Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Current Processors Tested With Linux

Posted by timothy on 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."

28 of 330 comments (clear)

  1. Why did they leave out ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    the G5? It can run linux too, you know.

    1. Re:Why did they leave out ... by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Why did they leave out ... by GOD_ALMIGHTY · · Score: 4, Informative

      That doesn't make sense. Yellow Dog is an Apple Authorized Reseller who will ship you a brand-spankin new G5 or XServe with Yellow Dog Linux running on it and under warranty from Apple.

      They really should have used a Yellow Dog box or named it an x86 shootout.

      --
      Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
    3. Re:Why did they leave out ... by spaceyhackerlady · · 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

  2. Extra Transistors by swordboy · · 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.
    1. Re:Extra Transistors by paitre · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, there's some fairly hefty core changes involved in making the integer pipeline 31 stages instead of 20. Almost enough to account for most, if not all, of the additional transistors in this thing.
      I'd actually be suprised if the AMD64 extensions were in this chip...most of what I've been hearing/seeing has Tejas being the earliest we could see them.

    2. Re:Extra Transistors by philthedrill · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't forget the extra pipe stages... those count for a lot. I can't say how many transistors, but it should make a dent in the numbers.

      A 1 MB L2 cache will be at least 50 million transistors, assuming 6T/bit (1024 * 1024 * 8 * 6), not including sense amps, decoders, tags, coherence, predecode bits, etc.

  3. Linux becoming a lot more mainstream? by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 |
  4. still not biting by Chuck+Bucket · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:still not biting by Patik · · Score: 4, Funny
      When will we really _need_ 64bits on the desktop? I don't see it for another 2 years.
      Shhh, don't give away our secret. Keep telling people they need it so they'll buy it now, then in two years they'll be stable and cheap.
    2. Re:still not biting by Zathrus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  5. Apples compared to oranges. by stratjakt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!!!!
    1. Re:Apples compared to oranges. by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, the problem, as the first poster noted, was that they didn't test any Apples at all!

  6. PPro 200 by hedley · · 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

  7. Re:Why use Intel anymore? by Krojack · · Score: 4, Informative


    I will always use AMD for my home PC mainly because of the price. IMHO Intel is over priced, you're paying for the name not the product/quality.

  8. But if G5 boxes were shown to be ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  9. Answer: Compilers by October_30th · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    The owls are not what they seem
    1. Re:Answer: Compilers by thebosz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The Kerr Divine: My wife's battle with a mysterious illness.
  10. Yet Another... by quandrum · · 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 · · 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.

  11. It gets better by florin · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  12. Re:Why use Intel anymore? by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Unfortunatly AMD not being 100% compatable with the standard causes problems.

    Good old FUD -- when Windows crashes on an Intel box, it's because of Microsoft. When Windows crashes on a AMD box, it's because the AMD "isn't 100% compatible". Uh huh. I'll buy either AMD or Intel without a hesitation (I'm not a fanboy) where one is the clear winner, but I still see FUD when someone spouts it.

    Here's a clue for you -- neither AMD or Intel are x86 processors, but rather both have a converter that converts x86 to their own internal microcode. The x86 standard that they're converting is EXTREMELY well known and standardized (I mean -- other people have to write the software that runs on it). AMD is 100% compatible with core x86.

    Intel also has much more R&D into making a chip that won't fry itself if it gets too hot. AMD? Naw, they'd rather make you buy a new chip than bother to make it prevent a problem before it occurs.

    Tom, is that you? Firstly, Intel and AMD chips are comparable in heat levels (actually the Prescott sets all new levels for heat generation, making Intel the clear winner in the egg cooker category), but secondly you are correct -- Intel has been more fervent in putting heat protection on their chips, though it is arguably over-engineering. It's like having guidewires "just in case" around all of your high rises. It's generally unnecessary as, apart from Tom's Hardware PR stunts, heatsinks don't fall off processors in regular use. My car doesn't have a special fuel purge if I decide to fill it full of ketchup.

  13. Re:Why use Intel anymore? by Linus+Sixpack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  14. Difference is in price & power consumption by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 4, Informative

    "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.

  15. Processor Last by Enonu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  16. Re:Why use Intel anymore? by Afrosheen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

  17. No native AMD64 benches? by Magila · · 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.

  18. Don't use percentage, or use it consistently! by axxackall · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --

    Less is more !