Hello

I have not been following the market for CPUs/motherboards recently.

Now we are thinking of buying one or two computers, each with 2
processors, each processor dual-core, with maybe 4 GB each.
Part of the intended application is to use OpenMP.

What are the good options currently ? (not next month)

One vendor suggested:

CPU: Opteron 2210 (1.8 GHz, dual-core)
Motherboard: Asus KFN4-D16 (nVIDIA nForce 2000 Professional chipset)

This seems a good option (has the chipset a good reputation ?).

But are there other options that I should look at ? Has Intel something
similar or better in the same price range ?

Thanks in advance

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro wrote:
> Hello
>
> I have not been following the market for CPUs/motherboards recently.
>
> Now we are thinking of buying one or two computers, each with 2
> processors, each processor dual-core, with maybe 4 GB each.
> Part of the intended application is to use OpenMP.
>
> What are the good options currently ? (not next month)
>
> One vendor suggested:
>
> CPU: Opteron 2210 (1.8 GHz, dual-core)
> Motherboard: Asus KFN4-D16 (nVIDIA nForce 2000 Professional chipset)
>
> This seems a good option (has the chipset a good reputation ?).

The chipsets are almost irrelevant in AMD machines, they've been
relegated to running hard drives and USB ports these days. All of the
memory controller stuff is inside the processors in AMD machines, of
course. With so little to do, the chipsets have an easy time of it in
AMD machines.

>
> But are there other options that I should look at ? Has Intel something
> similar or better in the same price range ?

Intel's competing processors are Xeon 5100-series (Woodcrest). They are
apparently much better performers than the Opterons in most low-memory
cases. That is if your system has less than 16GB of RAM, then the
Woodcrests are better performers.

Of course with Xeon, you still have the front-side bus, and the memory
controller inside the chipset rather than the CPU, so you have to choose
the chipset well. Usually your only choice is an Intel chipset, so you
have to chose from within the variety of Intel chipsets.

Yousuf Khan

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:15:28 +0100 (WEST), Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Hello
>
>I have not been following the market for CPUs/motherboards recently.
>
>Now we are thinking of buying one or two computers, each with 2
>processors, each processor dual-core, with maybe 4 GB each.
>Part of the intended application is to use OpenMP.
>
>What are the good options currently ? (not next month)

I don't think there are so many folks here now who fiddle with server
systems so I dunno what kind of response you'll get. If you're interested
in Linux, you might get better info on a Linux forum

>One vendor suggested:
>
>CPU: Opteron 2210 (1.8 GHz, dual-core)
>Motherboard: Asus KFN4-D16 (nVIDIA nForce 2000 Professional chipset)
>
>This seems a good option (has the chipset a good reputation ?).

I believe the chipset is based on, or similar to, the nForce4 which has had
reasonable support. Check out driver availability here
http://www.nvidia.com/content/drivers/drivers.asp for intended platform.
You might also want to check out Tyan and SuperMicro as sources, or even
just to get more info on the platform viability.

nVidia boards with the newer nForce 3600 Professional, based off the same
logic as nForce5, are now starting to appear but they *are* new and I think
it's early to say how well they perform.

I haven't done a real server system but did put together a small Intranet
Web server with an Asus A8N-E (nForce4) & Athlon64 X2 4200+ recently and
it's been working very well with 2xSATA in RAID-1. One thing: if you
intend to use nForce + SATA II drives, stay away from Maxtor; Seagate is a
good choice but only with recent firmware, 3.AAH or better specifically.
SATA II caused problems with just about every chipset, including Intel's,
but things are settling down now.

>But are there other options that I should look at ? Has Intel something
>similar or better in the same price range ?

The board you mentioned above is available in a full featured form with
SAS, PCI, PCI-X & PCI-E slots or two pared down forms, one 1U and the other
with an HTX slot for HPC clustering. What features are you looking for?

AMD vs. Intel? The Xeon 5100 series (same core logic as Core 2 Duo) will
probably have better performance in dual socket but it also depends on the
workload - if you have a mix where two Opterons can work mostly with local
memory, it could be close or go the other way. The Xeon 5100s are going to
need FB DIMMs which may influence your choice. Here's a performance
comparison of "workstation" dual socket versions with socket 940 for the
Opteron: http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=6256

Asus' server board line-up http://www.asus.com/products2.aspx?l1=9&l2=39 is
a reasonable summary for comparisons but I'd take a look at SuperMicro and
Tyan too - they have Serverworks chipset boards but I've no info on their
performance/stability.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

I asked:
> Now we are thinking of buying one or two computers, each with 2
> processors, each processor dual-core, with maybe 4 GB each.
> Part of the intended application is to use OpenMP.

> What are the good options currently ? (not next month)

Thanks to Yousuf and George for their replies. I didn't have the time
to follow-up, but I did read them.

> One vendor suggested:

> CPU: Opteron 2210 (1.8 GHz, dual-core)
> Motherboard: Asus KFN4-D16 (nVIDIA nForce 2000 Professional chipset)

One more question: are the "Next-Generation" AMD Opterons worthwhile ?
Because I am now hesitating between Opterons 2210, and Opterons 265
(Fujitsu-Siemens doesn't yet sell Opterons 221x).

I found this page:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/0,,3715_14218,00.html

which gives the following advantages:

Quad-Core Upgradeability: Designed to enable an easy platform
transition from DDR2 compatible Dual-Core to Quad-Core AMD Opteron
processors in 2007, for improved application performance without
infrastructure related power or cooling changes.

This is nice, but I doubt that we would use it, because it would mean
throwing away the current processors.

AMD Virtualization (AMD-V): Hardware-assisted technology helps
enable higher levels of efficiency and utilization by allowing
the division of one computer into several virtual machines.

Nice, but we will not use that.

Enhanced Performance-Per-Watt: AMD PowerNow! technology combined
with and energy-efficient DDR2 memory sets a new standard in
performance-per-watt computing. Quad-Core AMD Opteron processors
(planned availability in 2007) will integrate into the same
DDR2-based platforms at the same power efficiency with increased
performance-per-watt capabilities.

Nice, but far from critical for our purposes (it's only 2 computers, not
an hundred).

DDR2 Memory: Low-power, high-performance memory enables higher
bandwidths and at reduced operational cost compared to DDR1 and
FBDIMM memory.

Does this makes a significant difference ? I think not since the page:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...106763,00.html
(SPECint_rate2000 (Linux) 4P Servers) shows only a 1% improvement for
the new generation at the same clock rate (8218 versus 885, 2.6 GHz).

I didn't find a performance comparision between the 2xx series and the
22xx. For instance this page:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...106762,00.html
(SPECint_rate1998 (Linux) 2P Servers) shows only benchmarks for the (2xx series).

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro wrote:
> DDR2 Memory: Low-power, high-performance memory enables higher
> bandwidths and at reduced operational cost compared to DDR1 and
> FBDIMM memory.
>
> Does this makes a significant difference ? I think not since the page:
> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...106763,00.html
> (SPECint_rate2000 (Linux) 4P Servers) shows only a 1% improvement for
> the new generation at the same clock rate (8218 versus 885, 2.6 GHz).
>
> I didn't find a performance comparision between the 2xx series and the
> 22xx. For instance this page:
> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...106762,00.html
> (SPECint_rate1998 (Linux) 2P Servers) shows only benchmarks for the (2xx series).
>

There's not likely going to be any significant performance differences
between the two systems just yet. The differences will come as upgrade
time rolls around. By the time you'll be looking to upgrade the amount
of memory or the speed of memory, you'll find that DDR2 has upgrades
available, but not DDR1. When it comes time to upgrade CPU, you'll find
Socket F might have more upgrades available than Socket 940 (not just
quad-core, but also speed increments).

Yousuf Khan

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:10:54 +0100 (WEST), Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I asked:
>> Now we are thinking of buying one or two computers, each with 2
>> processors, each processor dual-core, with maybe 4 GB each.
>> Part of the intended application is to use OpenMP.
>
>> What are the good options currently ? (not next month)
>
>Thanks to Yousuf and George for their replies. I didn't have the time
>to follow-up, but I did read them.
>
>> One vendor suggested:
>
>> CPU: Opteron 2210 (1.8 GHz, dual-core)
>> Motherboard: Asus KFN4-D16 (nVIDIA nForce 2000 Professional chipset)
>
>One more question: are the "Next-Generation" AMD Opterons worthwhile ?
>Because I am now hesitating between Opterons 2210, and Opterons 265
>(Fujitsu-Siemens doesn't yet sell Opterons 221x).
>
>I found this page:
> http://www.amd.com/us-en/0,,3715_14218,00.html
>
>which gives the following advantages:
>
> Quad-Core Upgradeability: Designed to enable an easy platform
> transition from DDR2 compatible Dual-Core to Quad-Core AMD Opteron
> processors in 2007, for improved application performance without
> infrastructure related power or cooling changes.
>
>This is nice, but I doubt that we would use it, because it would mean
>throwing away the current processors.

True, and in fact I fail to see the big deal with quad-core myself.
Remember though that quad-core is also supposed to bring some
micro-architecture improvements, which we'll also see in dual-core versions
of the same series.

> AMD Virtualization (AMD-V): Hardware-assisted technology helps
> enable higher levels of efficiency and utilization by allowing
> the division of one computer into several virtual machines.
>
>Nice, but we will not use that.

Virtualization is probably the swing factor for most people trying to make
a decision between the two. If you figure a lifecycle of 4-5 years(?) it's
possible that future OSs in that timeframe may bring a flexibility of
operation with hardware virtualization.<shrug>

> Enhanced Performance-Per-Watt: AMD PowerNow! technology combined
> with and energy-efficient DDR2 memory sets a new standard in
> performance-per-watt computing. Quad-Core AMD Opteron processors
> (planned availability in 2007) will integrate into the same
> DDR2-based platforms at the same power efficiency with increased
> performance-per-watt capabilities.
>
>Nice, but far from critical for our purposes (it's only 2 computers, not
>an hundred).
>
> DDR2 Memory: Low-power, high-performance memory enables higher
> bandwidths and at reduced operational cost compared to DDR1 and
> FBDIMM memory.
>
>Does this makes a significant difference ? I think not since the page:
>http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...106763,00.html
>(SPECint_rate2000 (Linux) 4P Servers) shows only a 1% improvement for
>the new generation at the same clock rate (8218 versus 885, 2.6 GHz).

Performance is so close it makes no difference IMO. What DDR2 brings is an
increase in maximum memory supported for that similar performance and in a
couple of years, if a memory upgrade is contemplated DDR2 will be the
dominant technology, i.e. likely less expensive than DDR and easier to find
by then.

>I didn't find a performance comparision between the 2xx series and the
>22xx. For instance this page:
>http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...106762,00.html
>(SPECint_rate1998 (Linux) 2P Servers) shows only benchmarks for the (2xx series).

I'm sure if you Google, you'll find some performance comparisons but
really, there's little difference between the two.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald