Xeon - Opty

[GIPI]

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.

 

[RusH]

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.

 

[Tony Hill]

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.

 

[Mannr]

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).


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


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.

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

 

[Nate Edel]

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?

 

[Never anonymous Bud]

While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', (e-mail address 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....

 

[Rob Stow]

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.

 

[Nate Edel]

While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', (e-mail address removed) (Nate Edel)
scribbled:

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.

 

[by]

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

Daniel J. Bernstein ([email protected]), 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.

 

[RusH]

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

plus security (NX flag).

Pozdrawiam.

 

[Rob Stow]

Daniel J. Bernstein ([email protected]), 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.

Yup - about $500 more if you go with a Tyan S2885, which
in my opinion is the best Opty dualie board so far. Or
about $400 more if you go with a lesser board from other
manufacturers.

Now factor in the case, PSU, RAM, video card, monitor, hard drives,
etc, and you are looking at at least another $2000 for any halfway
serious Athlon MP workstation (good video card, big monitor, 4 GB RAM).

Hence the difference between using Opties and MPs is about
20% of the total system cost.

And performance wise, an MP 2800+ would make a better comparison to
the Opty 240. Accordingly, add another $200 to the price of the
MP system and the price difference shrinks even more.

And if you are into serious number crunching or data processing,
you might want to max out the RAM. Oops - we already did that
for the MP system. But for the Opty dualie add another $1600
for 4 more 1 GB DIMMs or add another $7000 to go with eight
2 GB DIMMs instead of using 1 GB DIMMs. The price of the
processors and motherboards now almost gets lost in the background
noise.

And as someone who has built a few (7 so far) MP dualies and
a few (2 so far) Opty dualies, I can tell you that most people
would rather have an Opty 240 dualie in their office. At
49 W per processor, an Opty 240 runs a little cooler than an
MP2400+ and a *lot* cooler than an MP 2800+ - and hence can use
slower, quieter cpu fans and case fans. The difference is
audible - no sound metering necessary.

As well, if you are going to use saving a few dollars as an excuse
to build an Athlon dualie instead of an Opty dualie, then you might
as well go all the way and use XP 2400+ instead or MP 2400+.
Do a search for ("L5 bridge" and "Athlon XP") for lots of hits on
how to use the XP's in dualies.

Note also that if you want an Opty dualie for number crunching
and don't need graphical work (ie., no AGP slot) the RenderBoxx
from www.boxxtech.com does a good job. Actually cheaper than
buying parts and building your own.

 

[Tony Hill]

While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', (e-mail address removed) (Nate Edel)
scribbled:


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

The AthlonMP 2800+ being discussed here actually runs at 2.13GHz. It
uses only a 266MT/s bus speed, so it's core clock is somewhat higher
for the same model number than the AthlonXP 2800+ that uses a 333MT/s
bus speed.

 

[GIPI]

Hi,
thanks you answered the question very thoroughly. In fact I have to
agree with you it's all about preformance. Naively I stated the lack of
interest in the preformance issue because I was more interested the 64
bit issue that "squeezing" those extra percentage points.
I am more worried about buying a system that won't be able to run any
new "upgrades" to my software (albiet mainly windows), because they are
all 64 bit.
I've see some prices for the dual opty boards and they are decidedly
expensive compared where as on Xeon P4 side you'll find a wider range of
boards that are similarly priced.
In any case thanks again.

 

[GIPI]

Hi All,
Thanks for answering, you been a great help.
Gp

 

[Tony Hill]

thanks you answered the question very thoroughly. In fact I have to
agree with you it's all about preformance. Naively I stated the lack of
interest in the preformance issue because I was more interested the 64
bit issue that "squeezing" those extra percentage points.
I am more worried about buying a system that won't be able to run any
new "upgrades" to my software (albiet mainly windows), because they are
all 64 bit.

You should be safe on that front for a few years to come at least.
Only a few high-end workstation applications are moving really quickly
away from 32-bit (it's somewhat interesting that the first software to
move away from running on 32-bit CPUs will likely be the applications
used in designing CPUs!).

I've see some prices for the dual opty boards and they are decidedly
expensive compared where as on Xeon P4 side you'll find a wider range of
boards that are similarly priced.

It is worthwhile to look for some tests that compare the performance
between the two for your particular application. Since the two
processors are fairly different designs they sometimes have very
different performance characteristics. It may end up being that a
dual Opteron 240 system (fairly cheap) will be faster for your
applications than a dual Xeon 3.2GHz system (quite expensive). On the
other hand, a dual Xeon 2.4GHz setup might end up outperforming a dual
Opteron 248 setup.