Current Processors Tested With Linux

Happy-Jollies writes "The team at LinuxHardware.org have kept us up-to-date on the latest in processors for quite some time now and they're at it again. With the latest release of the Pentium 4 'Prescott,' many Linux users will be deciding where to spend their money. LinuxHardware.org's round-up takes a look at the Prescott, Northwood, Extreme Edition, and the AMD Athlon 64."

Comments

Linux becoming a lot more mainstream?

[192939495969798999]

It seems that Linux is becoming substantially more mainstream, and quite quickly. I don't think the desktop war has really even started -- it won't start until that linux user base reaches a critical size, where managers, etc. start having linux at home and start to desire to be consistent at work too, and then have everyone convert. Still, articles like this seem to point to a more heterogeneous system environment in the near future.

Re:Linux becoming a lot more mainstream?

[Anonymous Coward]

you're getting info from a site called linuxhardware via slashdot and thus linux is becoming "substantially more mainstream'? when my local paper starts doing comparisons like they do for new cars, then I'll consider it mainstream.

Re:Why did they leave out ...

[dreamchaser]

I agree in a sense, but for now most people who buy G5 machines will stick with OS X. Yes, I know IBM is making some G5 boxen too, but the ratio of those to G5 Macs sold will probably mirror the ratio of Macs compared to x86 stuff.

Yes, the submission should probably read 'Current x86 Processors Tested with Linux', but in reality the vast majority of individual Linux boxen will be using x86 based hardware so I don't think it's that big of a deal.

still not biting

[Chuck Bucket]

I'm not biting, I'm looking at upgrading my 1.2 Gig AMD to some 2.something Gig P4 or AMD. Why not? They're cheap (under 400) plus they'll keep up for more time than you'd think. When will we really _need_ 64bits on the desktop? I don't see it for another 2 years.

CB

Re:still not biting

[Zathrus]

Does everyone forget the DEC Alphas?

Pretty much, yeah... unfortunate too, since they were such good chips.

For gaming? What, you need 64bit color and 64bit sound?

No, for content creation -- textures, maps, etc. You can't reasonably address >4GB with a 32-bit chip (yes, you can do it. No, it's not fast) and we're reapidly approaching that limit in content creation.

And while 24-bits of color may be adequate, you need more precision than that when doing blends and other operations. Of course, those are largely done by the GPU nowadays, so that's a non-issue as far as the CPU is concerned.

So what if you can linearly address 4TB? A 1 or 2 GB machine is top of the line these days so far as desktop boxes go. The barrier is mainly price, not the addressing capabilities of the CPU.

Actually you can linearly address 256 TB with the current AMD64 chips (48-bit addressing) and 16 exabytes with true 64-bit addressing. That's quibbling though.

The main advantage of a 64-bit CPU (or at least one with direct addressing of >32-bit) is that you can directly map permanent storage to memory. Right now trying to do that is a freaking nightmare and very expensive, since we've long outgrown 4GB of disk space.

And, really, that's not even the main advantage of x86-64. The real advantage is compiling 32-bit code to be aware of x86-64's extra registers, which can lead to a considerable speed up with no other changes.

As far as all the kids running out to spend their allowance on AMD64 chips, that's just them trying to fit in and show how computer savvy they are.

Yeah, by and large. My next PC will probably be x86-64 based though. Why? Because it's not that expensive. You can get a Athlon64 3000+ for just over $200 now. That's only a little more than an AthlonXP 3200+ or a little less than a P4 3.0C. If you're looking in that price range, then why not go for it? You'll get roughly the same price/performance in 32-bit and be able to upgrade to 64-bit when the time comes. If you don't need that kind of performance, that's fine -- save your money. But otherwise it's kinda silly to ignore the potential advantages offered.

Apples compared to oranges.

[stratjakt]

Decide what the requirements are for your system then choose appropriate hardware. Do you need 64 bit extensions? Do you need hyperthreading? Do you need instruction set X because it'll make your game run faster?

I'm sick of hardware sites and the lame "X vs Y showdown" articles. They're utter bullcrap.

But if G5 boxes were shown to be ...

[burgburgburg]

superior for running linux then the best and brightest in the x86 world (including on price) then perhaps more linux users would build their own with a different class of processor.

But we won't know if we don't look.

Re:Why did they leave out ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I looked on pricewatch but couldn't find any G5 CPU/Motherboard combos. Where can I buy them and how much are they? What power supply and form factor should my case have.

Answer: Compilers

[October_30th]

Where is the AMD's answer to Intel's compiler? Intel's Fortran and C/C++ compilers optimize floating point code so that it performs 20-30% better on your Intel CPU than the GCC produced code?

That's why I still buy Intel.

Re:Answer: Compilers

[thebosz]

That's a good point. But for the average user AMD just always seems like a better choice from a cost/performance point of view.

Re:Why use Intel anymore?

[Dutch_Cap]

"AMD should buy some commercial time and tout "Hey we kick Intel's ass AND we're cheaper!""

I think part of the reason AMD is cheaper is that they don't spend huge amounts on marketing.

Re:Why use Intel anymore?

[Linus Sixpack]

AMD only also is just brand blindness.

I will always use the best priced solution. While I agree that right now that is AMD, Intel is welcome to tempt me -- I can be convinced.

Processor Last

[Enonu]

For my day-to-day activities, I'm much more affected by the speed of my hard disk and the amount of memory I have installed. IMHO one should spend the minimum amount on a processor that they feel comfortable with, and then use the savings for the rest of the system.

Buy brand name components, a decent 7200 or even 10K RPM hard disk, and a GIG of memory. Don't forget input and output either! A cheap monitor, keyboard, or mouse will ruin your experience. Don't skimp on where it counts so you can simply brag about having one processor vs. one that's slightly slower.

Is there a maxed memory test somewhere?

[Linus Sixpack]

The first market I can think of for these machines is the memory hungry. Mostly I'm thinking of databases seeking to be entirely in ram. I don't personally have any 8gb databases but I think they are more common than people think.

I'd love to see a comparison, on linux, Solaris, even windows of Databases crunching big piles of data.

LS

Re:Why use Intel anymore?

[Afrosheen]

"My car doesn't have a special fuel purge if I decide to fill it full of kethup"

That's not really a relevant analogy. Something more analogous would be 'my car won't explode if I don't put any coolant in the radiator'. Your car will show the temperature steadily increasing and it may well let you get it hot enough to start a fire or seize the engine. A Pentium engine OTOH would turn itself off after the temperature threshold reached a certain point, thereby saving itself.

What Intel fanboys don't realize is that AMD left it up to the motherboard manufacturers to add proper thermistors beneath the ZIF socket where the cpu goes. While some believe it was irresponsible and some motherboard companies just forgot to add this altogether, most reputable companies have done it for awhile.

You could take issue with the fact that any AMD chip will self-destruct with no heat sink or without adequate cooling, or you could figure you're a total moron for not putting coolant in your radiator and you reap what you sow. Many ways to look at this issue.

Re:Extra Transistors

[pyrrhos]

Adding a number stages does not necesarily mean you are adding as much hardware (transistors). You can simply divide a stage into two by adding a few latches and nothing more. This can be done to increase the clock frequency.

Example: you have a unit (say, multiplier) that has three stages, each of which can complete within 1 nsec. This means your clock can run at 1GHz (1/nsec). If you divide each of these stages in two then each of these new stages will complete in .5nsec which means you can run your clock at 2GHz. No extra functionality and no extra transistors, not counting just a few latches.

Re:WHAT MONEY?!?

[JM]

I didn't know if this should be modded as troll or as funny. But it's so far away from my reality that I couldn't help but reply.

I'm 32 with short hair, don't drink Mountain Dew because here in Canada it doesn't have caffeine, I live with my girlfriend and 1 year old baby, and I write GPL/BSD code and get paid for it.

But you got it right on the lack of sleep part.
I think *this* is the lowest common denominator of Linux users ;-)

Yes, but....

[Kjella]

I agree in a sense, but for now most people who buy G5 machines will stick with OS X.

...couldn't you say exactly the same about x86 machines and Windows? So I don't see what the argument is.

Kjella

Don't use percentage, or use it consistently!

[axxackall]

but for now most people who buy G5 machines will stick with OS X.

but for now most people who buy x86 machines will stick with Windows. so what?

but in reality the vast majority of individual Linux boxen will be using x86 based hardware so I don't think it's that big of a deal.

but in reality the vast majority of individual desktop boxen will be using Microsoft based software so I don't think it's that big of a deal to test with Linux anyway.

Sarcasm apart, I think it's a very bad tradition to consider Linux only as for x86 platform. There are Linux users on other non-x86 platforms. Their percentage is most likely not less than the percentage of Linux/86 users among all x86 users. So, the logic of using any percentage here is basically corrupted.

Linux is multiplatform system. Check the kernel source code for the list of all supported platforms. Kernel - because that wat makes it called Linux, the distributions are usually more platform specific. Also Linux is multi-purpose system - it can be used for servers, for embedded systems and for desktops. The list of oticable desktop systems on the market includes at least x86 and PPC platforms. Therefore considering Linux desktop as only Linux/x86 is not more fair than considering desktop OS only as Microsoft Windows.

64-bit

[noda132]

I was excited to look at these benchmarks because I know that Linux does 64 bits and I really, really want to see what kind of difference there is before buying an Athlon64. But there is no 64-bit testing. What is the point of running on Linux if you don't take advantage of what Linux offers?