I am interested in building a 2 cpu system. Not being worried about the
preformance issue I am undecided between the two due to
the 64 bit OS / Software question - is it that imminent? I can't get a
grip of how fast this is all going to change. How fast will it make the
Xeon definate prehistoric. So basically the point is that : should I
"invest" in a system that will take me into the next few years, but
still me back a few more bucks or not?
Thanks for your thoughts.

GIPI <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote :

> I am interested in building a 2 cpu system. Not being worried
> about the preformance issue I am undecided between the two due to
> the 64 bit OS / Software question - is it that imminent? I can't
> get a
> grip of how fast this is all going to change. How fast will it
> make the Xeon definate prehistoric. So basically the point is that
> : should I "invest" in a system that will take me into the next
> few years, but still me back a few more bucks or not?

Say what ? Opty is cheaper + 64bit. Xeon *is* prehistoric


Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://pulse.pdi.net/~rush/qv30/
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 20:00:53 GMT, GIPI <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>I am interested in building a 2 cpu system. Not being worried about the
>preformance issue I am undecided between the two due to
> the 64 bit OS / Software question - is it that imminent?

That depends on what software (and even what operating system) you're
talking about. Linux has already pushed well into the 64-bit x86
world, many distributions are available now and most of the
applications have been ported to x86-64.

In the Microsoft world, things progress somewhat more slowly, it'll be
another 4-6 months before WinXP and Win2003 Server are available in a
full release for x86-64, and applications may take a bit longer after
that (note that a beta of Windows 64-bit is available now).

> I can't get a
>grip of how fast this is all going to change. How fast will it make the
>Xeon definate prehistoric.

As with anything in this business, that depends on just what you're
doing, but all parts become prehistoric pretty quickly.

> So basically the point is that : should I
>"invest" in a system that will take me into the next few years, but
>still me back a few more bucks or not?

Really it's impossible to say without knowing anything about your
system requirements and performance needs. You mention that you're
not concerned about performance, and really the 64-bit thing is all
about performance. There's very little that you can do in a 64-bit
environment that can't be hacked around in a 32-bit setup. The one
real limiting factor of a 32-bit CPU is that you have a maximum of 2
or 3GB of virtual memory per application. This can be a MAJOR
limiting factor if you're doing some high-end CAD design work, but
much less of a factor for many other applications.

If you have a large database and want to cache it all in memory 64-bit
setups can help a lot, but again that's a performance issue (albeit a
potentially large performance issue under certain situations). If
you're looking to run a server that handles lots of processes with
each requiring only a relatively small amount of memory, then a 64-bit
setup doesn't buy you much. Even if you need more than 4GB of
physical memory you end up just talking about a performance hit when
using a 32-bit system.

In short, a lot of it all comes down to performance. While you're
saying that you aren't worried about the performance issue, you
obviously are to at least a certain extent, otherwise you wouldn't be
getting a dual-processor system. So it then just comes down to a
question of how worried you are about performance and how much
performance you're going to lose for your particular application vs.
how much a 64-bit system will cost you. In general the Opteron and
Xeon are pretty similarly priced. For example, HP just started
selling Opteron systems. Their Proliant DL145 with a pair of Opteron
244 (1.8GHz) processors and 2GB of RAM costs the exact same amount as
a nearly identical Proliant DL140 with a pair of 3.2GHz Xeons.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Tony Hill <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 20:00:53 GMT, GIPI <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >I am interested in building a 2 cpu system. Not being worried about the
> >preformance issue I am undecided between the two due to
> > the 64 bit OS / Software question - is it that imminent?
>
> That depends on what software (and even what operating system) you're
> talking about. Linux has already pushed well into the 64-bit x86
> world, many distributions are available now and most of the
> applications have been ported to x86-64.
>
> In the Microsoft world, things progress somewhat more slowly, it'll be
> another 4-6 months before WinXP and Win2003 Server are available in a
> full release for x86-64, and applications may take a bit longer after
> that (note that a beta of Windows 64-bit is available now).
>
> > I can't get a
> >grip of how fast this is all going to change. How fast will it make the
> >Xeon definate prehistoric.
>
> As with anything in this business, that depends on just what you're
> doing, but all parts become prehistoric pretty quickly.
>
> > So basically the point is that : should I
> >"invest" in a system that will take me into the next few years, but
> >still me back a few more bucks or not?
>
> Really it's impossible to say without knowing anything about your
> system requirements and performance needs. You mention that you're
> not concerned about performance, and really the 64-bit thing is all
> about performance. There's very little that you can do in a 64-bit
> environment that can't be hacked around in a 32-bit setup. The one
> real limiting factor of a 32-bit CPU is that you have a maximum of 2
> or 3GB of virtual memory per application. This can be a MAJOR
> limiting factor if you're doing some high-end CAD design work, but
> much less of a factor for many other applications.
>
> If you have a large database and want to cache it all in memory 64-bit
> setups can help a lot, but again that's a performance issue (albeit a
> potentially large performance issue under certain situations). If
> you're looking to run a server that handles lots of processes with
> each requiring only a relatively small amount of memory, then a 64-bit
> setup doesn't buy you much. Even if you need more than 4GB of
> physical memory you end up just talking about a performance hit when
> using a 32-bit system.
>
> In short, a lot of it all comes down to performance. While you're
> saying that you aren't worried about the performance issue, you
> obviously are to at least a certain extent, otherwise you wouldn't be
> getting a dual-processor system. So it then just comes down to a
> question of how worried you are about performance and how much
> performance you're going to lose for your particular application vs.
> how much a 64-bit system will cost you. In general the Opteron and
> Xeon are pretty similarly priced. For example, HP just started
> selling Opteron systems. Their Proliant DL145 with a pair of Opteron
> 244 (1.8GHz) processors and 2GB of RAM costs the exact same amount as
> a nearly identical Proliant DL140 with a pair of 3.2GHz Xeons.
>
> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Why not go with AMD MP for a little while longer? As long as you don't need
more than 4G of memory these seem plenty fast for a lot of stuff. And they
are pretty cheap too. I'm waiting until I can get something like 8 or 16G
RAM and a faster clock on the Opty...

Richard

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Why not go with AMD MP for a little while longer?

Way out of date chipsets, and low ram bandwidth. And except for the
Barton-based 2800+, small caches. Though by clock speed, I think the 2800+
(2.25ghz) is actually the fastest AMD chip currently available.

Xeon has a pretty pokey bus as well, although there are at least
dual-channel setups for it, and reasonably recent chipsets.

Have the 400FSB revs of the Opteron hit the market yet?

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it." - Tom Lehrer

While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', (E-Mail Removed) (Nate Edel)
scribbled:

>Though by clock speed, I think the 2800+
>(2.25ghz) is actually the fastest AMD chip currently available.

The XP2800+ is only 2.08ghz, and there are several faster in
the XP line (up to 3200+, at 2.2ghz).





To reply by email, remove the XYZ.

Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity....

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>
> Why not go with AMD MP for a little while longer?

AMD MP isn't much cheaper than an Opty dualie.
Opty is the clear performance winner over Xeon and AMD MP.

> As long as you don't need
> more than 4G of memory these seem plenty fast for a lot of stuff. And they
> are pretty cheap too. I'm waiting until I can get something like 8 or 16G
> RAM

You *can* get 8 or 16 GB of RAM with some Opty dualies.
Many have 8 DIMM sockets, but some only have 4 or 6.
You can get up to 32 GB on an 8 DIMM motherboard if you
are willing to spend big bucks for 4 GB PC2100 ECC DIMMS.

> and a faster clock on the Opty...

At 1.4 GHz, an Opty 240 dualie will beat an MP2600+ dualie
in most things. At 2.2 GHz, an Opty 248 dualie will leave
any Athlon MP dualie miles behind.

The only things the Athlon MP can still compete in are tasks
that do lots of x86-32 fpu instead of using SSE or 3dNow.
In those few things, an MP compares well with an equally clocked Opty.

Never anonymous Bud <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', (E-Mail Removed) (Nate Edel)
> scribbled:
> >Though by clock speed, I think the 2800+ (2.25ghz) is actually the
> >fastest AMD chip currently available.
>
> The XP2800+ is only 2.08ghz, and there are several faster in
> the XP line (up to 3200+, at 2.2ghz).

Ah, the site I was looking at misreported the speed of the 2800+ as 2.25ghz.
2.08 makes more sense.

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it." - Tom Lehrer

Rob Stow <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> Why not go with AMD MP for a little while longer?
>AMD MP isn't much cheaper than an Opty dualie.
>Opty is the clear performance winner over Xeon and AMD MP.

Daniel J. Bernstein ((E-Mail Removed)), noted hacker (good sense),
cryptologist and number theorist, recommend for the casual
academic a machine starting with dual Athlon MP 2400+'s.

As someone who does plenty of computing, he ought to know.
Two boxed Athlon MP 2400+'s plus a Gigabyte GA-7DPXDW-P
costs a total of $428. Two 1.4GHz Opteron 240's in any
serious dual board (definition: each CPU has its own bank
of DIMMs) will set you back significantly more.

Tony Hill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote :

> In short, a lot of it all comes down to performance.

plus security (NX flag).

Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://pulse.pdi.net/~rush/qv30/
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.