Advice needed for new PC: dual Xeon or dual Opteron, or neither...

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Toby, Apr 16, 2004.

  1. Toby

    Michael-NC Guest

    As you saw in another response, I told him he's either a troll or a stupid
    bastard but I may have been wrong...

    I think he fits both descriptions. Thanks for the confirmation!
     
    Michael-NC, Apr 19, 2004
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Toby

    Michael-NC Guest

    That's a big 10-4

    Lol!
     
    Michael-NC, Apr 19, 2004
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Toby

    Uni Guest

    I don't care what anyone thinks of me in usenet. Usenet is full of
    unintelligent people, just like you. Go play a game on your AMD, or
    watch TV. Thanks.

    Uni
     
    Uni, Apr 19, 2004
    #43
  4. Toby

    Aratzio Guest


    Herd mentality has never impressed me.
     
    Aratzio, Apr 19, 2004
    #44
  5. Toby

    Aratzio Guest


    Go play on your CB radio.
     
    Aratzio, Apr 19, 2004
    #45
  6. Toby

    Hecate Guest

    In fact, as I pointed out above, better. Intel are having to license
    the AMD libraries so their 64 bit chips will run 32 bit apps.

    --

    Hecate

    veni, vidi, reliqui
     
    Hecate, Apr 19, 2004
    #46
  7. Toby

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    Yes, which is why Cray (the supercomputer company) chose the AMD Opteron
    over the Intel Itanium.
     
    DeMoN LaG, Apr 19, 2004
    #47
  8. Toby

    Thor Guest


    If they had chosen the Itanium, does that mean the new computer would have
    been called the "Cranium"? LOL!
     
    Thor, Apr 19, 2004
    #48
  9. Wow, there's a *lot* of bad information in this thread.

    First of all, there is nothing *wrong* with AMD processors. They do not
    "crash and overheat," as has been mentioned by some know-nothings.
    Arguing between Intel and AMD is like arguing between Chevy and Ford.
    They are practically exactly the same, but everyone has their own
    preferences, based on personal anecdotes, and what-not. Do not let
    quality become an issue in your decision, as there is no difference
    between the two. Also, the Opterons function perfectly well as 32-bit
    processors, which is all you should really be concerned about, as a
    64-bit Windows OS as well as 64-bit versions of your software are still
    in the future and you seem to be in need a hardware today. So while the
    Opteron's 64-bit abilities are certainly not disadvantages, do not
    factor on them too much as an advantage, either. Make your decisions on
    the 32-bit performance of all your options.

    Anandtech is widely regarded as a reputable and honest hardware
    reviewer. They have some well-executed set of benchmarks pitting dual
    and quad Opterons against dual and quad P4s.

    Web-serving: http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1935
    Database: http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982

    Neither of these benchmarks fully addresses content-creation
    performance, but other single-CPU benchmarks have. You should be able
    to find a plethora of these reviews/benchmarks from Anandtech as well as
    several other review sites. You should always gather as much
    information as you can from a wide-variety of sources, before making any
    purchasing decision.

    Now, for my *personal* opinions on the matter. *I* would probably go
    with the Dual Opterons (244 : 1.8GHz : ~420USD/each) over the Xeon
    3.0GHz. They are equivalent in price, with the Opterons offering
    slightly better performance, due to it advanced memory architecture,
    which would probably play a large role in your applications. And you
    still get a *small* bit of future proofing with the Opterons, due to
    their 64-bit abilities. You can pretty much bet that you won't get any
    additional performance out of Xeons simply with software upgrades, but
    64-bit editions of Windows and PS/UF could theoretically give you a
    boost, as they would "unlock" some of the Opteron's features, such as
    additions registers, etc.

    Good luck.
     
    cK-Gunslinger, Apr 19, 2004
    #49
  10. Toby

    Michael-NC Guest

    That's a big 10-4 to _you_

    Good buddy...
     
    Michael-NC, Apr 20, 2004
    #50
  11. Toby

    Michael-NC Guest

    Well I heard mentality isn't all it's cracked up to be...
     
    Michael-NC, Apr 20, 2004
    #51
  12. Toby

    Michael-NC Guest

    Really? I thought Intel wrote their own 64Bit extensions and they were
    identical to AMD, save one instruction. It's widely assumed that 100%
    compatibility will eventually ensue. Something happen just recently?
     
    Michael-NC, Apr 20, 2004
    #52
  13. Toby

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    They didn't write their own, they just copied the standard x86-64
    instruction set, and omitted that instruction.
     
    DeMoN LaG, Apr 20, 2004
    #53
  14. Toby

    Hecate Guest

    Yes. Last month Intel announced that their 64 bit chips would now
    include libraries optimised to run 32 bit apps. When pressed by the
    er, press, they admitted that these libraries were the AMD libraries
    that AMD are using in their Athlon 64s.

    --

    Hecate

    veni, vidi, reliqui
     
    Hecate, Apr 20, 2004
    #54
  15. Toby

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    Can you link to this please? Intel's 64-bit chips are either the Xeon with
    64-bit support (which has nothing to do with libraries), which is x86-
    64/AMD64 compatible, or the Itanium, which runs 32bit code through the use
    of emulation layer software.

    Libraries are software concepts, and other than being platform dependant,
    don't really care whether the CPU is made by Intel or AMD. An example is
    when you compile a program and include a library that uses SSE. The
    program doesn't care whether the CPU is AMD, Intel, Via, or whoever, as
    long as it can run SSE code.

    Also, unless you are refering to the Itanium (which is going to include
    optimised libraries on Linux to run it's 32bit emulation code, nothing to
    do with AMD), Intel licensed nothing. There is no license required to
    create an x86-64 complient processor as I understand the licensing
    requirements. Intel basically just reverse engineered an AMD model and
    copied it. The different is Intel's AMD64 chips do not feature the NX bit.
    With an AMD chip, a programmer can designate a segment of memory as data
    only, not to be executed. What that means is a buffer overrun
    vulnerability is not possible anymore, as even if a hacker can overrun the
    buffer, the CPU will not execute the code in that buffer anyway.
     
    DeMoN LaG, Apr 20, 2004
    #55
  16. Toby

    Xalinai Guest

    The Uni ist the resident troll of comp.graphics.apps.paint-shop-pro.

    It sometimes strolls into other groups like c.g.a.photoshop to get
    some slaps for being a nitwit, then leave those groups to return home
    instead of burning its PC and leaving forever.

    Ignore it.

    Michael
     
    Xalinai, Apr 20, 2004
    #56
  17. Toby

    Uni Guest


    Thanks.

    By the way, Xalinai, I posted, to your attention, a confirmation that a
    computer will not burn up, as you claimed, but will run cooler without a
    case side panel. I posted it in the Paint Shop Pro (your favorite
    software) *hehehe* group. PSP is a good mate for an AMD - if one doesn't
    crash, the other will.

    :)

    Enjoy.

    :)

    Uni
     
    Uni, Apr 20, 2004
    #57
  18. Toby

    Michael-NC Guest

    Yeah, I had him pegged as a troll in his first few posts. Actually, I had
    him pegged as a pitiful, attention craving, damaged individual in his first
    few posts. My sympathies that this asswipe infects your NG.
     
    Michael-NC, Apr 21, 2004
    #58
  19. Toby

    Michael-NC Guest

    I don't believe they omitted any particular instruction, just wrote their
    own and therefore claimed that 64 bit compatibility between AMD and Intel
    was not a given. It is assumed that Intel will just buckle under and adopt
    AMD instructions 100%. I going from memory here, on a article in Maximum PC.
     
    Michael-NC, Apr 21, 2004
    #59
  20. Toby

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    They left out AMD's NX bit and the instructions to turn it on and off. NX
    stands for No Execute, and lets someone tag an area of memory as non
    executable, which completely and totally eliminates any buffer overrun
    vulnerability.
     
    DeMoN LaG, Apr 21, 2004
    #60
    1. Advertisements

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 (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.