AMD Takes Opteron To 2.4GHz

EconolineCrush writes "AMD has added a series of Opteron x50 processors to its workstation and server line that push the K8 core up to 2.4GHz. The Tech Report has tested the latest single and dual-processor Opterons against more than 20 other processors, including exotic Pentim 4 Extreme Edition chips, affordable Athlon 64s, and everything in between. Even if you have no interest in AMD's latest workstation chips, the review is worth checking out to see how two dozen of the fastest workstation and PC processors stack up in rendering, scientific computing, speech recognition, and even gaming tests."

Comments

AMD are back

[RoderickMcDougall]

They were lagging there for a while but the benchmarks depict a good story. Looks like the opteron is going to be yet another AMD chip that is great for gaming (and most other things). Hopefully a cheaper price than the p4's will really contribute to yet another dominating year for AMD.

I don't think it is puzzling at all

[peterdaly]

Intel's apparent willingness to forego such enhancements in favor of adding ever-larger on-chip caches to the Xeon is puzzling"

Why is it puzzling? In their historic "Intel Inside" world, they were basically competing against themselves. Adding a bigger cache is not only easy, but a cheap way to rake in more cash without doing much R&D work.

It's not until recently that AMD has starting "schooling them" on what improvement really means. Just look at how Intel is going to use the AMD x86-64 method in the upcoming Intel 64bit platform. And now "If I were building (or, implausibly perhaps, buying) my ultimate workstation right now, I'd want a pair of Opteron 250s beating at the heart of it. The benchmarks speak volumes. For single-processor systems, the Opteron 150 looks like the fastest x86 CPU on the planet..." And this is at much lower mhz!

I believe Intel had thought they had reached monopoly status, which really they had, and the culture had become complacent. This did not happen at the underdog AMD, who has recently been able to quickly leapfrog Intel's offerings.

-Pete

AMD's Cool 'n Quiet

[niko9]

...the Opteron 150 looks like the fastest x86 CPU on the planet.

I know I might be nitpicking here, but I really wish the Opteron series of chips incorporated AMD's Cool 'n Quite technology.
From what I read on their website, with a supporting motherboard and driver (2.6.5 has a native driver) the Athlon 64 can scale down to 800Mhz, cool enough for the system to shut the HSF and case fans completely offoff.

One demo I saw online had a Athlon 64 SFF computer playing a DVD while the AMD cool 'n quite app was shoing the the CPU at 80hz and the system was totally silent.

Coudn't server rooms benfit from the reduced electricuty bill also?

Re:The Conclusion...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The reason is that a three-drop bus used for Xeon DP (533MHz bus), five-drop for Xeon MP (400MHz bus), can't operate as fast signalling-wise as a point-to-point bus used for Pentium 4 and all Athlon systems, 1 and 2 processor. Terminmation was just too difficult, I think. Before Hypertransport, the wiring for multiprocessing with only a point-to-point bus was rediculously expensive, particularly on the chip that connects the CPUs to the rest of the system.

AMD got a little unconventional and this time it paid off on Opteron. It didn't work so well with the Athlon MP because of this wiring problem, too many wires, too expensive of a core chip, it was 1000+ pins when 600 pins was thought to be expensive.

Re:Question about itanium2 - Opteron

[Spoing]

1. There's another thing. Opterons are going to become dual-core in less than 2 years, with the same pinout as today. That means that if you have a lowly 2-way server that you're thinking about dumping, you can buy new dual-core Opterons and instantly get a 4-way out of your old 2-way server.

Even if the pinouts stay the same, the system boards you can buy now might not support the processors being sold in 2 years.

Why upgrade the CPU only in 2 years and skip the other improvements available at that time?

I have very infrequently had a CPU upgrade that was worth it, while updating other components (disk, network, added RAM, video, ...) usually do give a reasonable boost. Most of the time the modest real performance increase from swapping in a new CPU -- one that is bound to the limits of the existing system board-bound -- isn't worth the time or money.

The only exception I can think of is if you buy behind the bleeding edge and upgrade every 6-9 months to a processor that is substantially better (2x) but not bleading edge.

To do this properly usually requires getting an advanced system board that can handle the higher end components and then turning around and being cheap on the CPU. While this can be a good idea, it usually isn't and the situation is very specific to the system board.

1. IMNSHO:
2. Always buy what you need today and do not look over 6-9 months in the future for upgrades.

If you expect a payoff in a future upgrade, make sure that the hardware you buy now is also what you need today and do not depend on a future promise. If it works out, HOO-RA! If not, you haven't lost a thing.