Intel guy looking the AMD direction for the first time.

R

Russell

Take a look at the higher-end systems we build, if not to buy from us, at
least to get an idea of what is compatible with what and to get an idea of
reasonable pricing. Alienware and Falcon Northwest are very pricy (high
profit margin for high overhead) and with Falcon Northwest, you're also
paying for a decent custom paint job. We offer both AMD-based and
Intel-based systems at reasonable prices including shipping costs and we use
only premium components for full retail component manufacturer warranties.
We handle all warranty replacement/repair work directly and offer free
advance replacement of any component(s)/system(s) found to be defective,
along with lifetime free tech support. We also offer a no-strings 30-day
full refund policy with no restocking fees on all systems, and we have a 10
rating at Reseller Ratings. You can see our current offerings (just a
starting point; we can also build anything else with any components you'd
like, as long as everything's compatible) at
http://tastycomputers.com/bistro_menu/bistromenu_main.htm.

Regarding integrated components, most newer motherboards offer all these
integrated bells and whistles these days, and a lot of them work just as
well or better than separate cards (especially Ethernet and onboard RAID),
and integrated sound and graphics is greatly improved recently over previous
incarnations, but you certainly don't have to enable the integrated stuff if
you don't want to (unless you buy a cheapee motherboard with limited
expansion options.) If you're buying or building a higher-end enthusiast
rig, you'd probably want a higher end 8x AGP or new 16x PCI-Express graphics
card, good processor, chipset, hard drive(s) and memory, but you can
certainly be very satisfied with integrated sound and NIC these days.

Hope this helps...and happy hunting on the right system for your unique
needs!
 
B

borolad

Take a look at the higher-end systems we build, if not to buy from us, at
least to get an idea of what is compatible with what and to get an idea of
reasonable pricing. Alienware and Falcon Northwest are very pricy (high
profit margin for high overhead) and with Falcon Northwest, you're also
paying for a decent custom paint job. We offer both AMD-based and
Intel-based systems at reasonable prices including shipping costs and we use
only premium components for full retail component manufacturer warranties.
We handle all warranty replacement/repair work directly and offer free
advance replacement of any component(s)/system(s) found to be defective,
along with lifetime free tech support. We also offer a no-strings 30-day
full refund policy with no restocking fees on all systems, and we have a 10
rating at Reseller Ratings. You can see our current offerings (just a
starting point; we can also build anything else with any components you'd
like, as long as everything's compatible) at
http://tastycomputers.com/bistro_menu/bistromenu_main.htm.
Regarding integrated components, most newer motherboards offer all these
integrated bells and whistles these days, and a lot of them work just as
well or better than separate cards (especially Ethernet and onboard RAID),
and integrated sound and graphics is greatly improved recently over previous
incarnations, but you certainly don't have to enable the integrated stuff if
you don't want to (unless you buy a cheapee motherboard with limited
expansion options.) If you're buying or building a higher-end enthusiast
rig, you'd probably want a higher end 8x AGP or new 16x PCI-Express graphics
card, good processor, chipset, hard drive(s) and memory, but you can
certainly be very satisfied with integrated sound and NIC these days.
Hope this helps...and happy hunting on the right system for your unique
needs!

If I get hungry whilst in your shop do you sell SPAM also ?
BoroLad
 
G

Grumble

[ It's harder to follow the discussion when you post your reply
above my message, instead of below. ]
Where does it show prices on that page?

I provided a link to the zx2000's specifications.

See HP's online store for prices.
 
G

Grumble

Rob said:
Itanic can run x86-32 in hardware - but in that mode
it is equivalent to a Pentium running at about 20%
of the Itanic's actual clock speed.

With a software emulator, the Itanic does much better -
apparently in some cases it is about as fast as a PIII
running at the Itanic's actual clock speed.

I googled around.

http://www.intel.com/products/server/processors/server/itanium2/itanium_wp.pdf

<quote>
5.9 Legacy Application Support

IA-32 application support allows Itanium 2 processor-based solutions
to be deployed when secondary applications have not yet been ported
to Itanium microarchitecture. It is possible that an application is
not performance critical, and therefore can run in the IA-32
execution mode. Because it is still a native IA-32 application, it
will not be able to address more than 2 to 3 GB of memory.

Currently, 32-bit execution is performed in hardware. In 2004, Intel
will introduce a software-based IA-32 Execution Layer (EL). IA-32
instructions will be translated in software and executed as native
Itanium instructions. IA-32 EL binaries will ship with the operating
system and will be initiated by the operating system when an IA-32
application is launched.

With the IA-32 EL and the Itanium 2 processor 6M at 1.5 GHz,
estimated IA-32 application performance is similar to the Intel Xeon
processor at 1.5 GHz. Performance will vary by application and is
expected to scale up with future processors.

Itanium-based operating systems do not support applications that
contain 32-bit device drivers or 16-bit applications (this is not
specific to Itanium microarchitecture), and outdated or incompatible
installers for 32-bit applications may also lead to incompatibility.

Native Itanium-based applications should be deployed for optimal
performance and capabilities, but the IA-32 Execution Layer may be
considered for running secondary IA-32 applications as needed.
</quote>

I'll take a look at Paul DeMone's article:
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT122803224105
 
G

Grumble

Rob said:
Itanic can run x86-32 in hardware - but in that mode
it is equivalent to a Pentium running at about
20% of the Itanic's actual clock speed.

Here's a naive matrix-matrix multiply implementation:

#include <stdio.h>
#define M 100
#define N 400

static double A[N][N], B[N][N], C[N][N];

int main(void)
{
unsigned long i, j, k, t;
double checksum = 0;

for (i=0; i < N; ++i)
for (j=0; j < N; ++j)
{
A[j] = i;
B[j] = j;
}

for (t=0; t < M; ++t)
for (i=0; i < N; ++i)
for (j=0; j < N; ++j)
{
double accu = 0;
for (k=0; k < N; ++k) accu += A[k]*B[k][j];
C[j] = accu;
}

for (i=0; i < N; ++i)
for (j=0; j < N; ++j)
checksum += C[j];

printf("checksum=%f\n", checksum);

return 0;
}

$ gcc-3.4.0 -static -O3 matmul.c -o a1
$ gcc-3.3.4 -O3 matmul.c -o a2
$ file a?
a1: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for
GNU/Linux 2.2.5, statically linked, not stripped
a2: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, IA-64 (Intel 64 bit architecture)
version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.4.0, dynamically linked (uses
shared libs), not stripped

Binary Computer Execution Time
a1 c1 51.0 s
a1 c2 99.5 s
a1 c3 123.6 s
a2 c3 39.7 s

c1 = 3.0 Ghz Pentium 4 (Northwood)
c2 = 1.0 GHz Pentium 3 (Coppermine)
c3 = 1.3 GHz Itanium 2 (McKinley)

For this specific benchmark, the IA-32 hardware execution unit on a
1.3 GHz Itanium 2 is equivalent to a ~800 MHz Pentium 3.
 
S

Scott Alfter

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Oh, you mean to say, you still have a working XT? :)

Yes...and a working TRS-80 Color Computer 2, and a working VIC-20, and a
working TI-99/4A, and four working Apple IIs (two IIGSes, a IIe, and a II+).
I should open a museum. :)

(The IIe and II+ run 24/7 as temperature controllers for my beer, too. A
IIGS serves as the development system for the software running on those
systems. The rest are packed up, but it'd be nice to have a way to just sit
down and use any of them.)

_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Linux)

iD8DBQFBSKZeVgTKos01OwkRAkJQAJ9Z4FrKaWgRBSdajpIcaQRWKsdBTwCdH3kg
QlYlvwaTuEY0prb6B5vjlHA=
=HW72
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
N

nobody

Hello everyone. I am looking to buy a new desktop PC. ....snip...

So I want the "straight poop" about the AMD 64 FX models. And is there
any new AMD 64 FX chip coming in the fourth quarter 2004?

Also can anyone explain the Intel roadmap for a consumer 64 bit CPU?

Any thoughts on the best place to order custom built High performance
PCs? I can't stand the newer all integrated systems. I do not want
integrated Graphics, sound, NIC, ect.



I was looking at Alienware. Are there other sites as well? I have to
say those Alienware systems always look damn cool.

IMHO, A64 make sense only if you are looking at getting a pre-built
system. Well, if you are on a somewhat tight budget, A64 3xxx+ may be
a good solution. As for FX, they are only for the ones who either
have hard time with numbers, or want to brag about the "coolest, most
expensive" CPU.
A quick check on Pricewatch:
FX53 (s940) $725
FX53 (s939) $835 !?
Meanwhile Opteron 150 (s940), same 1 MB L2 cache, same 2.4 GHZ clock,
same dual channel memory controller, essentially the same CPU as FX53,
is only $590. Even Opteron 250 that does SMP in dual socket board is
only $819!!! Yes the Opteron (and BTW the s940 A64FX, too) requires
slightly more expensive registered ECC memory, but the $245 difference
will get you 1 GB of that RAM, even with a few bucks left for other
goodies.
S940 will also be the first to receive the dual-core CPU to plug into,
with s939 quite a few months behind. If you plan to upgrade, keep
this in mind.
So if you are building the system yourself, or if it's built to your
exact spec, go for Opteron. If you have the budget, go for _dual_
Opteron - I did, and never had to regret it. As for the place that
will build it - try http://www.monarchcomputer.com ; there must be
also some other places that will do it for you.
With all that said, A64 is still a better option comparing to P4 ;-)
 
J

John R Weiss

No spam said:
So I want the "straight poop" about the AMD 64 FX models. And is there
any new AMD 64 FX chip coming in the fourth quarter 2004?

The FX-53 is essentially the single-processor version of the Opteron 250 -- same
core, but not dual-CPU capable; 939 pins instead of 940.
Any thoughts on the best place to order custom built High performance
PCs? I can't stand the newer all integrated systems. I do not want
integrated Graphics, sound, NIC, ect.

NTSI in Boston -- www.ntsi.com. They built my dual Opteron workstation. Their
"configurator" will give you an idea of what they have, but it is incomplete.
Also, they will quote you a system price for a custom-built system that is
significantly less than the sum of the components. After looking through the
web site, give them a call or drop them an e-mail with your requirements.
 
N

Nate Edel

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Yousuf Khan said:
You know that GPU by itself could probably emulate an 8088 at better than
full-speed. :)

Can GPUs actually handle at any decent speed the branches needed for
emulation?
 
T

Tony Hill

Can GPUs actually handle at any decent speed the branches needed for
emulation?

The latest and greatest GPUs are sufficiently flexible in terms of
programming that they probably could be hacked to do such a thing. It
might not be pretty, but it would probably work.

Emulating an 8088 doesn't exactly take much processing umph, even if
the GPU needed 10,000 instructions to emulate a branch properly it
would still probably be faster than an 8088.
 
G

gaffo

Yousuf said:
Well hi, and welcome to the 21st Century, Rip Van Winkle. :) A lot of the
rest of us in these newsgroups started on those 8088 PC clones ourselves,
and we didn't seem to have much trouble accepting AMD as a credible
alternative.

Actually, AMD has been making Intel compatible chips for as long as Intel
has been making them. Initially it was making them with the complete
permission and support of Intel -- AMD was Intel's official second source
right from the days of the original IBM PC. And then later it was making
them without so much permission and support. :)

I think the first time I'd heard of AMD was when I was shopping for a cheap
287 coprocessor to fit to my 386DX CPU. (Yes, 386's could also be fitted to
287's rather than 387's.) Then later I found out that AMD not only made
coprocessors but also direct clones of the processors. This was around 1988
or thereabouts.




The K5 was not AMD's most successful design, not by a long shot. It was
AMD's first attempt its own original design. It's previous processors were
much more successful (the 386, 486, and 5x86), and it's later processors
were much more successful (K6, Athlon, and Athlon 64). So yes, you could
call the K5 to be AMD's lowest valley. Prior to the K5, AMD's designs were
all direct copies transistor-for-transistor copies of Intel's processors --
since AMD had been Intel's second source for years prior to that. At around
the time of the 386 were when AMD and Intel started having their first
feuds; Intel no longer wanted to have AMD as its second source, while AMD
insisted that they had a binding contract for just that. The court battle
eventually came down to an agreement that AMD would stop cloning Intel's
chips as of the end of the 486. So K5 was AMD's attempt to engineer a
Pentium-workalike, but with their own original design inside. The K5 didn't
succeed, but AMD's second attempt was the K6,



not really - that was NextGen's attempt - the NX686. The successor to
the NX586 (the first RISC-core x86 chip made) which competed with the
pentium I.


AMD bought NexGen - and simply re-packaged the NX686 and named it k-6.

So the k-5 was the only AMD designed chip until the Athlon showed up in
1999 three years later.




which was also a
Pentium-workalike, and it also fit into the Pentium socket. This was much
more successful, and it in fact extended the Pentium infrastructure beyond
the Pentium, beyond what Intel had imagined for that infrastructure. The K6
was competing against the Pentium II's and III's, which were on their
next-generation infrastructure.






competed with - but really fell between the pentuim I and II in speed.
FPU was never of the quality of even the pentium I.

In fact IDT's-Centuar's Winchip II FPU outperformed the k-6 of equal
clock in programs optimized for the pentium I.





AMD's next design, the Athlon, was (and is
to this day) their most successful original design ever;



thanks to its phenominal x87 FPU. - Which AMD learned the hard way with
their anemic k-6's FPU.





--
http://baltimorechronicle.com/041704reTreason.shtml

http://www.truthinaction.net/iraq/illegaljayne.htm


As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both
instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged.
And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air
-- however slight -lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.
Justice William O. Douglas, US Supreme Court (1939-75)

"It shows us that there were senior people in the Bush administration who
were seriously contemplating the use of torture, and trying to figure out
whether there were any legal loopholes that might allow them to commit
criminal acts, They seem to be putting forward a theory that the president
in wartime can essentially do what he wants regardless of what the law
may say,"
Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch - commenting upon Defense
Department Lawyer
Will Dunham's 56-page legalization of torture memo.

If you add all of those up, you should have a conservative rebellion against
the giant corporation in the White House masquerading as a human being named
George W. Bush. Just as progressives have been abandoned by the corporate
Democrats and told, "You got nowhere to go other than to stay home or
vote for
the Democrats", this is the fate of the authentic conservatives in the
Republican Party.
Ralph Nader - June 2004 - The American Conservative Magazine

"But I believe in torture and I will torture you."
-An American soldier shares the joys of Democracy with
an Iraqi prisoner.

"My mother praises me for fighting the Americans. If we are killed,
our wives and mothers will rejoice that we died defending the
freedom of our country.
-Iraqi Mahdi fighter

"We were bleeding from 3 a.m. until sunrise, soon American soldiers came.
One of them kicked me to see if I was alive. I pretended I was dead
so he wouldn't kill me. The soldier was laughing, when Yousef cried,
the soldier said: "'No, stop,"
-Shihab, survivor of USSA bombing of Iraqi wedding.

"the absolute convergence of the neoconservatives with the Christian
Zionists
and the pro-Israel lobby, driving U.S. Mideast policy."
-Don Wagner, an evangelical South Carolina minister

"Bush, in Austin, criticized President Clinton's administration for
the Kosovo military action.'Victory means exit strategy, and it's important
for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is,' Bush said."
Houston Chronicle 4/9/99

"Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to
destabilize their country."
Washington, D.C., May 5, 2004

"The new administration seems to be paying no attention to the problem
of terrorism. What they will do is stagger along until there's a major
incident and then suddenly say, 'Oh my God, shouldn't we be organized
to deal with this?'"
- Paul Bremer, speaking to a McCormick Tribune Foundation conference
on terrorism in Wheaton, Ill. on Feb. 26, 2001.

"On Jan. 26, 1998, President Clinton received a letter imploring him to use
his State of the Union address to make removal of Saddam Hussein's regime
the "aim of American foreign policy" and to use military action because
"diplomacy is failing." Were Clinton to do that, the signers pledged, they
would "offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor."
Signing the pledge were Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Robert
Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Richard L. Armitage, Jeffrey
Bergner,
Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, Peter W. Rodman,
William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, R. James Woolsey and Robert B. Zoellick,
Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Four years before 9/11, the neocons had
Baghdad on their minds."
-philip (usenet)

"I had better things to do in the 60s than fight in Vietnam,"
-Richard Cheney, Kerry critic.

"I hope they will understand that in order for this government to get up
and running
- to be effective - some of its sovereignty will have to be given
back, if I can put it that way,
or limited by them, It's sovereignty but [some] of that sovereignty they
are going to allow us to exercise
on their behalf and with their permission."
- Powell 4/27/04

"We're trying to explain how things are going, and they are going as they
are going," he said, adding: "Some things are going well and some things
obviously are not going well. You're going to have good days and bad days."
On the road to democracy, this "is one moment, and there will be other
moments. And there will be good moments and there will be less good
moments."
- Rumsfeld 4/6/04

"I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this
country's gift to the world; freedom is the Almighty's gift to
every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on
the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help the spread
of freedom."
~ Bush the Crusader


RUSSERT: Are you prepared to lose?

BUSH: No, I'm not going to lose.

RUSSERT: If you did, what would you do?

BUSH: Well, I don't plan on losing. I've got a vision for what I want to
do for the country.
See, I know exactly where I want to lead.................And we got
changing times
here in America, too., 2/8/04


"And that's very important for, I think, the people to understand where
I'm coming from,
to know that this is a dangerous world. I wish it wasn't. I'm a war
president.
I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with
war on my mind.
- pResident of the United State of America, 2/8/04


"Let's talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that
based on intelligence, that he has been very, very good at hiding
these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know
he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons.
And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, on "Meet the Press", 3/16/03


"I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the
Iraqis had nuclear weapons."
- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, 6/24/03


"I think in this case international law
stood in the way of doing the right thing (invading Iraq)."
- Richard Perle


"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with
respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project
conventional power against his neighbours."
- Colin Powell February 24 2001


"We have been successful for the last ten years in keeping
him from developing those weapons and we will continue to be successful."

"He threatens not the United States."

"But I also thought that we had pretty
much removed his stings and frankly for ten years we really have."

'But what is interesting is that with the regime that has been in place
for the past ten years, I think a pretty good job has been done of
keeping him from breaking out and suddenly showing up one day and saying
"look what I got." He hasn't been able to do that.'
- Colin Powell February 26 2001
 
Y

Yousuf Khan

gaffo wrote:

<big snip>

Boy, you really didn't have to quote so much of my original message. I know
it's worth quoting, but really .... :)
not really - that was NextGen's attempt - the NX686. The successor to
the NX586 (the first RISC-core x86 chip made) which competed with the
pentium I.

Well, NexGen was bought because of their NX686/K6 design. By the time it was
released, NexGen was already a part of AMD for a year or so. AMD was
simultaneously developing the K6 alongside the K5. Also originally NexGen
was planning on a completely separate socket layout for the NX686, but when
they were brought into AMD, they changed it to be Socket 7 compatible.
So the k-5 was the only AMD designed chip until the Athlon showed up
in 1999 three years later.

NexGen was already integrated into AMD well before the chip was released.
which was also a

competed with - but really fell between the pentuim I and II in speed.
FPU was never of the quality of even the pentium I.

In fact IDT's-Centuar's Winchip II FPU outperformed the k-6 of equal
clock in programs optimized for the pentium I.

I don't think that's quite an "in fact". The K6 had probably the best
performing FPU after the Pentium's. The weakest around at that time was
Cyrix's, while the IDT barely even reached the same Mhz levels as either
Pentiums or K6's. If you're talking about FPU perf/Mhz ratio, then maybe
it's possible, but they never even reached any sort of competitive Mhz
level.
AMD's next design, the Athlon, was (and is



thanks to its phenominal x87 FPU. - Which AMD learned the hard way
with their anemic k-6's FPU.

I wasn't measuring success by the performance of the FPU. I was measuring it
with the longevity of the design. The K6 lasted a long, long time. Probably
about 4 years.

And the K7 Athlons are still with us to this day, they started life out in
1999 as a Slot-A Athlon Classic, evolved into Socket-A Thunderbird Athlons,
Durons, Athlon XP's, Athlon 4's, Athlon MP's, and now Geode NX, and Sempron
almost 5 years later.

Yousuf Khan
 
T

Tony Hill

not really - that was NextGen's attempt - the NX686. The successor to
the NX586 (the first RISC-core x86 chip made) which competed with the
pentium I.


AMD bought NexGen - and simply re-packaged the NX686 and named it k-6.

Well considering AMD bought the company, that kind of makes it an AMD
design. After all, it's not like the NX686 ever existed as a real
product, nor did the company NexGen exist as a separate entity when
the processor came out.

Also, there was a bit more than just re-packaging it. At the very
least the bus interface was completely redesigned. the FPU integrated
and they added MMX support.
So the k-5 was the only AMD designed chip until the Athlon showed up in
1999 three years later.

The Am5x86 was, at least according to some definitions, an original
AMD design. Of course, it may have borrowed somewhat heavily from
AMD's previous Am486 chip which was a copy of Intel's i486.
which was also a

competed with - but really fell between the pentuim I and II in speed.
FPU was never of the quality of even the pentium I.

Not quite, but it wasn't that far off in most cases.

Of course, when compared to the PPro/PII chips, pretty much everything
in x86-land else kind of stank when it came to FPU stuff. The
difference between the K6 and the Pentium was FAR smaller than the
difference between the Pentium and the PII.
In fact IDT's-Centuar's Winchip II FPU outperformed the k-6 of equal
clock in programs optimized for the pentium I.

In some situations yes, though it did so 2-3 years later. On the
other hand, the Winchip line of processor was (and still is as VIA
processors) an in-order design that had it's share of downfalls.
AMD's next design, the Athlon, was (and is

thanks to its phenominal x87 FPU. - Which AMD learned the hard way with
their anemic k-6's FPU.

It wasn't all THAT anemic. In fact, as much as anything else it was
the socket 7 bus that it sat on which was anemic, the memory subsystem
pretty much stank. FPU work tends to put a very high stress on the
memory subsystem, and if that isn't up to par, even a top-notch FPU is
going to look rather poor. As it was, AMD was probably smart not to
invest too much into the FPU of the K6 as it really just wouldn't have
been able to do much with it anyway. Delaying the chip by 6 months to
a year and increasing the cost would have had a much more detrimental
impact on the chips sales than a slightly slower FPU.
 
W

Winston

Good article! You should save a copy (or at least the article's
Message-ID / Reference number) in case you ever want to say all that again,
or point people to the article. :)
-WBE
 
K

Kenneth Farmer

Bobby said:
Tony - Great post. One to save I think. Cheers.

Bobby

[snip]
You can safely ignore the Itanium line, it's definitely NOT what
you're going to be looking for. First off, it's not software
compatible with existing applications, requiring emulation to run all
your current code. What's probably more important though is that
you'll have a heck of a time finding an Itanium system for less than
$20,000.

[snip]

Just to bring that $20K back to reality...entry-level HP Integrity rx1600's
can be gotten for $2800+/- from HP.

Ken

____________________________________
Ken Farmer <><
LinuxHPC.org. http://www.LinuxHPC.org
 
A

Anne

HI, definatly go for amd 64 bit, Start with a 3200xp 64 bit cpu. I jumped up
from a powerfull 2200 xp. The difference startled me. Long live amd. Down
with intel. Anne
Kenneth Farmer said:
Bobby said:
Tony - Great post. One to save I think. Cheers.

Bobby

Tony Hill said:
On 12 Sep 2004 19:08:38 -0700, (e-mail address removed) (No spam)
wrote:

Hello everyone. I am looking to buy a new desktop PC. I currently have
a Compaq Pentium 3 733 MHz desktop and a Dell 2.0 GHz Celeron laptop.
[snip]
Now I am looking to buy a new desktop and I am looking for the best
new technology. I am very interested in 64 bit technology. I know
Intel has had Itanium and Itanium II but as I understand it those are
not for consumers.

You can safely ignore the Itanium line, it's definitely NOT what
you're going to be looking for. First off, it's not software
compatible with existing applications, requiring emulation to run all
your current code. What's probably more important though is that
you'll have a heck of a time finding an Itanium system for less than
$20,000.

[snip]

Just to bring that $20K back to reality...entry-level HP Integrity
rx1600's
can be gotten for $2800+/- from HP.

Ken

____________________________________
Ken Farmer <><
LinuxHPC.org. http://www.LinuxHPC.org
 
A

Antec

Yes i changed to the x64.
Just as soon as i could work out if Intel were
Or were not going to have a x64 at a reasonable price.
That would run the new Windows x64 OS but after
they opted not to go ahead with the Prescott and its apparent x64 extensions
I went AMD for the first time and am far from disappointed.
I used the Gigabyte GA - K8VNXP MOBO and a socket 754 3700+ and it is a gem
of a computer
So that i have nothing slowing the machine down I also installed a GeCube
ATI x800 Platinum.
The machine feels bullet proof and I have had no compatibilities problems
I run it as a media centre with 2 x 200GB SATA 7200 A Leadtek Digital TV
Tuner And 2 X 120GB Seagate ATE 7200 for the OS Samsung 8x DVD Burner Dual
layer & 52XDVD Combo drive for copying DVD's direct and the system has yet
to falter no lockups no BSOD boots super fast and loads all software on
demand.

I say "and i am not being bias" Definately go 64 BIT Go AMD x64.

Kenneth Farmer said:
Bobby said:
Tony - Great post. One to save I think. Cheers.

Bobby

Tony Hill said:
On 12 Sep 2004 19:08:38 -0700, (e-mail address removed) (No spam)
wrote:

Hello everyone. I am looking to buy a new desktop PC. I currently have
a Compaq Pentium 3 733 MHz desktop and a Dell 2.0 GHz Celeron laptop.
[snip]
Now I am looking to buy a new desktop and I am looking for the best
new technology. I am very interested in 64 bit technology. I know
Intel has had Itanium and Itanium II but as I understand it those are
not for consumers.

You can safely ignore the Itanium line, it's definitely NOT what
you're going to be looking for. First off, it's not software
compatible with existing applications, requiring emulation to run all
your current code. What's probably more important though is that
you'll have a heck of a time finding an Itanium system for less than
$20,000.

[snip]

Just to bring that $20K back to reality...entry-level HP Integrity
rx1600's
can be gotten for $2800+/- from HP.

Ken

____________________________________
Ken Farmer <><
LinuxHPC.org. http://www.LinuxHPC.org
 
M

Mark Hahn

Just to bring that $20K back to reality...entry-level HP Integrity rx1600's
can be gotten for $2800+/- from HP.

no '-' there, you're talking about a ridiculously stripped machine
with a single, extremely low-end processor (much slower than an
entry-level AMD, for instance). and 512M for crying out loud!
no hard drive at all, no management card that anyone buying a
server would demand. frigging 1-year warranty!

configure it up to a sane if slow server (8GB ram, 3-yr, second
cpu, pair of disks) and you're up to $15K. again, this winds up
being a machine which will not hold a candle to a similarly configured
opteron for less than half the price.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top