Dual CPU -- Opteron vs Xeon; MoBo choice

[John R Weiss]

My wife just gave me permission to build a new toy, so I'm trying to decide
between a dual Xeon or Opteron workstation. For reference, I'm currently using
a 4-year-old dual P3-550, 100 MHz FSB with 1 GB RAM, 10K SCSI-2 LVD drives, 3D
Labs Oxygen 32 MB graphics.

After a couple days' looking, it appears Opteron and Xeon are the 2P options.
The apparent first choice in Xeon MBs is the ASUS PC-DL, but it has crummy
performance reviews. The apparent Opteron choice is the Arima Rioworks HDAMB.


Anyone have opinions on these or other options for a high-end workstation?
FWIW:

I currently run Win 2K; will go to XP Pro if needed

USB2, FireWire required; on-board SCSI and Ethernet (100 Mb or Gb) a plus

I don't do games

PhotoShop is my high-end app; will likely evolve into DVD work.

MS Office (including Access), Acrobat, and other "office-type" apps are my
other mainstream apps


Also, I'm going to have to make a "build or buy" decision. After a couple days'
research:

Monarch Computers appears to be a full-source AMB shop for components. Any
bad experiences here?

After looking through the NTSI web site, a guy there REALLY wants to sell me
a system. Any experience out there with NTSI?

Other recommendations for systems or components?

 

[TA152H]

John,

Can I first ask why you want a dual processor configuration? There is a big
premium for going that way since Xeons and Opterons are quite poor when it
comes to price/performance vis-a-vis their lower cost siblings. If you need
it, by all means get it, but are you certain that you do?

In most cases, the Opteron is going to be your better bet, in my opinion.
It costs less and scales better than the Xeon since the Intel platform
shares the same bus. Hypertransport gives AMD a slight advantage at 2x and
a dramatic one as one adds more processors. It also dissipates relatively
low amounts of heat (and thus uses less electricity), so there are good
reasons for going with the Opteron. If you plan on going to 64-bit, or just
get a warm fuzzy from the knowledge you can, obviously the Opteron is the
only way to go.

In my opinion, unless you desperately need two processors, you should get a
"budget" from your wife and then buy a very inexpensive machine and pay 10%
of it. You can then upgrade the machine a year from now to have
considerably better processor speed then anything existing today and still
have most of your money left over to upgrade again as soon as you fancy it.
Leading edge technology is only worth the price if you desperately need it
and have a lot of money to spend.

I keep mentioning this because anything currently out there is going to be
soooooo much faster than what you currently have. I mean, you can get a
mobile Athlon XP 2500+ and motherboard for a little over $200, clock it up
to 2.4 GHz pretty easily, and have almost 5x the performance of each
processor you now have. Even if you got anywhere near optimal performance
from the dual configuration, you could still get at least 2.5x the
performance for around $200. If that is not enough, you can go for an
Athlon 64 configuration and pay more but get around 3x the performance from
your processor. With the Athlon 64 though, I would wait until Socket 939
comes out before buying into that platform. In my opinion, the sweet spot
is the mobile Athlon 2500+, it is a great overclocker and is not too
expensive.

I much prefer to build my own computers, as I like having control over the
components. If you are happy with your older components, even some of them,
it is easy to simply move them over and only buy what components you are
unhappy with. The other nice thing about making your own machine is you buy
the parts and thus know that everything is interchangeable and thus easily
replaceable.

If you do need 2 processors, then I recommend the Opteron. If not, go with
the Athlon XP and save your money for future upgrades as you want them. You
will save so much money on them you will not be forced to use a degenerate
machine for as long as you have with the Pentium III 550s. Paying grotesque
amounts for processors makes sense in limited cases, I would just make sure
it does for you.

 

[DCWhitty]

My wife just gave me permission to build a new toy, so I'm trying to decide
between a dual Xeon or Opteron workstation. For reference, I'm currently using
a 4-year-old dual P3-550, 100 MHz FSB with 1 GB RAM, 10K SCSI-2 LVD drives, 3D
Labs Oxygen 32 MB graphics.

After a couple days' looking, it appears Opteron and Xeon are the 2P options.
The apparent first choice in Xeon MBs is the ASUS PC-DL, but it has crummy
performance reviews. The apparent Opteron choice is the Arima Rioworks HDAMB.


Anyone have opinions on these or other options for a high-end workstation?
FWIW:

I currently run Win 2K; will go to XP Pro if needed

USB2, FireWire required; on-board SCSI and Ethernet (100 Mb or Gb) a plus

I don't do games

PhotoShop is my high-end app; will likely evolve into DVD work.

MS Office (including Access), Acrobat, and other "office-type" apps are my
other mainstream apps


Also, I'm going to have to make a "build or buy" decision. After a couple days'
research:

Monarch Computers appears to be a full-source AMB shop for components. Any
bad experiences here?

After looking through the NTSI web site, a guy there REALLY wants to sell me
a system. Any experience out there with NTSI?

Other recommendations for systems or components?

Post your message on 2CPU.com's forum board. The website's dedicated to dual
CPU users. You'll get a complete response there.

 

[Angry American]

My wife just gave me permission to build a new toy, so I'm trying to
decide between a dual Xeon or Opteron workstation. For reference,
I'm currently using a 4-year-old dual P3-550, 100 MHz FSB with 1 GB
RAM, 10K SCSI-2 LVD drives, 3D Labs Oxygen 32 MB graphics.

After a couple days' looking, it appears Opteron and Xeon are the 2P
options. The apparent first choice in Xeon MBs is the ASUS PC-DL, but
it has crummy performance reviews. The apparent Opteron choice is
the Arima Rioworks HDAMB.


Anyone have opinions on these or other options for a high-end
workstation? FWIW:

I currently run Win 2K; will go to XP Pro if needed

USB2, FireWire required; on-board SCSI and Ethernet (100 Mb or
Gb) a plus

I don't do games

PhotoShop is my high-end app; will likely evolve into DVD work.

MS Office (including Access), Acrobat, and other "office-type"
apps are my other mainstream apps


Also, I'm going to have to make a "build or buy" decision. After a
couple days' research:

Monarch Computers appears to be a full-source AMB shop for
components. Any bad experiences here?

After looking through the NTSI web site, a guy there REALLY wants
to sell me a system. Any experience out there with NTSI?

Other recommendations for systems or components?

Opteron is the way to go, especially for more bang for your buck. Tyan has a
kick butt MB out right now, the S2885, includes PCI-X, nice onboard LAN, and
it is a good price for the features.

Have fun and build your own ;-)

 

[John R Weiss]

Can I first ask why you want a dual processor configuration? There is a big
premium for going that way since Xeons and Opterons are quite poor when it
comes to price/performance vis-a-vis their lower cost siblings. If you need
it, by all means get it, but are you certain that you do?

Been running a dual-CPU machine for over 3 years. The performance when
multitasking is outstanding! This one (dual P3-550) is SIGNIFICANTLY faster
than my 1.2 GHz P4 machine...

In most cases, the Opteron is going to be your better bet, in my opinion.
It costs less and scales better than the Xeon since the Intel platform
shares the same bus. Hypertransport gives AMD a slight advantage at 2x and
a dramatic one as one adds more processors. It also dissipates relatively
low amounts of heat (and thus uses less electricity), so there are good
reasons for going with the Opteron. If you plan on going to 64-bit, or just
get a warm fuzzy from the knowledge you can, obviously the Opteron is the
only way to go.

I'm looking to the future, so I think I will go with the Opteron over a 32-bit
option. It performs well in 32-bit mode (according to reviews), and will give
me the upgradability I will want in the future.

In my opinion, unless you desperately need two processors, you should get a
"budget" from your wife and then buy a very inexpensive machine and pay 10%
of it. You can then upgrade the machine a year from now to have
considerably better processor speed then anything existing today and still
have most of your money left over to upgrade again as soon as you fancy it.
Leading edge technology is only worth the price if you desperately need it
and have a lot of money to spend.

Here my philosophy departs from yours...

In the work I do (I don't do any gaming), I can afford to buy a
less-than-cutting-edge machine that will outperform 95% of the machines on the
market now, and still provide good performance 3 or 4 years down the line. My
current workstation is almost 5 years old, and still performs admirably.
Unfortunately, it has run out of growth room as I have to put in PCI cards to
accommodate current-tech items like USB2 and Firewire (both of which I use). I
just can't justify major mods to this one, though my wife will be able to use it
for several years...

So, instead of paying $1000 for a "good enough" machine that will last a year or
2, I spend $3000 on one that will last 3-5 years. Note that significant
upgrades like a 19" LCD monitor will be on top of the cost of the "box"...

I keep mentioning this because anything currently out there is going to be
soooooo much faster than what you currently have. I mean, you can get a
mobile Athlon XP 2500+ and motherboard for a little over $200, clock it up
to 2.4 GHz pretty easily, and have almost 5x the performance of each
processor you now have.

So you would think, from the current reviews...

However, a 5x bump in CPU speed does NOT equal a 5x bump in overall performance.
For example, my current SCSI 160 drives will be only slightly slower than the
planned SATA RAID 0. The choke point in my laptop will never allow anywhere
near 100 Mbps net throughput, much less 1 Gbps, so the Gb Ethernet in a new
system is only for future growth.

I agree that I would see a significant performance bump with any current
single-CPU machine when single-tasking, I still doubt the same performance bump
will be maintained when multitasking. For example, current database tasks can
hog a CPU for a minute or so, but don't affect the second CPU... A couple
informal reviews I read on a dual Opteron setup tend to verify the dual-CPU
advantage when multitasking.

I much prefer to build my own computers, as I like having control over the
components. If you are happy with your older components, even some of them,
it is easy to simply move them over and only buy what components you are
unhappy with.

I have several components targeted for migration, whether I build or buy. The
age of the old machine limits this aspect...

If you do need 2 processors, then I recommend the Opteron. If not, go with
the Athlon XP and save your money for future upgrades as you want them. You
will save so much money on them you will not be forced to use a degenerate
machine for as long as you have with the Pentium III 550s. Paying grotesque
amounts for processors makes sense in limited cases, I would just make sure
it does for you.

I still cannot quite justify a pair of Opteron 246s instead of 244s, given the
ridiculous price difference... I think I'll weigh the difference between the
242 and 244 in price vs performance, and save the $$ or put them elsewhere.

Thanks for the input!

 

[Arto Viitanen]

"John" == John R Weiss <John> writes:

John> My wife just gave me permission to build a new toy, so I'm trying to
John> decide between a dual Xeon or Opteron workstation. For reference, I'm
John> currently using a 4-year-old dual P3-550, 100 MHz FSB with 1 GB RAM,
John> 10K SCSI-2 LVD drives, 3D Labs Oxygen 32 MB graphics.

John> After a couple days' looking, it appears Opteron and Xeon are the 2P
John> options. The apparent first choice in Xeon MBs is the ASUS PC-DL, but
John> it has crummy performance reviews. The apparent Opteron choice is the
John> Arima Rioworks HDAMB.

For Opteron board I would suggest Tyan's K8W, either Tiger or
Thunder. Thunder has PCI-X, which might come handy if you need Raid 5 or
some other PCI-X card. I have Tyan's Xeon Thunder and it works fine.

 

[John R Weiss]

For Opteron board I would suggest Tyan's K8W, either Tiger or
Thunder. Thunder has PCI-X, which might come handy if you need Raid 5 or
some other PCI-X card. I have Tyan's Xeon Thunder and it works fine.

Thanks.

This is for a workstation, not a server, so I doubt I'll be looking at a PCI-X
requirement. Also, I believe the K8 boards are EATX boards, and will not fit in
standard cases. I'll take another look at the Tyan boards.

 

[TA152H]

John,

After reading your message, I am absolutely convinced that you should get a
1 processor mobile Athlon XP 2500+. I will explain why.

"This one (dual P3-550) is SIGNIFICANTLY faster than my 1.2 GHz P4
machine..."

When you mention that your Pentium III Xeon dual configuration outperforms
your Pentium 4 1.2 GHz, I think you are misplacing the reasons why. The
Pentium 4 is a very inefficient beast but offers extremely high clock speed.
That was the tradeoff Intel was willing to make with the design. To then
say this would outperform an Athlon XP at 1.2 GHz is a leap, but could be
true only if the peripherals were better on the Pentium III system. In
terms of processor speed, there would be no comparison, even given that
there are two. I think what you are hitting on is that peripherals,
particularly with respect to hard disks, are more important to system
throughput than the processor. In many cases, I would agree. In a few,
processor performance is more important; it all depends on what you are
running.

In your remark:

"In the work I do (I don't do any gaming), I can afford to buy a
less-than-cutting-edge machine that will outperform 95% of the machines on
the
market now, and still provide good performance 3 or 4 years down the line.
My
current workstation is almost 5 years old, and still performs admirably."

You seem to be agreeing with my premise while diagreeing with my conclusion.
This is exactly what convinced me that you should not waste your money on a
dual processor configuration. An Athlon XP configuration would support all
the technologies you mention, and they are certainly not what I meant by
"cutting edge". I should have been more clear. I meant cutting edge
performance. The fact that the performance of your workstation still
performs admirably indicates to me that the processor performance is not the
fundamental fault that you are running into. So,why throw so much money at
it? Also, an Athlon XP 2500+, would easily run overclocked like an Athlon
XP 3200+ and be faster than 95% of what is sold today. The big stories are
about the K8 processors (Athlon 64/Opteron), but the big numbers are still
the K7.

I want to comment on the following remarks:

"I agree that I would see a significant performance bump with any current
single-CPU machine when single-tasking, I still doubt the same performance
bump
will be maintained when multitasking. For example, current database tasks
can
hog a CPU for a minute or so, but don't affect the second CPU... A couple
informal reviews I read on a dual Opteron setup tend to verify the dual-CPU
advantage when multitasking."

What is your baseline in the implicit comparison you are making? If you are
comparing them to a modern dual-processor, you are correct. There are
situations where a dual processor is quite a bit faster. If you are
comparing them to your Pentium III 550, there is no case that it will go
faster. None. The smallest increase you will see is 2.5x the speed, even
when multitasking. If you are running essentially single thread, the
performance difference will closer to 5x faster. Also, single CPU systems
are faster than dual processor systems in cases where the additional
processor is not working; you do pay overhead for having the processor
there. So, my question is do you need more than 2.5x minimum processor
performance improvement on a machine you are at least somewhat happy with?
It will generally be quite a bit higher, but that is worst case. You are
quite correct in your statement that the increase in processor speed will
not correlate directly to overall speed increase, but again this tends to
emphasize my point in not spending so much on the processors since the I/O
is often times more of a bottleneck.

I mean this as no offense, but I think you have gotten into the habit of
paying a lot of money for more than you need today, with the benefit that
the useful life will be longer and require later replacement. In the world
of computers, it rarely makes sense to pay more what you will need for the
near future. In the five year cycle of your computer, for example, you
might have a faster computer for about 1.5 of those years, and the least
important ones since both will be relatively very fast for the initial time
period. The other 3.5 years, your aging computer will end up being slower
than the mainstream (aka cheap) technology available, have fewer features,
and still end up costing you much more. Also, the components you replace
are certainly good enough for other computers and you can make new ones from
them. So, you end up with generally better performance in the time span,
save lots of money, have the same or better technology support (meaning
things like Firewire, SATA, etc..., since they are available on both high
and mid almost always at the same time), and extra computers from parts you
have replaced.

To me, this makes more sense.

One last thing about 64-bits. Getting the Athlon 64 so you can run 64-bits
later on goes against the precept of buying what you will use in the
relatively near future. If you expect to use it 18 months from now, or even
12 months, just get the Athlon XP and upgrade the motherboard processor when
you need to move to 64-bits. You will not only save money, you will get
better performance and have a more modern motherboard with more modern
industry support. Get what you need today or very soon, and upgrade when
you need it.

 

[goblin]

Thanks.

This is for a workstation, not a server, so I doubt I'll be looking at
a PCI-X requirement. Also, I believe the K8 boards are EATX boards,
and will not fit in standard cases. I'll take another look at the
Tyan boards.

Athlon64 3200+ (2ghz)
Gigabyte GA-K8TB800
PC3200 DDR400 (2x512)

Cost me ~$600. Very fast.

Go to M$ and get the free betas of XP64/2003 Server64 and you will get
access to a private 64-bit newsgroup where you can get more opinions
although offhand I can't recall anyone in there with duallies.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/downloads/upgrade.asp

64-bit drivers are a little scarce right now, everything's beta. XP32
runs very well and very fast. 32-bit programs all show a good speed
increase when running under XP64 also.

I'm very happy with mine. I think XP64 will be RTM by June or July.

It sounds like you make your living from what you have and plan to buy,
and that you have $3K to spend. My advice would be to get whatever you
can for your business work in Xeon for $2K of it and spend the other $1K
on the AMD64 3200+ so you'll have a nice new toy too.

 

[Patrick]

Athlon64 3200+ (2ghz)
Gigabyte GA-K8TB800
PC3200 DDR400 (2x512)

Cost me ~$600. Very fast.

Go to M$ and get the free betas of XP64/2003 Server64 and you will get
access to a private 64-bit newsgroup where you can get more opinions
although offhand I can't recall anyone in there with duallies.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/downloads/upgrade.asp

64-bit drivers are a little scarce right now, everything's beta. XP32
runs very well and very fast. 32-bit programs all show a good speed
increase when running under XP64 also.

I'm very happy with mine. I think XP64 will be RTM by June or July.

It sounds like you make your living from what you have and plan to buy,
and that you have $3K to spend. My advice would be to get whatever you
can for your business work in Xeon for $2K of it and spend the other $1K
on the AMD64 3200+ so you'll have a nice new toy too.

Unless you are extremely pressed to remain locked-in to the Microsoft
environment, why haven't you tried out the Knoppix liveCD on any of your
systems? http://knopper.net/knoppix It provides true multi-user, multi
processing, multi-tasking! Includes over 900 programs, compilers,
applications, network tools, etc. for FREE.

I use it to test client's systems, to back-up, transfer, re-partition,
hard drives on-the-fly. It saves W2K, XP, files, and bypasses all
passwords, for fast recovery after a crash or exploit of the windows
systems.

And, GNU/Linux is what is used to certify all the 64 bit chips, at the
manufacturer's plants! But, you can load it to run from the CDrom,
without any trace on the hard drive!

I run lots of dual systems, from a dual PPro 200 Mhz 'server' as a
workstation, to AMD Athlon, Duron, XP, cpus, with all the Pentiums in
between, on my network. GNU/Linux is consistently 6x faster in all
applications, than any fully tweaked win98, winME, and XPpro, on all of
the systems that I own.

Though, you know, with all the labor, and time resources needed for
spybot S&D, Adaware, hijackthis, Anti-virus programs, any Microsoft
environment is going to be slower. But, the Linux kernel is about 24Mb
versus the Microsoft kernel of about 128Mb that already imposes a big
overhead penalty.

Then, in Microsoft, there are the drivers, you have to keep up with
upgrades of all drivers, to remain current with the patches...


Also, I am behind a firewall/router, but have a fast broadband of 384Mb
up/down, and am serving Limewire for some Open Source distros like
Linux, Knoppix, and network tool distros like KnoppixSTD, from Cheetah
10k rpm SCSI drives...

Anyway, I prefer to try everything, using every tool, so that my armory
is fully complete, and, so that I can offer the efficiency that earns
more money, while saving time and resources.