Slashdot Mirror


VIA K8T800 Chipset Preview - Dual Opteron in Action

Mr.Tweak writes "It has been a long time coming but we are finally reaching the beginning stages of 64-bit mainstream computing. AMD has been the first to bring a 64-bit processor to the market with any true support in the Opteron. VIA is one of the key chipset companies supporting AMD64 and today TweakTown takes a preview look at their new K8T800 chipset with AMD Opteron 242 and 244 processors. 64-bit computing is boarding - don't miss the train!"

52 of 258 comments (clear)

  1. Yes, but... by Sir+Haxalot · · Score: 5, Funny

    64-bit computing is boarding - don't miss the train!
    I'll get on the train when the fare is a bit less.

    --
    I have over 70 freaks, do you?
    1. Re:Yes, but... by G-funk · · Score: 3, Funny

      2 x 32-bit equals 1 x 64-bit, right?

      Only if you work for atari.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
  2. Well. by JanusFury · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As much as I'd love to board the train, the ticket price is a bit expensive, especially because I don't know exactly where the train goes.

    I'm sure this is true for most other computer users as well. 64-bit on the x86 desktop is not really a 'mature' technology, even though it's been done before with Alpha and Itanium... I for one would hate to spend lots of money moving to an Opteron-based platform, to find out that one of my devices doesn't work or that one of my programs doesn't work. So I suspect that the risk involved (even though it's rather minimal, really) probably is going to keep a lot of people from moving to Opteron and co. for a while.

    --
    using namespace slashdot;
    troll::post();
    1. Re:Well. by brokencomputer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I doubt that using a 64bit processor would cause one of your devices "not to work". I don't see why only one of your program's wouldnt work.

    2. Re:Well. by Electrode · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because in 64-bit mode, the size of long is 8 bytes. Some programes have a major problem with that, as I've so painfully discovered...

    3. Re:Well. by selderrr · · Score: 2, Informative

      it's not the price that's holding me back (I'm considering a dual xeon for some serious SGML crunching) but rather the question of "what's the added value of 64bit for me here ?"

      I'm doing fine with my 3GB Ram. 6 would be nice, but so far I can stay out of thrashland at safe distance. So the potential speed gain would be minimal. Since it's an 1.4GB ASCII sgml, I don't need 64 bit numbers either...
      Honestly : there's no reason for me right now to go 64bit, and I consider myself a high-end desktop user. I can imagine the low to middle end having even fewer reasons, given the uncertainty of 64 future right now.

    4. Re:Well. by Ed+Avis · · Score: 5, Informative

      For the relatively small number of programs (at least on Linux) that have trouble with 64-bit longs, just compile as i386 code. The Opteron is backwards compatible with 32-bit code and gets reasonable performance out of it.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    5. Re:Well. by ynohoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The only applications that would currently require this are fairly high-end scientific/business processing.

      Until the FPS/MMORG games start requiring it that is...

    6. Re:Well. by hattig · · Score: 5, Informative

      The really useful thing about the Opteron isn't the 64-bit aspect, but the fact that in 64-bit mode you get a lot more registers, etc, to play with. This in turn means that code compiled for the 64-bit mode will run faster than the code compiled for the 32-bit mode. Also the on-die memory controller means that memory latency is much lower, which in turn means things run faster. I'd buy a dual Opteron machine over a dual Xeon machine anyday.

    7. Re:Well. by cowbud · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That is exactly why I won't even bother with this processor. If I have the source and it doesn't work with 64 I can compile it as 32 ok great. Now if I buy a game or something that I do not have the source for and it doesn't work what then? Companies will continue to distribute 32Bit applications, because they can support the most amount of platforms that way. As a result the 64 bit processor will just sit there doing 32bit operations.

      The train is a beast, but the desitinations are limited

      Great :)

    8. Re:Well. by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 4, Informative

      it's not the price that's holding me back (I'm considering a dual xeon for some serious SGML crunching) but rather the question of "what's the added value of 64bit for me here ?"

      I'm doing fine with my 3GB Ram...


      On a 32 bit architecture, the kernel has to use nasty, expensive tricks to address memory over 3/4GB (for the default 1:3 userspace/kernel memory split). These tricks require lots of TLB invalidations, which are painfully slow, since the cache has to be reloaded from main memory. 64 bit architectures can just directly address that high memory, so you get a speed boost. How much, I don't know yet, since I don't have an Opteron at hand to benchmark. It will be quite measurable.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    9. Re:Well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      AI stuff can benefit, since Lisp on 64-bit architectures is especially nice. Lisp code on 64-bit architectures with 64-bit address space is significantly better performance than on 32-bit architectures, as you can implement many language primitive datatypes within the 64-bit quad, and still have a few high-bits for type-tagging, making a sort of virtual tagged memory architecture.

      That means a dynamically-typed language with comparable performance to statically-typed.

      Historically, one of the significant markets for Alpha processors was people running the Genera virtual lisp machine.

    10. Re:Well. by eakerin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The original Intel 32 bit processors did exactly that, they sat for YEARS running 16 bit code on a 32 bit processor, because no one made 32 bit apps.

      Have patience, 64 bit apps will come, it's just a matter of time.

    11. Re:Well. by mr3038 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Now if I buy a game or something that I do not have the source for and it doesn't work what then? Companies will continue to distribute 32Bit applications, because they can support the most amount of platforms that way. As a result the 64 bit processor will just sit there doing 32bit operations.

      Yes, not all applications are or will be 64 bit. You're practically guaranteed not to ever see 16 bit programs again because a 16 bit processor can address only 64 KB of memory without some hack like segmented memory. 32 bit processor can address 4 GB of memory and for many programs, that is more than is needed for the task even in theory. It simply doesn't make sense to use 64 bit programs for such applications unless those applications do some heavy integer math. The 64 bit accessing mode is for programs that require that much memory that 4GB simply isn't enough. Currently, it's only databases that require that much memory.

      The future is different, though. I predict that within 5 years, some computer games require more than 4GB of memory to run effectively. In addition to that, multitasking is becoming more and more important and if we want to keep linear address space then we need more virtual memory. Even today, a single threaded program can exhaust the whole 4GB address space with thread stacks (every thread has 2MB of virtual address space for its stack by default; start 1000 threads and you just lost half of the usable addresses...). If that program needs to access some devices via mmap()ed memory, then the address space comes as a limitation again. Think about a web server that runs with 1000 threads and serves 3 GB worth of content: it cannot use mmap()ed access to those files in a 32 bit processor or at least it must close some files before opening the rest. Latest P4 or Athlon CPUs could probably do the require computing but 32 bit addressing isn't enough for the task.

      In short, we need at least 64 bit CPU and OS. It could be even wiser to run mostly 32 bit applications on top of that to preserve some L1 instruction cache (64 bit instructions take more space), however. The whole point of using Opteron instead of some other 64 bit processor is that it doesn't take meaningful performance hit running legacy code (= 32 bit code compiled for older CPUs) and it can run those legacy apps native without some software emulation layer. If all you need is a 64 bit CPU, there're better choices.

      We really need only 64 bit addressing space but if you do that right, you get a 64 bit CPU as a result.

      --
      _________________________
      Spelling and grammar mistakes left as an exercise for the reader.
    12. Re:Well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "... because a 16 bit processor can address only 64 KB of memory ..."

      Uh... no.

      Traditionally, a 16 bit processor means a processor with a 16 bit databus.

      This doesn't restrict either register size or address space (ie number of address lines).

      My 68K was a 16bit CPU... with 32bit registers and a 24bit address space.

      My Z80 was an 8bit CPU ... with a 16bit address space.

      Likewise, it would be techically perfectly feasible to make a 32bit CPU with a 64bit address space - without hacks - or a 16bit CPU with an 8bit address space.

      Modern 64bit processors are 64 bits for "everything". Well, in reality, a 48bit address space, and 40 address lines, at least for the opteron.

  3. AMD the first? by LeninZhiv · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think the distinction between PC and RISC is quickly becoming obsolete, and so perhaps one should be including the UltraSparc IIe that's in the SunBlade 100/150, which retail for less than most new PC's.

    By all accounts this is not the best of the current 64-bit chips, but I think it was the first to be offered in "PC-priced" systems.

    1. Re:AMD the first? by paitre · · Score: 2, Informative

      AMD beat Apple to market by about 3 months on this one, mate. 'sides, I know of a handful of them that have been ordered that -haven't- shown up (G5s).
      I played with Opty's months ago. :)

    2. Re:AMD the first? by borgboy · · Score: 2, Informative

      You dont know? It wouldn't have been hard to find out

      --
      meh.
    3. Re:AMD the first? by kermit6306 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are probably folks out there that will sell you an Opteron based box. Of course, OS X is still 32-bit. Linux and Windows XP are already 64-bit. When Mac finally goes 64-bit in the OS and takes full advantage of the PPC970 hardare (and not just memory address space) then I would consider a Unix based, 64-bit, firmware based computer to be as far removed from a PC as a Sun Blade. I've built a 21164 based Alpha that runs 64-bit Windows 2000. ATX motherboard, VGA card, the whole 9 yards. That was over a year ago (Windows 2000 for Alpha Beta released over 3 years ago). Windows NT for alpha was released as far back as 95 IIRC, but that was 32-bit too so you really can't count that. 21064 alpha based AT style computers were popping up as far back as 91-92 I believe. 64-bit is old hat at this point. It's just too bad AMD doesn't have the Intel/IBM kind of cash to dump into this and Intel can't get their act together. (Wow, Jerry Sanders' talk about K8/Hypertransport in 1998 seems like a lifetime ago.) I have to hand it to Apple though, they come really far and are almost there. They really stuck it to the giants on 64-bit (I guess everyone still has work to do). People should really get all those CAD/EDA Unix/NT apps over to OS X.

  4. 64-bit computing is just now boarding? by Surak · · Score: 5, Informative

    Where have you been? I've had a 64-bit machine for almost 5 years now. ;) It's even been EOLed since July 2002.

  5. Readable hardware reviews by Ed+Avis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just once, it would be nice to have a link to a motherboard review that wasn't split over 15 different sections.

    'Without dragging on anymore, let's see what VIA's K8T800 chipset is capable of' - well, without dragging on any more than going to the next page after about two paragraphs...

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    1. Re:Readable hardware reviews by semaj · · Score: 4, Informative

      I know it's a pain... more advertising revenue for them though I guess.

      I always hit the printable version and cancel the print dialog. Plus that means modem users have a chance to read the article in less than a week. :-)

      --
      Meep meep
  6. Memory by I_am_Rambi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The via board hinders the opteron. Instead of utilizing both on-chip memory controllers, it only uses one. You can see better results if you added a second set of memory banks for the second opteron to use.

    There are more dual boards also including Tyans Thuder K8W. Rumor has it that nvidia will be coming out with a nforce chipset that will support dual opterons also.

    Benchmarks
    246 Benchmark
    Overclocked 246

    1. Re:Memory by msgmonkey · · Score: 2, Informative

      NUMA is n't about utilizing memory space, it's purpose is to reduce the amount of contention on a bus, a 64-bit address space actually helps you. Contention is the the reason adding >2 processors on a board only gets you marginal spreed improvements since there is n't enough bandwidth on the bus for all the processors.

      With NUMA instead of sharing the memory and memory bus each processor has it's own local memory and a special bus for accessing other processors memory. Accessing local bus is always at 100% speed whilst the inter-processor communication bus is always slower. This setup means that you get much better performance when you have a large amount of CPU's.

      The problem with this setup is that you need an OS that is aware of this. Also some applications would have to be rejigged to get maxiumum performance.

      Also remember that the Opteron does n't have a traditional bus as such, it uses HyperTransport for communication between the CPU and external peripherals. From what I can gather on this dual chipset the second CPU has its memory controller turned off and that all memory requests are serviced by the 1st CPU over the HyperTransport bus via the chipset. How optimal this setup is I cant say.

  7. Pointless use of dual proc by bgp4 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While it's slick that they had a dual proc board and all... none of the tests they used used the dual proc-ness of the system. They even indicate in their results that the second proc just threw overhead into the system.

    They've asked for help getting some dual proc benchmarking software. It would be great if someone could help them out. I'm really curious what that box is ACTUALLY capable of. IT's a goodly amount of horsepower with a reasonable amount of L2 cache with 64-bits of data-y goodness. It could make a heck of a "workgroup" size database server.... for a lot less than Sun's workgroup servers.

    I think this next gen of procs (and their 64-bitness) is going to put another dent in Sun. First, lowend *NIX servers based on x86 put a huge dent in their pizza box market. Now, consumer grade 64-bit procs will probably start to eat heavily into their midrange market (like the 220R and that realm). In the big iron... well, that's contentious already. No need to to mess with them there ;)

    --
    I'm down with that, as it were
  8. C'T Review by gmania · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is a nice review in the latest german C'T too (issue 18 - page 36) of the MSI K8T Master2FAR board with dual opteron support, Via K8T800/VT8237 chipset and a lot of nice features (AGP, SATA, GBit Ethernet). Size constaints meant only a single memory-bus is implemented, a 5-10% speed bump on memory access. Another downside is no PCI-X slots.

    The nicest thing though is the price: 280 euros. Sounds like a good workstation board.

    1. Re:C'T Review by DarkSarin · · Score: 5, Informative

      go for this the s2885 from tyan. It has PCI-X, AGP, SATA, GBe, and hold 16GB RAM... Can't lose.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    2. Re:C'T Review by rsborg · · Score: 2, Informative
      However, the lack of AGP, huge size and price render it more suitable for server usage, and we were talking mainstream (i.e. desktop) usage afterall.

      What are you talking about??? Did you even view the link? This board (the s2880) has AGP and is ATX form factor. True, this maybe more server oriented with the oboard graphics card, but I see no reason (other than price, maybe) why this can't be a desktop/workstation mobo.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  9. Overclocking, tweaking, overclock, tweak by dorlthed · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does anyone else think this site is a little weird? "PGA or Pin Grid Array can be separated into two parts: the first being Pin, which in this case is the small metal pins we see coming from the bottom of the processor and the other is the Grid Array." Well bless my stars! Who knew?!

    1. Re:Overclocking, tweaking, overclock, tweak by dorkus1138 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Did you notice that their lovely benchmarks compare only Opterons? Good grief! Give me a base case for a good comparison, I don't keep specs of my computer in my head all the time dammit. These guys have always been idiots. They had a review of a mouse pad once that was supposed to be a better surface for your roller mouse. They used an optical mouse for the review. Hey, here it is: http://www.tweaktown.com/document.php?dType=review &dId=28

  10. The first 64-bit platform (with qualifiers...) by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 2, Insightful

    True support... such as developing their own motherboard chipsets, like Intel, instead of farming the task out to VIA??

    Don't get me wrong, AMD has done rather well relying on 3rd parties to develop mobo chipsets for them, but I'm not sure I'd call NOT having at least 1 in-house chipset solution "true support". If VIA and NVIDIA decided to dump AMD for some reason, they'd suddenly be in a pretty lousy position.

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    1. Re:The first 64-bit platform (with qualifiers...) by Junta · · Score: 4, Informative

      Obviously you didn't do any research. Here is a board I've gotten to work with, complete with AMD chipset:
      http://www.amdboard.com/msi_k8d_master.h tml

      And all currently announced chipsets:
      http://www.amdboard.com/opteron_chipset s.html
      AMD themselves, nVidia, and VIA.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re:The first 64-bit platform (with qualifiers...) by kdsolutions · · Score: 2, Interesting

      is being pedantic similar to being a smartass? If so, that's me.

      And, actually, as another example, IBM is IBM's trademark, and ibm is not.

      --
      Error 666 - Satanic SCO code found in your Linux kernel.
  11. This is great news for us by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... the majority of people who want to pay less for the same computers. Whenever a new super-duper computer comes up, a minority fringe with too much money (that I was once part of) blows ungodly amounts of money to get it, driving down the cost of perfectly serviceable, good, fast, but older computers for the rest of us.

    So I say go AMD64 and go KIA, so I can buy those Athlons 2000+ based-machines I need even cheaper.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  12. Spooky Slashdot tagline... by Zocalo · · Score: 2, Funny
    Just got to the bottom of the thread and what do I found for the Slashdot tag:

    #if _FP_W_TYPE_SIZE < 32 #error "Here's a nickle kid. Go buy yourself a real computer." #endif -- linux/arch/sparc64/double.h

    So, the Slashdot Oracle is endorsing Sparc over Opteron? To hear is to obey, Master! ;)

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  13. 64 bit processors running 32 bit software by mkosmul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure, the benchmarks are impressive, but it would be nice to see more benchmarks using 64-bit-optimized software (eg. an optimized gromacs). 32 bit software just doesn't use all the power these chips have.

  14. "Finally"? by mblase · · Score: 4, Informative

    It has been a long time coming but we are finally reaching the beginning stages of 64-bit mainstream computing.

    I guess you didn't hear about the Apple PowerMac G5 when it was announced months ago and began shipping last week, then....

    1. Re:"Finally"? by hattig · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't call a computer system 64-bit when the OS it is running is 32-bit. Sure, the CPU is 64-bit, but it looks like the only 64-bit OS that will be running on those PowerMacs in the near future will be Linux. :D

    2. Re:"Finally"? by FatherOfONe · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well I have had my dual Opteron system for about three weeks now, AND I ordered a G5 over a month ago.... The G5 still hasn't shipped to me (I ordered the 1.8GH model). Even if it did the Opteron was out more than a month ago.

      Now granted the article should say something like, this is the first somewhat affordable x86 chip to provide 64 bit computing.

      There are many other links that have excellent benchmark results of the Opteron. Specifically, toms hardware has a great review, but to sum most of the review up...
      The dual Opteron 244 kicks the crap out of a dual Xeon in most linux server type benchmarks. This is WITH 32 bit code. The next step is to get code that is still 32 bit but compiled for the Opteron. i.e. Oracle wich is out now. This gives you another small gain in performance and then lastly you can test again with pure 64 bit compiled programs. The last "MAY" give you some performance increase over 32 bit programs recompiled, but that depends on the program. An example would be a simple "hello world" would not run any faster, but a database that needs more than 4GB of memory should perform better.

      So for our company we didn't compare the Opteron to a Itanium, but to a Xeon and the dual Opteron smokes it.

      Note, that I always say dual Opteron, because a single Opteron doesn't perform any better than the current 32bit X86 chips. In most cases it performs worse. One of the key factors with the Opteron is the way the chips talk to the front side bus. This is currently the bottleneck in most dual/quad processor x86 systems. AMD has somewhat handled this bottleneck by allowing both chips to have a separate path to "some" RAM and providing a larger amount of data to pass from processor to RAM. I can't speak for the quad and eight way systems, but for the dual processor systems this makes a HUGE difference.

      In our environment, a dual Opteron 1.8GH beats a QUAD 2.8GH Xeon in performance (with Oracle). Given that Oracle charges us 15k per CPU + 4k a year, that is a huge savings, and we are not forced to go to a pure 64 bit system today.

      Intel addresses the front side bus issue to RAM by increasing the on die cache of the Xeon. So they released a 1MB version of the Xeon 3GH (they had a 512MB version before), to combat the Opteron. The problem is that it didn't help that much. Intel's solution would be to include X86 code, "done well, not the crappy way it is done now" in the Itanium, and lower the price to under a grand. I doubt they will do that any time soon, so it looks like this will give AMD a good path to the small server market. Factor that in with IBM and SUN wanting to use their stuff in new server, things look ok for the Opteron.

      I still don't know how well the AMD Athlon 64 will be though. That chip isn't due to be released until next month. That is the replacement for the current Athlons, and for AMD's sake it better beat a P4 in most Windows stuff.

      --
      The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
    3. Re:"Finally"? by jaywee · · Score: 2, Informative

      [QUOTE]
      but a database that needs more than 4GB of memory should perform better.
      [/QUOTE]

      I believe any reasonable database will perform much better on 64bit than 32bit even 4GB. For one simple reason - databases are internally using 64bit counters for everything and 64bit int on 64bit cpu is perfect fit :)

  15. enough already by BenjyD · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Repeat after me: 64 bit processors aren't new. There's no new "computing fad" leaving the station. No new architectural wonder.

    They aren't even new in desktop machines. I just threw out an Alphastation4 with a 64 bit 21064 from 1996 or something (nearly put my back out lugging the thing down the stairs. They built computers to last in those days). That was a competitor with the Pentium Pro IIRC. Many of the machines where I work were 64 bit ultrasparc before we started to go 32 bit x86.

    That said, the new athlon does look pretty damn fast.

  16. Slashdoted...Here is the Article... by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 4, Informative

    For those of you that wanted the grapics, I'll be taking an ASCII Art Course for the next one 8p

    Introduction

    We saw the release of the Opteron processor earlier this year which was powered by AMD's own 8131 Northbridge. With many months passed since and a lot of R&D invested, it was time to see what VIA were capable of when given the latest 64-bit processor to play with from AMD. The latest chipset to hit the market from the Taiwanese chipset manufacturer comes in the shape of the K8T800 and carries over everything you need when it comes to inserting those brand new processors into VIA-powered motherboards.

    The K8T800 chipset carries over with it the latest Southbridge from VIA, the VT8237, which we were very impressed with when reviewing the PT800 only last month. It carries over the same features which we will look more into later on.

    Due to the limitation in server hardware and server benchmarking software, we have chosen to write a preview on the chipset with a lot of benchmarks with different processor environments. We will help give people an understanding of the technology and the future it has.

    Without dragging on anymore, let's see what VIA's K8T800 chipset is capable of when powered with some of the newest and most powerful processors to hit the market from Advanced Micro Devices.

    The Opteron Processor

    Before we get into talking about the chipset, we will take a moment to have a look at the processor which will be accompanying our test motherboard today.

    The AMD Opteron is the latest processor to hit the market and carries the long awaited 64-bit architecture to the retail market. While we have seen Intel release a 64-bit processor to the market in the shape of the Itanium and Itanium 2 some time ago, it was one product that the end-user would not consider purchasing due to its high price tag and lack of chipset support.

    The Opteron comes with a massive 940 pin count which is the largest of any processor implementing the PGA format. PGA or Pin Grid Array can be separated into two parts: the first being Pin, which in this case is the small metal pins we see coming from the bottom of the processor and the other is the Grid Array. The Grid Array is the formation the pins are in, which here is a 940 pin formation. Together we have the highest pin count currently on the market for this kind of technology. The Opteron processor also carries a huge 1MB of L2 cache to help when it comes to processor-hungry applications. The Opteron also has three Hyper Transport buses which we will look into more in just a moment.

    What else AMD has in store for 64-bit

    While we are on the subject of AMD processors, we may as well have a quick look at what else AMD have in store for the 64-bit market.

    The cheapest of AMD's 64-bit line will be known as the Athlon 64 and will most likely be launched next month in Taiwan at Computex 2003. The Athlon 64 will be the entry level 64-bit processor and the mainstream product with a pin count of 754 replacing Athlon XP. Athlon 64 has the smallest amount cache out of the group with only 512k and will only support Single Channel DDR and one Hyper Transport Bridge meaning it is not SMP-capable.

    The other processor which will be making an introduction, which seems to be confusing a lot of people, is Athlon FX or Athlon 64 FX. The Athlon FX will be the enthusiast processor, according to speculation currently floating around. Consisting of 1MB cache and three Hyper Transport buses, the only difference between it and the Opteron is support for SMP. The Athlon FX will consist of 939 pins; the pin that is missing is the one that gives it the ability to run Dual Processor mode.

    Hyper Transport Buses

    As we just mentioned, the Opteron and the Athlon FX will consist of multiple HT (Hyper Transport) buses, while the cheaper mainstream Athlon 64 will only have one.

    One of the buses goes to your peripherals (your AGP slot, PCI slot, etc). This is the only one on the Athlon 64. The s

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
  17. Re:MySql slashdotted by hattig · · Score: 2, Informative

    Maybe they need to learn about caching so as to reduce the load on MySQL. The rest of the server is running fine, it is let down by a poor content presentation system. Why do all these sites have to generate every page from the database anyway?

  18. I allready rode the train. by jgarland79 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I allready rode the 64bit train to DEC Alphaville and back.

    --
    Microsoft Windows runs on stress and frustration.
  19. Server software by BenjyD · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The benchmarking software that would give us the opportunity to test the SMP Opteron platform to its fullest extent costs many thousands of dollars (Ed. Note - If any company wishes to sponsor us with this type of software, you are most welcomed!).

    Thousands of dollars? Can't they just run Apache or something on it and show transactions per second comparisons serving some complex dynamic page?

  20. Re:Well.Actual benchmark by iva · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm using a dual Opteron (model 240, 1.4 GHz) for intensive scientific calculations. Our program, on the Opteron system, works 1.5 to 2 times faster than the 32 bit version that runs on a double Athlon MP 1800+ (1.533 GHz), depending on the algorithm.

  21. Re:"Finally"? The Opteron doesn't even come close by cosmo7 · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's like they've made two clones of that Iraqi information minister
    and one of them's a Mac zealot and the other's a PC zealot.

  22. How could you? by skwog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...64-bit computing is boarding - don't miss the train!

    Miss the train? Miss the train? How could you possibly miss the train? As 64 bit computing comes into the market, 32 Bit will gradually move out (not unlike 8 and 16 bit have previously done). So when you need buy new systems, you're gonna eventually end up buying into the 64 bit thing.

    It's all good, but it's not like you need to buy now, or forever miss the train!

    --


    You can laugh without eating a sandwhich, but you can do both if bring one.
  23. (dual) cpu benchmarking by ion++ · · Score: 3, Informative

    one dual cpu test could be
    make -j bzImage
    on the linux kernel. -j spaws a new process when ever possible. It is possible to limit the number of processes, with a number right after the -j. This trick naturally works on other compilations than the kernel, so just find something big, and give it a test.

    Actualy when i read Toms and others test of the Opteron back when it was released i kind of missed tests that used OS tools and programs to test the system, using real programs.
    Source Compilation:
    Maybe you dont recompile kernels all day, but if you are a developper you compile source code, so for you a compile test is worth while.
    Gimp:
    Apple usualy does alot of photoshop benchmarks, so why not use gimp, a known image, and a known script for gimp to benchmark the system with that? Some people use imagemanipulation for work, so lets test real work.

    It might be an idea to test other programs, possibly some engineering tool, maybe blender, or some other tool that uses the floating point unit, rather than the integer part, and or possibly something that can use and test SMP, and/or tests that is cpu bound, memory bound, (or disk bound).

  24. PlayStation 2 CPU was not first, but earlier. by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 2, Informative

    Putting the various other 64-bit processors aside (and remember, there have been > 32-bit processors since the 1970s), don't forget about the 64-bit MIPS processors. There's one in each and every PlayStation 2. Yes, there's only 32MB in a PS2, but the processor is still truly 64-bit. Integer registers are all 64-bits wide. Actually, they're 128-bits wide, but there's a limited number of operations that can be performed on 128-bit values

    1. Re:PlayStation 2 CPU was not first, but earlier. by Glonoinha · · Score: 3, Funny

      Bah! I had a Commodore 64 in the early 80's and not only was it a Commodore 64 (note : the earliest use of the numbers 64 in a computer name) it also had 65,536 bytes of memory. 65,536 - you see that? Big numbers. Way bigger than anything I have seen in this whole thread. I have seen some 244's, some 1.8's, some 2.4's, some 32's and some 128's, but this machine was a monster with 65,536. Connected to other computers at 300 baud. Not the puny 28.8 or 33.6 or even 56.7 you read about today, or even the dedicated 128 or 256 lines - or even the wickedly overpriced 1.544 T1 lines that everybody dreams about ... a hard core 300!

      Also held the record for most machines ever sold, at the time anyways. The biggest, and the mostest. Commodore 64. Accept no substitutes.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
  25. I can't wait... by djeaux · · Score: 4, Informative
    Let's see ... 64-bit WinXP is due some time next year. Longhorn some (ambiguous) time after that. I know /. is the home of the *NIX faithful, but that's a very small percentage out in the real world.

    Are we about to enter 18 months to 2 years of mostly running 32-bit apps on 64-bit hardware? (Or even longer than that, if we recall that "32-bit Win95" was really 16-bit in sheep's clothing.) And what's a "generation" for hardware? 2 years?

    There will probably be some nice bargains on 32-bit boxen later this year & next, I'm sure. And they're gonna run those old 32-bit apps just fine. Then, when they wear out in 2-3 years, you can upgrade to 64-bit hardware to actually run 64-bit apps.

    In other words, that first train trip is going to take you to an amusement park that's still under construction.

    --
    "Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)