Current Processors Tested With Linux

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Current Processors Tested With Linux

Posted by timothy on Wednesday February 4, 2004 @05:54AM from the yup-these-chips-work-too-how-odd dept.

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."

26 of 330 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Why did they leave out ... by burgburgburg · 2004-02-04 05:55 · Score: 5, Interesting

the G5? It can run linux too, you know.
1. Re:Why did they leave out ... by falcon5768 · 2004-02-04 05:57 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  my thought exactly... it might run OS X but if you really wanted to you cou.ld wipe the HD and run linux as well... no reason to leave it out of the comparison...
  
  --
  "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
2. Re:Why did they leave out ... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-04 06:03 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  > so I don't think it's that big of a deal.
  
  The thing is, if they're comparing CPUs for the power and speed and all, why not include the G5's... will the x86's get trounced by them or what? Are they AFRAID to include the G5's?
3. Re:Why did they leave out ... by Thud457 · 2004-02-04 06:25 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  "G5... IBM"
  I never understood why IBM has stuck with the x86 PeeCees this long. Lord knows I'd like a nice IBM laptop with a Power PC in it. If they could do it for a comprable price.
  
  --
  the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
4. Re:Why did they leave out ... by teh*fink · 2004-02-04 06:34 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  also why did they leave out other (admittedly not) mainstream chips, such as via and trasmeta's offerings? i would much more interested to see linux's performance on these chips, frankly.
  
  --
  "I DARE you to make less sense!"
5. Re:Why did they leave out ... by bhtooefr · 2004-02-04 07:02 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  They wanted high end chips like the Prescotts, Northwoods, and AMD64 chips. VIA and Transmeta aren't even close in clock speed OR IPC to either Intel or AMD. VIA is slow because they're running old fourth-generation (read: 486) architecture, with sixth-gen instructions (think Pentium III, actually). Transmeta is slow because they're emulating an x86 - they've probably got very high VLIW IPC, but their x86 IPC is what counts.
6. Re:Why did they leave out ... by spaceyhackerlady · 2004-02-04 07:29 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  Having just had my first experience running Linux on something other than an x86, I was curious too.
  You can blame it on this very forum - after reading the article I bought an Ultra 5 on EBay and loaded Debian on it last night. Installed most of the packages over my ADSL connection. Worked like a charm.
  ...laura
Extra Transistors by swordboy · 2004-02-04 05:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

I know that this is a little off-topic, but does anyone know where the extra transistors in Prescott are coming from? There are 125 million in that baby. Even with alleged 64-bit extensions (hidden, at this point), SSE3, improved branch prediction and the extra large cache, there should be under 100 million, no?

--

Life is the leading cause of death in America.
Why use Intel anymore? by thebosz · 2004-02-04 05:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

Seriously, why why anybody use Intel anymore? AMD kills them almost every single time. AND they're cheaper! (Note: I said *almost*)

--
The Kerr Divine: My wife's battle with a mysterious illness.
1. Re:Why use Intel anymore? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-04 05:59 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Some people have this bizarre fetish over paying more for inferior hardware. I wish AMD would focus more on dual-processor stuff, though. It'd be nice to build a real dual AMD CPU machine for cheaper than a fake Hyperthreaded one.
2. Re:Why use Intel anymore? by John+the+Kiwi · 2004-02-04 06:17 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I've had problems with AMD cpu's and poorly made hardware, Mobo's especially. Of course way back in the day there were a lot of applications that simply would not work on AMD architecture - this goes back to Windows 9x but at times AMD cpus were more trouble than they were worth IMO and so I now stick with Intel as much as possible.
  
  I recently got a 2.8 P4 with HT, I found that with a $150 Mobo the price was very competitive with the latest AMD CPU/Mobo combinations. About the only benchmarks that AMD was beating the P4 with were in game playing. For things like video editing and database hosting then the P4 was beating the AMDs. But I really don't read too much into benchmarks anyway.
  
  AMD is definitely cheaper most of the time, but if you don't buy the latest generation of CPU, and lets face it cpu speed is really not a bottleneck anymore anyway. I found that replacing my old 40GB hard drive on my old 1.6 Ghz P4 with a 120GB WD with the 8MB cache increased my performance by at least 400% where memory caching is concerned.
  
  I'm also a great believer in getting what you paid for. I might pay a little more for my Intel cpu, but I know it will overclock further (should I ever require more cpu speed) and that it was designed to be on 24/7.
  
  There's my 2c
  
  John the Kiwi
PPro 200 by hedley · 2004-02-04 06:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

I run 2 PPro 200 boxen. They are up 24/7/365. I find that linux keeps it lean and the incentive to keep up with the Prescott's just isn't there for me. For a home server I would say keep it simple and reliable. If you want a work engine that will be used for large EDA jobs etc, then the cpu may get you somewhere (coupled with a good system mobo etc). For EDA jobs though we are starting to look at the future wrt 64bit Synopsis builds for the Opteron family.

I am curious if home server users need all this power...

Hedley
Yet Another... by quandrum · 2004-02-04 06:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

example of the megahertz myth. The chip with the largest cache won. Hands down, no contest.
1. Re:Yet Another... by mrm677 · 2004-02-04 06:20 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  example of the megahertz myth. The chip with the largest cache won. Hands down, no contest.
  
  Of course. Eliminating a cache miss is huge. Suppose that it takes 300 nanoseconds to get a word from memory.
  
  At 3GHz, that is 900 wasted cycles where each cycle could have potentially retired 3 instructions.
  
  At 6GHz, assuming your memory latency doesn't change, that is 1800 wasted cycles.
  
  It is well known that the memory latency is not keeping up with the clock cycle latency. This is why memory system design is becoming far more important the processor core design, and is also why Itanium SPEC numbers are so good.
Re:still not biting by stratjakt · 2004-02-04 06:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

64 bit workstations have been around forever. Does everyone forget the DEC Alphas?

No, we don't need 64 bit on the desktop. We haven't for the last decade or so, and it won't have that big of an impact immediately.

For gaming? What, you need 64bit color and 64bit sound? No, 24bit is already more colors than the eye can distinguish.. Even if you did, that's the realm of the GPU/APU. For writing emails?

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.

Show me 512GB-1TB dimms and I'll show you a real good reason for a 64bit CPU on the desktop.

In the backroom, big transactional servers and the like, there's more of a call for it. Maybe a lil boost to a high-end CAD machine.

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.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Compare any to any by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-04 06:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

Oh goody, this gives me a chance to trot out one of my favourite rants.

I really don't understand why more sites don't let you compare *any* part to any other, in a database approach, like StorageReview and some online stores. It is in fact relevant to do so for more than interest, you could for example find out if it is more cost effective to use 5 $100 chips or one $1000 chip. But sites do not support this, instead you have to piece it together yourself (if you're lucky and they're using consistent methodologies). It's not suprising on the candy sites like Anandtech or ExtremeTech where plainly they're just there to sell product, but on this type of site you might expect a little more.
No native AMD64 benches? by Magila · 2004-02-04 06:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

They were running Gentoo yet they apparently didn't even attempt to get the Althon 64 running the AMD64 port. Both POVRay and Vorbis-tools are already marked stable on AMD64, would have at least made the comparison a lot more interesting.
Re:still not biting by maxwell+demon · 2004-02-04 06:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

You don't just get a larger physical address space, but also a larger virtual address space. I can imagine this is much more of an advantage (think of memory mapped I/O of large files, or even such simple things like dynamically expanding arrays without copying because you can leave much virtual space between your allocations).

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Intel and AMD64 by Short+Circuit · 2004-02-04 06:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't see AMD64 showing up in Intel's processor line for a long, long time. I expect they'll build their own set of 64-bit X86 instructions and specifications. After all, they didn't adopt 3dnow! or 3dnow!ext, did they?

In fact, that's probably why Microsoft hasn't released a 'final' AMD64 port of their OS yet. They're expecting a split in the market, and they're not going to get caught in bed with the side that hasn't historically been dominant.

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
1. Re:Intel and AMD64 by cens0r · 2004-02-04 06:53 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Actually microsoft has told intel they aren't going to support another version of windows. Intel has two choices, stick with Itanium or follow AMD's lead. It looks like Tejas is going to follow AMD. The reason Microsoft is going slow is simply because the OS isn't quite ready yet.
  
  --
  Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
2. Re:Intel and AMD64 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-04 08:59 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Microsoft is going slow is simply because the OS isn't quite ready yet.
  
  Since when is not quite ready ever stopped Microsoft from releasing software?
  
  If Microsoft held back Windows until it was ready, we'd all be running Linux!
  
  I smell Microsoft stalling to protect their relationship with Intel. To not stall is to give AMD a time to establish itself in the 64bit desktop arena.
Re:But if G5 boxes were shown to be ... by Doc+Squidly · 2004-02-04 06:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

I would like to see such a comparison. Its hard to get an even comparison with hardware running different OS's.
Although I've got a feeling that the G5 would do ok but wouldn't end up on top.

I'm not trolling but...

Maximum PC magazine had a review/benchmark in their Jan '04 edition. Featuring an AMD 64 FX-51, P4-EE and a Dual, 2 Ghz G5. (unfortunately the article isn't available online)

To summarize, the G5 finished last overall. The tests even included Photoshop (with filters provided by the folks at Mac Addict), Indesign and QuickTime.
Maybe it was that even though the programs use where the similar, they were more optimized for x86 than Mac or didn't take advantage of multi-threading.
I don't see how that if Dual CPU system with a faster SATA HD (the other two were running parallel ATA) couldn't beat a single CPU AMD or Pentium system, that it could be superior in more even comparison. (Same number of CPU's, same HD, same amount of RAM, etc)
Then again we'll never know until we try.

--
I think I think, therefore I think I am.
Re:Linux becoming a lot more mainstream? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-04 07:16 · Score: 1, Interesting

I think it's the wrong way round: don't start at the top, start at the bottom. Get the secretarys work with linux. Their bosses will (have to) follow. At least that's how MS won on our Campus.
Re:Windows to Linux? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-04 07:49 · Score: 1, Interesting

Mandrake IMHO. Download the ISO from http://mirrors.sunsite.dk/mandrake/iso/
Re:Windows to Linux? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-04 08:06 · Score: 1, Interesting

The short answer is 'depends'. Long answer follows.
Ease of install goes to Mandrake. Best 'tuner-boy' seems to be Debian (if you want a steeper learning curve but lots of configurability). Suse has the best (IMO) 64-bit implementation. Red Hat WAS good, but they do not have a non-business release anymore. Since you are coming from Windows, Mandrake is probably your best bet. You could try their MandrakeMove product - no install, just Linux on a CD - if you wanted to kinda 'test drive'.
Re:Answer: Compilers by Glock27 · 2004-02-04 08:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

Where is the AMD's answer to Intel's compiler?
On the Portland Group's website. If you have the money, they're darn good compilers. Microway sells them as their preferred C/C++ suite, which says something... They support AMD64 too! :-)
The only downside, for some, is that they're Linux-only.

--
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait