Will Intel or AMD give me better performance?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Allistar, Jan 21, 2007.

  1. Allistar

    Allistar Guest

    Hi all,
    This is a followup to the "Hard disk died!" message I send yesterday.

    I'm no closer to deciding which architecture to go with in terms of
    performance. I am choosing between:

    - dual processor, dual core AMD Opteron 2.4GHz, 800MHz FSB, 2GbMHz 400MHz
    DDR SDRAM.

    or

    - single processor, quad core Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800, 2.93GHz, 1066MHz
    FSB, 2Gb 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM.

    Given the architectural differences, I'd say they're pretty much evenly
    paced - the AMD will be cooler and consume less power, which is a bonus.

    I want raw performance for running Gentoo Linux, compiling software, running
    multiple virtual machines inside VMWare Workstation with heavy processes
    inside them.

    Assume for a minute that cost isn't an issue, which setup would you prefer,
    and why?

    Ta,
    Allistar.
     
    Allistar, Jan 21, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Allistar

    whome Guest

    "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi all,
    > This is a followup to the "Hard disk died!" message I send yesterday.
    >
    > I'm no closer to deciding which architecture to go with in terms of
    > performance. I am choosing between:
    >
    > - dual processor, dual core AMD Opteron 2.4GHz, 800MHz FSB, 2GbMHz 400MHz
    > DDR SDRAM.
    >
    > or
    >
    > - single processor, quad core Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800, 2.93GHz, 1066MHz
    > FSB, 2Gb 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM.
    >
    > Given the architectural differences, I'd say they're pretty much evenly
    > paced - the AMD will be cooler and consume less power, which is a bonus.
    >
    > I want raw performance for running Gentoo Linux, compiling software,
    > running
    > multiple virtual machines inside VMWare Workstation with heavy processes
    > inside them.
    >
    > Assume for a minute that cost isn't an issue, which setup would you
    > prefer,
    > and why?
    >
    > Ta,
    > Allistar.



    Dunno, all I heard was that the new Intel chips whup AMD hands down.
     
    whome, Jan 21, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:10:41 +1300, Allistar wrote:

    > - single processor, quad core Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800, 2.93GHz, 1066MHz
    > FSB, 2Gb 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM.
    >
    > Given the architectural differences, I'd say they're pretty much evenly
    > paced - the AMD will be cooler and consume less power, which is a bonus.
    >
    > I want raw performance for running Gentoo Linux, compiling software, running
    > multiple virtual machines inside VMWare Workstation with heavy processes
    > inside them.
    >
    > Assume for a minute that cost isn't an issue, which setup would you prefer,
    > and why?


    AMD - cooler, less electricity, and two sockets which means possibly
    upgrading the chips to 8 or even 16 cores if the same socket is usable
    down the track when AMD releases 4/8 core chips.

    Also, AMD has a history of producing solid CPUs. Intel produced the
    P4/heater soly for producing faster clock speeds.


    --
    Dianthus Mimulus

    Microsoft's business practises exposed in court:
    http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/dsprgmnt.html#_Toc447960918
     
    Dianthus Mimulus, Jan 22, 2007
    #3
  4. Allistar

    Craig Sutton Guest

    "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi all,
    > This is a followup to the "Hard disk died!" message I send yesterday.
    >
    > I'm no closer to deciding which architecture to go with in terms of
    > performance. I am choosing between:
    >
    > - dual processor, dual core AMD Opteron 2.4GHz, 800MHz FSB, 2GbMHz 400MHz
    > DDR SDRAM.
    >
    > or
    >
    > - single processor, quad core Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800, 2.93GHz, 1066MHz
    > FSB, 2Gb 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM.
    >
    > Given the architectural differences, I'd say they're pretty much evenly
    > paced - the AMD will be cooler and consume less power, which is a bonus.
    >
    > I want raw performance for running Gentoo Linux, compiling software,
    > running
    > multiple virtual machines inside VMWare Workstation with heavy processes
    > inside them.
    >
    > Assume for a minute that cost isn't an issue, which setup would you
    > prefer,
    > and why?
    >


    If you simply want outrageous grunt get a good overclocking m.b and ram and
    you will get 3.5ghz easy on air.

    Have a look here what can be done with the 6800
    http://www.nordichardware.com/Reviews/?skrivelse=487
    http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&articID=465

    some other links here
    http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=in...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
     
    Craig Sutton, Jan 22, 2007
    #4
  5. Allistar

    ./ Guest

    Allistar wrote:
    > Hi all,
    > This is a followup to the "Hard disk died!" message I send yesterday.
    >
    > I'm no closer to deciding which architecture to go with in terms of
    > performance. I am choosing between:
    >
    > - dual processor, dual core AMD Opteron 2.4GHz, 800MHz FSB, 2GbMHz 400MHz
    > DDR SDRAM.
    >
    > or
    >
    > - single processor, quad core Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800, 2.93GHz, 1066MHz
    > FSB, 2Gb 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM.
    >
    > Given the architectural differences, I'd say they're pretty much evenly
    > paced - the AMD will be cooler and consume less power, which is a bonus.
    >
    > I want raw performance for running Gentoo Linux, compiling software, running
    > multiple virtual machines inside VMWare Workstation with heavy processes
    > inside them.
    >
    > Assume for a minute that cost isn't an issue, which setup would you prefer,
    > and why?
    >
    > Ta,
    > Allistar.


    The one Gentoo supports best. I suspect for what you want AMD.
     
    ./, Jan 22, 2007
    #5
  6. Allistar

    Allistar Guest

    Blue wrote:

    > On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:10:41 +1300, Allistar wrote:
    >
    >> Assume for a minute that cost isn't an issue, which setup would you
    >> prefer, and why?

    >
    > Intel, more cores, thus more raw power, and other people seem to rave this
    > way.


    Even though both options have 4 cores (albeit the Intel offering has them
    all on one CPU).

    My concern with both options is that the Opteron seems to be an end of line
    product now that the new Socket F's are coming out, and the Intel quad core
    seems to be a beginning of line product - it's the first of it's kind.

    Allistar.
     
    Allistar, Jan 22, 2007
    #6
  7. Allistar

    Allistar Guest

    Craig Sutton wrote:

    >
    > "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Hi all,
    >> This is a followup to the "Hard disk died!" message I send yesterday.
    >>
    >> I'm no closer to deciding which architecture to go with in terms of
    >> performance. I am choosing between:
    >>
    >> - dual processor, dual core AMD Opteron 2.4GHz, 800MHz FSB, 2GbMHz 400MHz
    >> DDR SDRAM.
    >>
    >> or
    >>
    >> - single processor, quad core Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800, 2.93GHz,
    >> 1066MHz FSB, 2Gb 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM.
    >>
    >> Given the architectural differences, I'd say they're pretty much evenly
    >> paced - the AMD will be cooler and consume less power, which is a bonus.
    >>
    >> I want raw performance for running Gentoo Linux, compiling software,
    >> running
    >> multiple virtual machines inside VMWare Workstation with heavy processes
    >> inside them.
    >>
    >> Assume for a minute that cost isn't an issue, which setup would you
    >> prefer,
    >> and why?
    >>

    >
    > If you simply want outrageous grunt get a good overclocking m.b and ram
    > and you will get 3.5ghz easy on air.
    >
    > Have a look here what can be done with the 6800
    > http://www.nordichardware.com/Reviews/?skrivelse=487
    > http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&articID=465
    >
    > some other links here
    >

    http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=in...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

    It's amazing what some people are willing to do to up the clock speed.

    The 6800 is still only dual core. I've seen examples of overclocking the
    quad core qx6700, but I'm not sure I'm game enough to risk frying a $1900
    processor!

    I'm still keen on 4 cores, and want the best overall performance. I prefer
    AMD because their architecture seems better, but it seems the Socket 940
    Opteron design is being superceded by the Socket F.

    Allistar.
     
    Allistar, Jan 22, 2007
    #7
  8. Allistar

    Allistar Guest

    whome wrote:

    >
    > "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Hi all,
    >> This is a followup to the "Hard disk died!" message I send yesterday.
    >>
    >> I'm no closer to deciding which architecture to go with in terms of
    >> performance. I am choosing between:
    >>
    >> - dual processor, dual core AMD Opteron 2.4GHz, 800MHz FSB, 2GbMHz 400MHz
    >> DDR SDRAM.
    >>
    >> or
    >>
    >> - single processor, quad core Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800, 2.93GHz,
    >> 1066MHz FSB, 2Gb 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM.
    >>
    >> Given the architectural differences, I'd say they're pretty much evenly
    >> paced - the AMD will be cooler and consume less power, which is a bonus.
    >>
    >> I want raw performance for running Gentoo Linux, compiling software,
    >> running
    >> multiple virtual machines inside VMWare Workstation with heavy processes
    >> inside them.
    >>
    >> Assume for a minute that cost isn't an issue, which setup would you
    >> prefer,
    >> and why?
    >>
    >> Ta,
    >> Allistar.

    >
    >
    > Dunno, all I heard was that the new Intel chips whup AMD hands down.


    I've decided to go with the Intel quad core. From all of the reviews I've
    read the Intel quad core outperforms a dual cpu, dual core opteron in most
    tests. My concerns are of power, heat and performance. I think with the
    system I've put together it should perform quite well for the next few
    years at least.

    Another question: The m/b has a 1066MHz FSB. Do I need to match the DDR2
    memory speed to that to get optimal performance? I can get 2x2Gb 1066MHz
    DDR2 SDRAM chips, but could fit more in for the same dollars if the speed
    was less.

    Allistar.
     
    Allistar, Jan 22, 2007
    #8
  9. Allistar

    Craig Sutton Guest

    "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Another question: The m/b has a 1066MHz FSB. Do I need to match the DDR2
    > memory speed to that to get optimal performance? I can get 2x2Gb 1066MHz
    > DDR2 SDRAM chips, but could fit more in for the same dollars if the speed
    > was less.
    >


    Not sure but I think dual DDR kits work best only using 2 sticks. You can
    have trouble with some m.b if you fill all the ram slots.
     
    Craig Sutton, Jan 22, 2007
    #9
  10. Allistar

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > whome wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> Hi all,
    > >> This is a followup to the "Hard disk died!" message I send yesterday.
    > >>
    > >> I'm no closer to deciding which architecture to go with in terms of
    > >> performance. I am choosing between:
    > >>
    > >> - dual processor, dual core AMD Opteron 2.4GHz, 800MHz FSB, 2GbMHz 400MHz
    > >> DDR SDRAM.
    > >>
    > >> or
    > >>
    > >> - single processor, quad core Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800, 2.93GHz,
    > >> 1066MHz FSB, 2Gb 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM.
    > >>
    > >> Given the architectural differences, I'd say they're pretty much evenly
    > >> paced - the AMD will be cooler and consume less power, which is a bonus.
    > >>
    > >> I want raw performance for running Gentoo Linux, compiling software,
    > >> running
    > >> multiple virtual machines inside VMWare Workstation with heavy processes
    > >> inside them.
    > >>
    > >> Assume for a minute that cost isn't an issue, which setup would you
    > >> prefer,
    > >> and why?
    > >>
    > >> Ta,
    > >> Allistar.

    > >
    > >
    > > Dunno, all I heard was that the new Intel chips whup AMD hands down.

    >
    > I've decided to go with the Intel quad core. From all of the reviews I've
    > read the Intel quad core outperforms a dual cpu, dual core opteron in most
    > tests. My concerns are of power, heat and performance. I think with the
    > system I've put together it should perform quite well for the next few
    > years at least.
    >
    > Another question: The m/b has a 1066MHz FSB. Do I need to match the DDR2
    > memory speed to that to get optimal performance? I can get 2x2Gb 1066MHz
    > DDR2 SDRAM chips, but could fit more in for the same dollars if the speed
    > was less.


    I would *guess* so - try out some 'cheaper' RAM vs Corsair, I bet only
    the Corsair handles it. It's not cheap though :( I'm sure your
    supplier will let you put it to the test though.

    --
    Duncan
     
    Dave Doe, Jan 22, 2007
    #10
  11. Allistar

    thingy Guest

    Allistar wrote:
    > whome wrote:
    >
    >> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Hi all,
    >>> This is a followup to the "Hard disk died!" message I send yesterday.
    >>>
    >>> I'm no closer to deciding which architecture to go with in terms of
    >>> performance. I am choosing between:
    >>>
    >>> - dual processor, dual core AMD Opteron 2.4GHz, 800MHz FSB, 2GbMHz 400MHz
    >>> DDR SDRAM.
    >>>
    >>> or
    >>>
    >>> - single processor, quad core Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800, 2.93GHz,
    >>> 1066MHz FSB, 2Gb 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM.
    >>>
    >>> Given the architectural differences, I'd say they're pretty much evenly
    >>> paced - the AMD will be cooler and consume less power, which is a bonus.
    >>>
    >>> I want raw performance for running Gentoo Linux, compiling software,
    >>> running
    >>> multiple virtual machines inside VMWare Workstation with heavy processes
    >>> inside them.


    Xen should be available? if you are looking for raw speed I'd suspect
    Xen will be the faster....

    >>> Assume for a minute that cost isn't an issue, which setup would you
    >>> prefer,
    >>> and why?
    >>>
    >>> Ta,
    >>> Allistar.

    >>
    >> Dunno, all I heard was that the new Intel chips whup AMD hands down.

    >
    > I've decided to go with the Intel quad core. From all of the reviews I've
    > read the Intel quad core outperforms a dual cpu, dual core opteron in most
    > tests. My concerns are of power, heat and performance. I think with the
    > system I've put together it should perform quite well for the next few
    > years at least.
    >
    > Another question: The m/b has a 1066MHz FSB. Do I need to match the DDR2
    > memory speed to that to get optimal performance? I can get 2x2Gb 1066MHz
    > DDR2 SDRAM chips, but could fit more in for the same dollars if the speed
    > was less.
    >
    > Allistar.


    Vmware eats ram fast....so the more guests you want the more ram needed.
    I would go for as much Ram as possible, so while theoretically
    slightly slower, slower ram but more of it will give better performance
    I suspect...probably 4 gig or at least 2....

    We are running 8 gig in our blades and have run out of ram before
    consuming more than 10% of the CPU GHz....so we are upgrading to 16
    Gig....that will allow 14 server instances per blade....so you could
    probably downgrade the CPU slightly and get more ram instead.

    eg from our workloads a Dell 2900 with two x quad core CPUs at 2.66Ghz
    and 24Gig of ram will run 20 guest servers....at 35k taht is $1700 per
    server.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Jan 22, 2007
    #11
  12. On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:48:46 +1300, Allistar wrote:

    > I've decided to go with the Intel quad core. From all of the reviews I've
    > read the Intel quad core outperforms a dual cpu, dual core opteron in most
    > tests.


    What about upgradability?

    Or do you think that when that time comes you will buy a completely new
    computer again?


    --
    Dianthus Mimulus

    Microsoft's business practises exposed in court:
    http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/dsprgmnt.html#_Toc447960918
     
    Dianthus Mimulus, Jan 22, 2007
    #12
  13. On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:48:46 +1300, Allistar wrote:

    > Another question: The m/b has a 1066MHz FSB. Do I need to match the DDR2
    > memory speed to that to get optimal performance? I can get 2x2Gb 1066MHz
    > DDR2 SDRAM chips, but could fit more in for the same dollars if the speed
    > was less.


    I thought that DDR2 clocked at half the clock speed of the FSB. Is that
    not correct?


    --
    Dianthus Mimulus

    Microsoft's business practises exposed in court:
    http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/dsprgmnt.html#_Toc447960918
     
    Dianthus Mimulus, Jan 22, 2007
    #13
  14. On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 07:02:00 +1300, thingy wrote:

    > We are running 8 gig in our blades and have run out of ram before
    > consuming more than 10% of the CPU GHz....so we are upgrading to 16
    > Gig....that will allow 14 server instances per blade....so you could
    > probably downgrade the CPU slightly and get more ram instead.


    <grin>

    So you'll probably get 20% of CPU utilisation. :eek:)

    What I think I hear you saying is that RAM in a server is more important
    that raw CPU speed.


    --
    Dianthus Mimulus

    Microsoft's business practises exposed in court:
    http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/dsprgmnt.html#_Toc447960918
     
    Dianthus Mimulus, Jan 22, 2007
    #14
  15. On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:06:03 +1300, Allistar wrote:

    > The 6800 is still only dual core. I've seen examples of overclocking the
    > quad core qx6700, but I'm not sure I'm game enough to risk frying a $1900
    > processor!


    But what about dual sockets running two cores per socket?


    --
    Dianthus Mimulus

    Microsoft's business practises exposed in court:
    http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/dsprgmnt.html#_Toc447960918
     
    Dianthus Mimulus, Jan 22, 2007
    #15
  16. On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 20:56:05 +1300, Allistar wrote:

    > My concern with both options is that the Opteron seems to be an end of line
    > product now that the new Socket F's are coming out, and the Intel quad core
    > seems to be a beginning of line product - it's the first of it's kind.


    Isn't there some sort of thing about leaving early adopters to sort out the
    problems? :eek:)


    --
    Dianthus Mimulus

    Microsoft's business practises exposed in court:
    http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/dsprgmnt.html#_Toc447960918
     
    Dianthus Mimulus, Jan 22, 2007
    #16
  17. Allistar

    Allistar Guest

    Dianthus Mimulus wrote:

    > On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 20:56:05 +1300, Allistar wrote:
    >
    >> My concern with both options is that the Opteron seems to be an end of
    >> line product now that the new Socket F's are coming out, and the Intel
    >> quad core seems to be a beginning of line product - it's the first of
    >> it's kind.

    >
    > Isn't there some sort of thing about leaving early adopters to sort out
    > the problems? :eek:)


    Yes, but I want this new machine *now*, so future products are no good to
    me. At least with the Intel option I have a path forward, choosing a socket
    940 Opteron system leaves me at a dead end once the socket F systems and
    2xxx and 8xxx processors become mainstream. I share your concern though.

    Allistar.
     
    Allistar, Jan 22, 2007
    #17
  18. Allistar

    Allistar Guest

    Dianthus Mimulus wrote:

    > On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:06:03 +1300, Allistar wrote:
    >
    >> The 6800 is still only dual core. I've seen examples of overclocking the
    >> quad core qx6700, but I'm not sure I'm game enough to risk frying a $1900
    >> processor!

    >
    > But what about dual sockets running two cores per socket?


    I couldn't find any motherboards that would do dual processors with the
    Pentium Core Duo chips. There are plenty for Xeon. I reckon a quad core in
    one package would outperform two dual cores.

    Allistar.
     
    Allistar, Jan 22, 2007
    #18
  19. Allistar

    Allistar Guest

    Dianthus Mimulus wrote:

    > On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:48:46 +1300, Allistar wrote:
    >
    >> Another question: The m/b has a 1066MHz FSB. Do I need to match the DDR2
    >> memory speed to that to get optimal performance? I can get 2x2Gb 1066MHz
    >> DDR2 SDRAM chips, but could fit more in for the same dollars if the speed
    >> was less.

    >
    > I thought that DDR2 clocked at half the clock speed of the FSB. Is that
    > not correct?


    Not sure - that's beyond my knowledge. I've asked the technical dudes at
    Ascent. If that's true, what's the point of selling 1066MHz SDRAM? I know
    of no CPU that is double that speed.

    Allistar.
     
    Allistar, Jan 22, 2007
    #19
  20. Allistar

    Allistar Guest

    Dianthus Mimulus wrote:

    > On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:48:46 +1300, Allistar wrote:
    >
    >> I've decided to go with the Intel quad core. From all of the reviews I've
    >> read the Intel quad core outperforms a dual cpu, dual core opteron in
    >> most tests.

    >
    > What about upgradability?


    I tend to hold onto PC's for ages - I expect this one to last years, at
    which point there's bound to be a new architecture out - hopefully by then
    AMD offering look better. I've had my current P4 2.4GHz P4PE system for
    about 5 years now, and before that it was a PII 266 for about the same
    amount of time.

    > Or do you think that when that time comes you will buy a completely new
    > computer again?


    My intention is for that to be ages in the future.

    Allistar.
     
    Allistar, Jan 22, 2007
    #20
    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. lib
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    515
  2. lib
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    664
  3. l#

    GIVE ME FILM OR GIVE ME DEATH

    l#, Jul 14, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    591
    Lookingglass
    Jul 14, 2005
  4. Anuj
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    493
  5. Ian
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,398
Loading...

Share This Page