Slashdot Mirror
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."
how are u doing today?
the G5? It can run linux too, you know.
Isn't this story a dupe anyway?
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.
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.
stuff |
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.
there was a cpu called the nehalem. anyone know any information about that? was that a codename or something?
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
n/t
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
free ipod and free gmail!
-sound of high powered, yet extremely fine lathe-
one, two, three...
I'll be back.
ceci n'est pas un sig.
Like linsux users have money.
Almost as funny as saying they have girlfriends.
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.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Intel inside. Idiot outside.
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
But we won't know if we don't look.
Insert obligatory smartass comment about how they should be running their site on one of those high-end chips right now.
This guy is way out there
Maybe they can appropriate some of the hardware they tested to build a more robust web server.
I can't read the f&#@(&$ article because the site is already non-responsive after fifteen comments.
Remember this: 32-bit will be gone once gaming, and in particular massive multiplayer gaming demands 64-bit clients in order to keep up.
It will take between 5 and 8 years.
That's why I still buy Intel.
The owls are not what they seem
We have software and hardware that can make it ready for the new millenium.
Are you in DOUBT about your PC computer hardware? Have you been told that you must have your computer OFF 12/31/1999?
Have you been told that you must have your computer ON 12/31/1999?
These warnings are one indication that your PC is NOT fully compliant for the Year 2000. If you become the defendant in litigation about Y2K failures you may need to demonstrate that you exercised Due Diligence in your compliance efforts. Sellers of PCs' are NOT informing purchasers of their computers about hardware deficiencies in their products.
Verify that your software is Y2K compliant with Datefind-db(TM): rated a "best buy" Y2K impact assessment tool by PC World Magazine!
If your computers are important to your business they should be tested to the highest (Pentagon) standards; if they fail to meet these standards they can be remediated by our AMS Scan+ software fix, or our AMS Scan Millenium Board hardware Fix. Check a recent survey of 250+ computers!
View an example Year 2000 Plan and Statement for a small business
Free SAFE Hardware Test Disk mailed to your business A demonstration version of the AMS Scan+ test is available to U.S. addresses free of cost to your business. Be advised that advancing the system date on your computer to test it is NOT a safe procedure. See FAQ for details.
AMS Scan+ does all testing and remediation independently of your operating system. Testing done using your computers operating system will give false data regarding your hardware chips and may damage your computer's hard disk data or program files. You may completely test any number of computers with one copy of AMS Scan+. The license does not expire until a fix has actually been successfully applied to a computer. [ Install Help ]
WebOfficial Y2K.com recommends a four-step approach to achieving Y2K compliancy for your business:
1. Backup your system and data. 2. Test Hardware and fix as required. 3. Obtain Critical Function Software Vendor Y2k Compliancy Statement, scan hard disk data for dates containing 2 digit year fields. Plan for contingencies. 4. Document your hardware compliancy, vendors statements, results of scanning and contingency plans.
Details on 4 step plan for small business Y2K compliance:
1. Back up your system and keep it backed up right to 12/31/99. 2. Safely test your PC hardware using AMS Scan+ [exceeds NSTL compliancy] for Y2K hardware problems on any PC computer whether it is a new or old, a 286, 386, 486, Pentium, Pentium I, II, III or other CPU. AMS Scan+ Fix will work on MS-DOS, WIN 3.x WIN 95 and WIN 98 operating systems. Do you use Windows NT? Unix? OS/2? Use the AMS Scan ISA Plug-in Card
AMS Scan+ (Click here for secure on-line ordering) This inexpensive (Only $29.90 US) easy-to-use program checks four critical areas of your system roll-over clocks as well as active BIOS Writeback to CMOS/RTC. This program will apply a TSR fix to the hardware contained in your computer. If it cannot, or if your computer is Y2K hardware compliant, a full refund is available. AMS Scan+ Tests for and repairs with a TSR software fix (if required) the following functions on your PC computer:
Real Time Clock RTC Date Retention BIOS Clock System Clock Leap year compliancy Active BIOS Writeback to CMOS/RTC
Click here for a diagram of your computer clocks.
3. Once your hardware has been tested or fixed....the next step is... scan for and remediate problem date fields on your computers hard disk.
Datefind-db (Click here for secure on-line ordering) will Analyze programs and data for Y2K date field problems. This easy-to-use program searches data for date codes
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Donal Duck will have a SCREAMING ORGASM if they test it with a G5.
example of the megahertz myth. The chip with the largest cache won. Hands down, no contest.
Been 'Dotted already??? Jeez, that was fast.
Are the results of slashdot on linux-hardware going to be published?
I'm looking forward for the slashmark-results!
Don't let the fact that they proclaim the Athlon 64 to be the 'clear looser' in the SPECViewperf discipline because of the poor results in the DX-08 and DRV-09 tests fool you.
Those scores are probably not representative of the true performance of the AMD processor but rather of the early stages of optimization of the Linux support for the Nvidia NForce 3-150 chipset. The very same weakness was observed in the past in other reviews that used Specviewperf on Windows platforms, such as this one from THG. Subsequent versions of the Nvidia drivers have since brought noticeable improvements.
The AMD scores would likely have been much more competitive if a motherboard based on another Athlon 64 chipset like the VIA K8T800 would've been used for this review.
They doubled the size of both the L1 data-cache & L2 cache...
"Prescott, Northwood, Extreme Edition, and the AMD Athlon 64."
In all honesty--unless you absolutely need 8GB of memory--there's little difference between these processors in terms of performance. They're all more or less in the same ballpark. Sometimes faster, sometimes slower, depending on the benchmark. None of them is a huge breakout CPU performance-wise.
Here's what's different:
PRICE: There's a lot more than a few percent variation in price.
WATTS: In exchange for your 5-15% speed boost, note that you're getting more than a 15% increase in power usage.
Maybe connecting and disconnecting miniscule jumpers under a microscope is not everyone's cup of tea...
Better than nothing until the ./ effect wears off:
Intel's Prescott, Intel's Extreme Edition, and AMD's Athlon 64 3400+ posted by augustus on Monday February 02, @11:51AM from the CPU-Gods dept. Today Intel unveiled the next great chip in their line of Pentium 4 processors. This chip codenamed "Prescott" has been talked about for quite some time and we hope the chip lives up to the hype. With new features like an increased L2 cache and new instructions, the Prescott has the goods on paper. Along with this new processor, Intel also released a speed bump to their "Extreme Edition" line which brings the chip up to 3.4GHz. The Extreme Edition chips encompass the same features of their normal "Northwood" Pentium 4 cousins but also add an additional 2MB of L3 cache to the existing 512KB of L2. In this review we will introduce you to these new Intel processors and also bring in the Athlon 64 desktop processors now available at 3400+ model numbers. If your ready for a look into what AMD and Intel have in store for you today, read on. Intel's Chips First, we'll talk about Intel's Extreme Edition part. The Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition offers nothing fancy like new instructions or a new manufacturing process. Instead, Intel took the brute force approach on this CPU and simply added an additional 2MB of L3 cache. This wasn't even a processor redesign for Intel, they simply took their Xeon MP processor and repackaged it in a Socket 478 socket, compatible with today's 865/875 series motherboards. Many have said that this processor wasn't even planned but that Intel decided they needed an answer to AMD's Athlon 64 FX line. This wouldn't be confirmed by Intel, of course, but it's not like any processor company to spring random new products on the industry without a fair amount of hype. The Extreme Edition processor was launched at 3.2GHz and was extremely difficult to get. About the only way to find one initially was to buy a new system through a select few retailers. Not only were they hard to get but the price was prohibitive at around $1000 for the processor alone. The processor is available now through many more retailers but the price has wavered little. The 3.4GHz already seems like it will be a little easier to find than it's predecessor but expect to add at least $100+ for the extra 200MHz of the 3.4GHz model. The Prescott is an entirely different story from the Extreme Edition. The Prescott has been on Intel's road map for quite some time and was a necessary step in processor evolution. The biggest feature of the Prescott that you'll read about is the move to a 90nm manufacturing process from the previous 130nm process. As we've discussed in other articles about process shrinks, this allows for two things. First, it allows Intel to shrink die sizes, resulting in more CPUs per wafer (the base from which CPUs are carved). This will lower Intel's cost per chip. Second, it will allow for the processor to operate with less power consumption per transistor, due to the fact that the electrons will have to travel a shorter distance between transistors. Another change in this manufacturing process is the use if strained silicon which allows for an easier flow of electrons. The next big feature in this processor is the addition of 512KB more L2 cache bringing the total to 1MB. This increase in cache size is something that always seems to speed up the majority of applications. This allows for more of the application's code to fit into a extremely fast portion of memory sitting right next to the processor running at the full processor clock speed. While this seems like something relatively easy to add to a processor, it adds a great deal of transistors to the core which increases the cost of manufacturing. Finally, there are some architectural changes for the Pentium 4 that come with the Prescott. The first is that the pipeline has been extended and reorganized to make the processor more efficient. Along with this reorganization, the way memory is handled internally has been optimized
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.
Hotbeef Fan
I'm mostly brand-blind, but...
Any purchasing decision tie will go to the underdog. I might even de-optimize by a few percent in favor of the underdog, because competition benefits all of us, and therefore it's up to all of us to keep competition alive.
But if the underdog is clearly inferior, they've lost my purchase.
Another pet peeve, seen years back on Usenet, (paraphrased) "I like AMD and Cyrix in the market, because even though I'd never buy them, they keep pushing Intel on performance improvements."
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
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
What idiot modded this troll? Metamoderators, start your engines.
Although the Athlon64/Opteron and AthlonXP processors either match or surpass the Pentium 4 line, the one application that the Pentium 4 processors still excel at is in multimedia editing and encoding. Most people don't look at Hyperthreading favorably, yet with Hyperthreading enabled you get an over 30% performance boost in DV25 to MPEG-2 transcoding for video with everything else equal. That's not to say that the Athlon64/Opterons are not useful, but this is one area where they still excel. Considering that transcoding is the major bottleneck for the folks who edit video and create DVDs, there is a good reason to go for a Pentium 4. 30% of your time on a 2 hour video is a lot of time lost if you're trying to crank out videos. Not to mention that most of Matrox's editing cards are almost always approved for Intel hardware to be stable but not for all AMD hardware, particularly motherboards.
If, however, you're a gamer and aren't doing much media encoding or do it casually, then I would recommend an Athlon64.
I've been with AMD as long as I can remember, except for my first machine, and machines I've aquired for free.
The only problems I've had with AMD:
1. The Via Apollo chipset - in order to get win98 or later running, you had to install the motherboard drivers (I ran 95 at the time, and was trying to get 98 running, and couldn't for about a year, until I loaded the mobo drivers right after installing 98. Windows wouldn't see the ethernet card!)
2. KT133 - I bought a KT133 Abit motherboard. That was a mistake -- I'll never trust Tom's Hardware again. Given, now the machine is rock solid, but for the year that I used it as my desktop, it was an endless loop of installing the new via drivers, as well as bios updates to get the thing halfway stable under stress.
Granted, neither of these problems are necessarily with AMD in and of itself, mostly with VIA, but they were really supposed to be the leader... I have comfort nowadays that the boards I buy that support the Athlon XP (I own one kt400 and one nforce2 mobo) just "work". As well as have some good "tweaking" options.....
Karnal
some of the hardware they discussed to run their own site to keep up with the slashdotting.
so you just use ICC with SSE2 turned off. That seems to work just fine.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I work my ass off for this company. I'm the goto guy if there's ever a problem. Everyone comes to me because they know I can solve any problem. Guess who just got no raise again while the bitch two cubes down got a 10% raise again. Can we say I'm looking elsewhere as of this second??? The job market sucks but this is pathetic! IS THERE ANY COMPANY WHERE MANAGEMENT IS'NT TRYING TO BOINK THE LAZY BITCH THAT SITS NEAR YOU AND SCREWS YOU OVER?
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.
durrrr.... that was hard....
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
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.
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)
Which is currently only on Mini-ITX boards, it's an evolution from the Cyrix line of processors and isn't a great performer. Fine for low-CPU things or MPEG playback (it has hardware assist) but currently limited to ~1GHz, and even then performs more like an 800MHz P3.
Lots of info at www.mini-itx.com
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
It was a metaphor, stupid.
*ducks*
Last post!
"...many Linux users will be deciding where to spend their money."
What money?!?
They're all a bunch of 16-year olds with long hair, Mountain Dew can marks embedded in their chin, living at home with mommy and daddy, no job, never had a date, eyes more bloodshot from lack of sleep than Robert Downey Jr. after a weekend binge, who enjoy puzzles based on multi-dimensional quantum chromodynamics, giving away all their hard work FOR FREE!
So, I ask...
WHAT F'ING MONEY?!?
(Oh Karma, I barely knew ye! But there you go, walking out on me...)
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
Down.
AMD chips run significantly hotter than Intel chips. I have a dual-AMD box that, to remain stable, moves enough air to make a helicopter jealous. As an added bonus, it acts as a heater for the entire room, while making enough noise to bug neighbors two or three blocks away. I run it as little as possible.
By comparison, I have an Intel server that runs 24/7, is inaudible, and makes no difference in the ambient room temperature.
It's worth the (mostly negligible) cost/performance difference for quiet/heat-free computing.
Which one is the best?
Where do I get it?
- For some cool OpenSource programs check out: KruncherInc
that was the worst fucking webcomic, no the worst fucking comic, paper or otherwise, that I have ever had the displeasure of reading in my entire life. you, sir, are an idiot.
When I read your comic I couldn't believe it...worse than The Family Circle?? Worse than Rhymes With Orange?!??
...but then I clicked on the link for that turd of a comic and I'm going to have to agree with you. I still think User Friendly is worst comic of all time...but this comes very close...maybe even a tie.
My desktop already does everything I want it too, and plenty fast enough as well. I've upgraded from my 486 laptop because it does everything I want it to, and plenty fast enough.
For basic office funtions we've been fast enough for years. If someone offers to sell you a 64 bit word processor they're yanking your chain to yank your wallet and most likely delivering Byzantine crappy code.
Yeah, the gamers will want it, but some of them spend several hundred a year on video cards. If I were doing rendering or confirming the solution to the four color theorem I'd want it. Real workstation stuff.
But on the desktop? The only reason you'll need it in two years is because they've barfed up a 64 bit Office that won't run on a 32 bit machine and EOLed the 32 bit version, for no other reason than to make you buy it.
In the meantime I note that the 2.0 kernel is still being maintained. That's nice, it's what I've got on my laptop.
Runs emacs and Visicalc just fine.
KFG
linuxiso.org distrowatch.com
"If it has screws, it was meant to be taken apart."
It is a very interresting read. And a good one to pass on to the not-so-technically inclined. The reviewer had some problems with the new kernel but after posting to the LKML Linus and some other maintainers fixed the problems. (like to see Bill do this). Some of the performance improvements boggles the mind!
The AMD Opteron kicked same serious butt in these benchmarks.
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
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Windows NT supported the PPC and IBM supported it.
I suggest you try both methods, and report back to us. If you can find a significant difference in the results, do tell (read: nada in either case).
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
So?
The owls are not what they seem
As a side note, MMX.
AMD licensed MMX and then added on top of it...
This article provides background.
---- Move SIG...For great justice!
I await my -5 Mod punishment
Intel has the competition beat bloody
for stable server boards.
I'm an AMD lover and all my own machines are
AMD, but if it's gotta work, the first
time, and keep on working, without me having to
travel 2K miles to fuck with it, I use Intel.
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.
Less is more !
I laughed for minutes when I read "Without further adieu" in the article. What a wonderful new way to announce I'm a total illiterate and blissfully unaware of it!
"Skill shows through where genius wears thin." -Wittgenstein || Religion: uniting aviation and architecture.
Since the Prescotts seem to have distinctly underwhelming performance, perhaps it isn't as inappropriate a name as it might be.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
To me, I think of Prescott, AZ. It's a small town a couple hours north of Phoenix, getting into the mountains, with real winter weather and lots of pine trees. It was Arizona's territorial capital, and was named after William Hickley Prescott. What does this mean for the processor? Not much... it's just a name.
All those benchmarks are so x86-centric. It would be interesting to run benchmarks with Linux and some other OSes on other architectures as well. I am interested to see how other architectures compare to x86 on different fronts, and how well Linux runs on those archictectures compared to other OSes.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Current Intel Processors Tested With Linux?
Its nice they threw in an AMD for good measure, but Linux runs well on the AMD64, G5 and ia32, among many other things. So why not at least compare Apples to Intels?
Hey, as long as we're selling old hardware, I have 5 Netframe 9800s. 1 has all four PPro 200s (1MB cache -- those chips will also work in the Micron W6-Li board), 2 have two CPUs, the other 2 are parts.
C'mon, who doesn't want a big chassis with hot-swappable fans, hot-swappable PCI slots, hot-swappable 8 drive RAID arrays... ??
Priced to sell!
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?
AMD seems to want to outsource compiler development. I've read recently on the Inquirer that Intel compilers produce very fast code on AMD. Some third parties are also releasing optimized AMD64 compilers, also.
How about the fact that Intel has been bundling features in their CPUs that may have detrimental effects to users?
Examples:
1) The Pentium 3 GUID. Turned out there's a switch to turn it off, but the average user didn't know this, and IIRC, the switch was not originally made available through end user software.
2) Integration of Wi-Fi in Centrino. Even in the absence of security/privacy issues, what effect does this have on the integrity of the CPU? I'm a fan of "add on what I want" vs. "everything jumbled together".
3) Intel collaboration on the Palladium/TCPA effort.
I support that. But should it be positive, negative, random or neutral?
The extra registers are all integer registers; the SIMD instructions and register count do not change between 32 and 64 bit modes.
If the tests are truly FP-centric, this shouldn't make any difference.
You mean to tell me these things can compile the kernel in two minutes or less!?!? I guess it's time to upgrade!
# They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Fran
It's all about customer loyality. And that often comes through satisfaction and trouble free hardware operation.
I'm not saying AMD is any less better. But regardless of the industry "facts", if your comfortable with using a products...why change? For example, if you own a Honda Civic and the dealership treats you well then your next car might be another Honda.
Life is not for the lazy.
Having Windows run on the PPC platform won't affect IBM's decision whether to support x86 or not _because_ Windows used to run on PPC and IBM still supported x86.
CPU fans do fail. And if you have an AMD chip, chances are it's toast when the fan goes out. At least Intel P4s will throttle back to prevent overheadting. Not only that, but the PC will still RUN!!! Obviously not fast, but at least it won't crash instantly.
By the way, I benchmarked a PC with 3DMark03 once when I forgot to connect the CPU fan. I didn't notice until after I went to put the cover back on. Thinking *OH SHIT* at the time, I went to grab the heatsink just to see how hot it got. Well thanks to my boner job, I burned my fingers and was given blisters. God damn, impressive that it still ran after that.
Life is not for the lazy.
Secondly, there are optimized precompiled libraries available for both Intel and AMD processors (AMD ACML, ATLAS, libgoto).
Finally, dedicated compilers are available for AMD64 from Portland Group, NAG, Absoft, and Pathscale.
What again was your point?
Better not let the SCO find out this is happening..........
i've been fucking off all day, but i'm still not dead. YOU FAIL IT!
I have a home server and workstation with high-clock chips in them, but I severly underclock the server (chip is 800Mhz, I run it at 300Mhz), and moderately underclock the workstation (1.8G - 1.4G). The energy savings are quite significant, as are the reduction in wear-and-tear caused by cooling. Less heat means less fans and airflow, less fans are cheaper to maintain, and less airflow means alot less case-cleaning.
I also replaced my original-generation RADEON with a comparable modern RADEON chip (7500), basically the same chip, but manufactured on a newer process, so my video card needs no fan now. And my motherboard carries a KT600 chipset, but I run it at 266FSB instead of 400FSB and removed the chipset fan, it's cool to the touch.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
Finally, we're going to declare the Athlon 64 the best bang for the buck.
Why? Performance was nearly identical to the vanilla Pentium 4 processors - within 10% in most cases - and it even *lost* in some of the benchmarks.
The AMD is $400 - base Pentium 4 is $275. That's an extra ~10% performance (and sometimes less performance) for an additional $125. This is, by nobody's sane definition of the terms - "bang for the buck".
Too bad Compaq & HP killed off the Alpha (the 364 is still a 264 (and was untill last year still kicking ass.) and scales better than almost anything) the 464 was to be the first new core, and was up to a 5X performance increase because of the 1st major addition to the alpha arch (Brief overview) It has been speculated that the reason HP doesn't release Alpha 364 scores, it that it doesn't want to embarass intel (& cause more ummm... stuff to fall on the pro IA-64 group of which HP is the only major OEM), which may or may not be true.
Ode to Alpha
Knowing what we all do about the importance of driver software and kernel io/performance. How many of you have made 'educated' decisions about video card purchases based on performance reviews conducted on Windows based PC's? I mean drivers have a HUGE impact on how hardware performs and Linux drivers and Windows drivers aren't exactly the same (sometimes for better and sometime worse). We speculate a lot about better/more stable performance but haven't really got a good resource for basic reviews.
Maybe I'm just idly wishing here, but as Linux gets closer and closer to the desktop these are the types of things we'll need to look at. My system feels a lot faster (games, mp3 encoding) then my work computer (Win98), but who really knows.
Quack, quack.
Bragging rights.
Cough.
I mean database.
Quack, quack.
Actually, they are in a niche of the business. Cyrix IP was bought by Via, who has brought out a low power series of CPUs. They don't play in the sheer horsepower arena, but especially considering the way Intel positions Centrino, (perhaps protecting P4?) Via has the fanless market pretty much to itself.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I think the one thing to take from this is that VIA chipsets are just more trouble then they are worth. It doesn't much matter if it's a VIA chipset for an AMD processor or a VIA chipset for an Intel processor, they're all just trouble. Same goes for ALi chipsets.
If you're going to use an Intel processor, get a board using a chipset from Intel or Serverworks/Broadcom. If you're going to use an AMD processor, get a board using a chipset from nVidia or AMD.
SiS chipsets might be an option for either platform, but they're almost exclusively used on el-cheapo boards, most of which are very poorly built and cause their own sets of problems.
Many hundreds of millions of transistors are very bad for the health because the lottery's transistor can crash the CPU. open4free
Hey anyone have luck getting the Intel Fortran compiler 8 working with Debian?
..
I hear you need a 2.6 kernel with the libc6-i686 package but haven't managed it yet.. but I'd rather leave my calulations to something more stable.
no joy so far getting ifc 7 going on a 2.4 kernel either.. (deb/testing)
and I'll be damned if I'm going to install an end of life'd Redhat 9
cheers