A ringing endorsement for Opteron If I ever saw one.

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Thor, Oct 28, 2003.

  1. Thor

    Thor Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. Thor

    Adam Steiner Guest

    Adam Steiner, Oct 28, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Thor

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    "Thor" <> wrote in news::

    > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/33616.html
    >


    Cray is the biggest deal AMD has got, but they have had a lot of other
    supercomputer deals since the Opteron launch. If I recall, I read about
    Cray using them for their new supercomputers about 6 months before the
    Opteron launched.

    Provided AMD can actually deliver the goods, and Microsoft bring the 64-bit
    stuff out for the home consumer, followed by game makers (Epic has already
    announced the Unreal engine will be ported to 64bit, John Carmack is
    expected to follow with the Quake/Doom engine), Intel is in some serious
    trouble. Their options are to try to get by with 32-bit, try to convince
    MS and other's to come up with a new 64-bit architecture, cut prices on the
    Itanium line from >$3000 per chip to $500 per chip, or cave in and adopt
    AMD64 (which would look really bad from a PR standpoint).

    AMD just has to make sure they don't fumble the ball here.

    --
    AIM: FrznFoodClerk (actually me)
    email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
    website: under construction
    Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
    email/IM for rates/services
    DeMoN LaG, Oct 28, 2003
    #3
  4. Thor

    V W Wall Guest

    Thor wrote:
    >
    > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/33616.html


    Let's just hope AMD doesn't screw it up, like they've done in the past!
    Their big suit is the ability to run 32 and 64 bit code. I'm a little
    surprised that that would make a big difference to Cray using their
    cluster technique.

    Another CPU to keep an eye on is Transmeta's Crusoe. They claim 1GB
    using less than 7 watts power.

    Virg Wall
    --
    A foolish consistency is the
    hobgoblin of little minds,........
    Ralph Waldo Emerson
    (Microsoft programmer's manual.)
    V W Wall, Oct 28, 2003
    #4
  5. Thor

    Adam Steiner Guest

    "DeMoN LaG" <n@a> wrote in message
    news:Xns9421CD466A9EAWobbly@216.168.3.30...
    > "Thor" <> wrote in news::
    >
    > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/33616.html
    > >

    >
    > Cray is the biggest deal AMD has got, but they have had a lot of other
    > supercomputer deals since the Opteron launch. If I recall, I read about
    > Cray using them for their new supercomputers about 6 months before the
    > Opteron launched.
    >
    > Provided AMD can actually deliver the goods, and Microsoft bring the

    64-bit
    > stuff out for the home consumer, followed by game makers (Epic has already
    > announced the Unreal engine will be ported to 64bit, John Carmack is
    > expected to follow with the Quake/Doom engine), Intel is in some serious
    > trouble. Their options are to try to get by with 32-bit, try to convince
    > MS and other's to come up with a new 64-bit architecture, cut prices on

    the
    > Itanium line from >$3000 per chip to $500 per chip, or cave in and adopt
    > AMD64 (which would look really bad from a PR standpoint).
    >
    > AMD just has to make sure they don't fumble the ball here.
    >
    > --


    I'm not sure how the licensing agreements are drawn up for x86 nowdays, but
    would Intel possibly need to *license* AMD64 in order to use the
    instructions on their chips? Now *that* would be a real PR kicker.
    Adam Steiner, Oct 28, 2003
    #5
  6. Thor

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    "Adam Steiner" <> wrote in
    news::

    > I'm not sure how the licensing agreements are drawn up for x86
    > nowdays, but would Intel possibly need to *license* AMD64 in order to
    > use the instructions on their chips? Now *that* would be a real PR
    > kicker.


    They may, but that's not a huge deal. AMD has licenses a lot of stuff from
    Intel. What would be insulting is Intel has denied they are working on an
    AMD64 part, and said that consumers do not need 64 bit processors. If 12
    months from now Intel is forced to release an AMD64 compatible part for
    consumers, they would be acknowledging that:
    A) We lied, we were working on an x86-64 part because we feel AMD is a
    threat
    B) Yes, consumers would like and use 64 bit processors and we were wrong
    about what they wanted
    C) Yes, we indeed are chasing our tails trying to catch up with AMD

    --
    AIM: FrznFoodClerk (actually me)
    email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
    website: under construction
    Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
    email/IM for rates/services
    DeMoN LaG, Oct 28, 2003
    #6
  7. Thor

    Night_Seer Guest

    V W Wall wrote:
    > Thor wrote:
    >>
    >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/33616.html

    >
    > Let's just hope AMD doesn't screw it up, like they've done in the
    > past! Their big suit is the ability to run 32 and 64 bit code. I'm a
    > little surprised that that would make a big difference to Cray using
    > their cluster technique.
    >
    > Another CPU to keep an eye on is Transmeta's Crusoe. They claim 1GB
    > using less than 7 watts power.
    >
    > Virg Wall


    They say that the Opterons scale beautifully, so it kind of makes sense,
    but everyone seems to want to poopoo x86.

    --
    Night_Seer
    Night_Seer, Oct 28, 2003
    #7
  8. Thor

    Adam Steiner Guest

    "DeMoN LaG" <n@a> wrote in message
    news:Xns9422A8228772Wobbly@216.168.3.30...
    > "Adam Steiner" <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    > > I'm not sure how the licensing agreements are drawn up for x86
    > > nowdays, but would Intel possibly need to *license* AMD64 in order to
    > > use the instructions on their chips? Now *that* would be a real PR
    > > kicker.

    >
    > They may, but that's not a huge deal. AMD has licenses a lot of stuff

    from
    > Intel. What would be insulting is Intel has denied they are working on an
    > AMD64 part, and said that consumers do not need 64 bit processors. If 12
    > months from now Intel is forced to release an AMD64 compatible part for
    > consumers, they would be acknowledging that:
    > A) We lied, we were working on an x86-64 part because we feel AMD is a
    > threat
    > B) Yes, consumers would like and use 64 bit processors and we were wrong
    > about what they wanted
    > C) Yes, we indeed are chasing our tails trying to catch up with AMD
    >


    I don't see the first two really being such a big issue, Intel's admitted
    (although it took them a while) that they've made mistakes, just look at the
    RDRAM fiasco. And while AMD does license many things from Intel, the
    public view is that AMD is the underdog, to play catch up they have to
    license from Intel. But Intel, with all of their R&D and billions of
    dollars...that they should have to go to puny little AMD? Again, not
    neccesarily reality, but just public perception.

    As for the catching up part...gotta agree with you there. Intel definitley
    got a huge slap in the face with Opteron.

    --Adam
    Adam Steiner, Oct 28, 2003
    #8
  9. Thor

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    "Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail dot com> wrote in news:SI-
    :

    > They say that the Opterons scale beautifully, so it kind of makes sense,
    > but everyone seems to want to poopoo x86.


    Benchmarks of a 1, 2 and 4 way XEON against a 1, 2 and 4 way Opteron show
    that the Opteron adds over 50% (usually much closer to 80%) more
    performance with each CPU added, while a Xeon trails off (2 Xeons are 70%
    better than 1 Xeon, 4 Xeons are 40% better than 2 Xeons).

    The biggest advantage of the Opteron is bring your own bus (BYOB). Each
    CPU adds 6.4 GB/sec to the total bus speed, as well as it's own bank of RAM
    which can be accessed by any CPU at 6.4 GB/sec. The Xeons architecture has
    them sharing one common FSB and RAM, which means more Xeons means they have
    to share more.

    --
    AIM: FrznFoodClerk (actually me)
    email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
    website: under construction
    Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
    email/IM for rates/services
    DeMoN LaG, Oct 29, 2003
    #9
  10. Thor

    Night_Seer Guest

    DeMoN LaG wrote:
    > "Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail dot com> wrote in news:SI-
    > :
    >
    >> They say that the Opterons scale beautifully, so it kind of makes
    >> sense, but everyone seems to want to poopoo x86.

    >
    > Benchmarks of a 1, 2 and 4 way XEON against a 1, 2 and 4 way Opteron
    > show that the Opteron adds over 50% (usually much closer to 80%) more
    > performance with each CPU added, while a Xeon trails off (2 Xeons are
    > 70% better than 1 Xeon, 4 Xeons are 40% better than 2 Xeons).
    >
    > The biggest advantage of the Opteron is bring your own bus (BYOB).
    > Each CPU adds 6.4 GB/sec to the total bus speed, as well as it's own
    > bank of RAM which can be accessed by any CPU at 6.4 GB/sec. The
    > Xeons architecture has them sharing one common FSB and RAM, which
    > means more Xeons means they have to share more.


    Sound wonderful...someday, I,ll be able to afford my dual opteron setup.

    --
    Night_Seer
    Night_Seer, Oct 29, 2003
    #10
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    752
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  2. Dan C
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    372
    Dan C
    Oct 26, 2008
  3. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    387
  4. TheStoneCrusher

    Re: Endorsement from the biggest newspaper in Alaska

    TheStoneCrusher, Oct 27, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    532
    catchme
    Oct 29, 2008
  5. john east

    Everybody ringing just one number

    john east, Mar 6, 2012, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,450
    Brian A
    Mar 20, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page