.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much for your answer.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a Ryzen 7 1800X and there is no mention of a "base frequency". It may mean the "memory clock", which appears to be fixed (1.2 Ghz), and lower than the peak speed (which is 3.70 Ghz in my case).
I'm happy with my Ryzen and it's 2 years old. (It's VR capable).
(And it's not "over-clocked", which is maybe where the base frequency comes in)
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
According to specifications the 1800X has a base frequency of 3.6 and boost of 4.0...
As today, there is no such thing as 'over clocked' CPU. Either the CPU has a fixed frequency, or it works on a range (most common today)...
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Every modern cpu works in a range of frequencies, from idle to boost (which is a frequency that the processor will keep for a brief amount of time)
Most Intel CPUs are sold either as "locked" or "unlocked", just the unlocked ones can be used for overclocking because they allow changing the configuration of voltages and frequencies.
If I remember correctly, AMD ones (or at least Ryzens) are all sold unlocked.
Overclocking is very much still alive, it's just the process of changing a setting from an app or the bios over the limit set by the manufacturer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe this helps a bit? Is about the 4800U though.
AMD Ryzen 7 4800U Review, Mind Boggling Performance at 15W
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFYdHkvRs2c&t=0s
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: This said, all the newer ones run at a much lower base frequency. Does this means the everyday tasks on programs prepared to run only on one core will run slower?
The base clock (frequency) is the frequency used when the cpu is idle, it has no impact on performance AFAIK, especially considering that during normal use, the cpu sits idle about 90% of the time, It surely matters a lot less than the max sustained clock or boost (instantaneous) clock speeds.
Quote:
In case we would have 3 single core designed programs running at the same time... Would windows set them to use a different core each?
No, Windows' scheduler handles everything, single thread apps can and often will be moved around, for... reasons :shrug:
If the processes don't use 100% of the core, they might even run on the same one, if the almighty scheduler says so
Quote:
If I would have 3 vmware virtual machines running at once... having more cores would be better (would each core be dedicated to one virtual machine)?
I don't know what exactly happens but I see 2 scenarios:
1. yes, the cores are dedicated to the vm instance and that's it, having more cores would mean that you can allocate more of them to the VMs (the usefulness of this may vary a lot, depending on your workload)
2. no, the scheduler handles the vm jobs exactly as it would with a normal host os process and the scheduler inside the guest os doesn't know that it's not running on an actual cpu but a virtual one*
Having more physical cores, might improve performance in this case too, **depending on the workload**
* it might and that could trigger some kind of optimization but... I have no idea, it probably depends on the combination of guest OS, host OS and virtualization app you're using (I'll leave this to someone more knowledgeable than me)
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
