Hi I am going to buy a new Pc solely because i want fast restores, i use Macrium Reflect Home and IFW. So, what is the most important feature, cores, threads or clock level? Does a restore use multi cores or single. I guess threads is not that important. Clocking is of course important but, if the clocking is a bit lower on 1 Pc but it has more cores, is that more important. These are the things i am wondering about and i hope anyone can help me to straighten things out so i know what to look for.
For restores your bottleneck will be the disk subsystem. SSD drives will do more than any CPU. I'll also assume that the disk writes for a restore are not a multi-threaded operation. In that instance clock speed will mean more than cores/threads but again disk speed is what you want here.
I am thinking in thoose terms to but, the main question for me is; how much does cores matter? When looking on test of Pc:s one can see that some are faster when using single core then another but the other is faster when using multi cores. Hence my uncertainty. In my mind a restore does not require more than 1 core but as i mentioned, i am not sure. The disc i will put in i use now, it has potentially higher read/write than it can accomplish right now, so i am thinking that that depends on the CPU/clocking - and, the cores. If that is a fact, i should look for higher clocking then now and more cores.
I find that an odd/unique reason for a new PC. Do you really do that many restores that you need a new computer "solely" for that purpose? If true, then what you really need is a fast file server. Note will operating systems easily support multicore, multithread systems, not all applications do. IMO, while a CPU's processing speed is very important, it is probably way down the list of very important requirements. For this type operation, the CPU is NOT "crunching" data. It is simply moving big chunks from point A to point B. And it really does not take much CPU horsepower to grab a chunk of data from here and then put it there, then go back and grab another chunk. The CPU, in that scenarios, will likely be waiting much of the time for new chunks to arrive and the old chunks to get out of the way. You are not really talking about "restore" operations but rather file copy operations. And as xxJackxx correctly points out, that means disk access. And that involves not just the disks themselves, but the disk interfaces and the motherboard bus speeds too. And remember, that involves both the source and destination systems. I would be be looking at a serious RAID setup using SSDs, a server class motherboard (with dual network adapters), server class CPU, at least 32GB of RAM (64GB would be better), and the fastest network interfaces supported by your network. And of course, a top quality PSU to power it all One thing nice about file servers is they don't need anything special (read: expensive) in terms of graphics solutions. They can even be "headless". Note if the motherboard or CPU are being marketed for "gaming", move on to something else.
In that situation a higher clock speed would benefit over multiple threads. They probably aren't used for compression. Also as it was stated that the desire here is speed in that case minimal compression should be used. I agree with your point though. It is something that should be considered.
No compression besides the eventual default. That threads does not matter much i think is a fact so, am i right when thinking clock speed firstly and cores secondly, besides the actual disc?
Well, not totally solely but almost. I am tired of reducing the Os with NTLite and Debloating software, tired of using RollbackRx, all that just to have a small Os to get fast restores and - the fastest possible Pc with the prerequisites it has. It am tired of mixing with the Os, in short, due to problems that always arise in the end. In the future i will just install an Os and want a minimum of settings and "fixes" to do. Speed accomplishes that. Then the Os can be 18GB instead of 11, and running with Ms Defender because it does not matter. The Pc i have now is fairly speedy but, i want even more when i will change my computer usage. I test a lot of softs so that is why speed is interesting when restoring.
I would say so. I bought my last laptop with an Intel i9 with 16 threads. I really don't feel in most cases it feels any faster than an i7 of similar clock speed.
i3 1115G4 with Samsung 980EVO Pro. Thinking of buying i5 1135G7 to use with same disc. That should accomplish 2 things, more speed due to higher clocking and, better usage of the discs potential speed because of that. The i5 has higher clocking so i know that it is faster because of that but as i mentioned before, i am not fully sure as to how much the number of cores matters when restoring. Do you know how many goes in to usage when restoring a plane image? That the threads does not play a big role that i know.
What amount of data do you plan to restore regularly (like 10GB or 1TB)? And which time do you want to see for it? I have my OS on one SSD and the Games on another SSD. A restore of my 40 GB OS partition takes most of the time < 2mins (with a normal SSD not even NVMe SSD).
The i5 will certainly yield significant performance gains AS LONG AS not bottlenecked by disk performance or a lack of sufficient RAM. No I don't know. When I do backups and restores, I typically automate and/or initiate the action then walk away - or go to bed. I don't really care how long it takes. My only concern is (1) to have a backup plan I know how to use and that I know works, and (2) to use it.
Hmm, i see now that i have been mistaken the i5 for being faster than the i3. The i3 is clocked to 3.0ghz while the i5 is 2.4ghz. But anyway, the questions, or question, in this thread still stands, how much does cores play a role when restoring? The reason for that is that the i5 is faster than the i3 when using multi cores, the other way around is a fact when using single. The i5 is faster in totality, but the i3 when using single core, so if cores does not matter, then the i3 is the faster one.
If we're bringing an i3 into this, what kind of cache differences are there? Beyond 4 cores you get diminishing returns. You want clock speed, and cache will make a difference. If you can overclock, the i5 should beat the i3 at most things.
No overclock due to laptop. So cache matters, much or what? How big has the difference has to be to have a real impact on performance?
The difference in L3 cache is 2MB more in i5. The i5 has lower Base frequency but higher Turbo mode. That ought to mean, in my logical mind, that i5 is a bit slower in simple plane usage but potentially faster when the Turbo kicks in. Then the question becomes; when does the Turbo kick in, does it do that when doing a restore? Well, my personal answer to that without knowing is, no, only during high loads or when extra power is needed, and a restore is more like normal action. What do you say about that assumption?
Read this. It explains it better than I could: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/gaming/resources/turbo-boost.html
That just underlines my assumption totally. It means that a restore most probably do not use Turbo, instead it uses base frequency. Since the base frequency on the mentioned i3 is lower than the mentioned i5, restores are probably slower. Even though the i5 in general, is faster. Then the question is; how much impact does the larger mentioned cache have, enough to compensate for the slower i5, or even more so? If one wants faster restores as i do, then disc and clocking is the 2 most vital points. That is my conclusion after reading info on the net and exchanged views here in the thread.
