Slashdot Mirror
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."
So what is that, 4000+?
From the article to save everyone the 16 pages of boring charts and graphs.. Conclusions "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. In a multiprocessor configuration, the Opteron 250 scales up very well, even without the benefit of an optimal memory configuration, a NUMA-aware OS, or 64-bit extensions. By contrast, Intel's dual Xeons are a little bit disappointing. They perform relatively well in CPU-bound apps like 3D rendering programs, which are also largely well optimized for SSE2. But in memory-bound applications where dual Xeons ought to do well, like video encoding, the Xeons' slow bus and RAM hold them back. One has to wonder what Intel is hoping to accomplish by saddling its workstation-class processors with older, slower technology. Even a single Pentium 4 benefits greatly from additional bus and memory bandwidth. Surely a pair of Xeons on shared bus ought to have this same advantage. Intel's apparent willingness to forego such enhancements in favor of adding ever-larger on-chip caches to the Xeon is puzzling"
Hmmm.
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 have been running my Opteron 248 at 2400Mhz. Sisoft seems to equate this to a PR rating of 3900+. I have no idea how it calculates this so please take that with a measure of salt.
AEnertia
Witty, tag line goes here
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
Soccer Goal Plans
I work for a medium sized school divison and this year happens to be the year when my school will get new equipment. When the meetings about what to buy have occured every single time someone has mentioned getting AMD chips instead of Intel those in managerial positions have been quick to say, " No, AMD chips are slow and run very hot. They wouldn't be a good choice for what we are looking for." Now this insight is coming from people who..
A. Are mainly concerned about the bottom line as far as price goes.
Which makes zero sense being AMD chips are more then competitivly priced compared to Intel.
B. Are supposedly in the know about technology.
Which is obviously not the case as many of them still think AMDs have the same cooling problems they did 5 years ago.
These chips are cheaper now then their Intel conterparts and from my experience run at the same speed if not faster. AMD is finally getting on the ball as far as putting the clock speed measured in Ghz to provide direct comparission which really needed to be done in order to compete. Combined with their dedication to inovation, i.e. the 64 bit processor that Intel has still yet to bring to market make me really suppport what the company is trying to do. I really hope to see more reviews like this that I can pass on to those in charge in hopes of getting away from an Intel only environment.
Just to clarify I do not hate Intel I just think that between the two there Intel does not always win outright and AMD should be considered before any purchases are ever made.
Please do not let scientific accuracy interfere with the intended humourous/interesting/insightful value of this comment
Can somebody please benchmark a dual AMD opteron against a dual PPC 970 (MAC G5), using Linux in 64bit mode. What is with all these kids benchmarking opterons in 32bit mode?
I had an AMD64 chip with the heat spreader.
I went to take the heat sink off the other day, and the vacuum that formed between the heat spreader and heat sink caused the chip to get yanked right out of the closed ZIF socket when I tried to get the heat sink off.
Then, after reinstalling the chip, apparently the heat spreader has become disconnected from the core internally, because the CMOS reports rising temperature up to 120C, but even the heat spreader isn't warm if I turn the system off and get the heat sink off again.
So be very careful. It takes about 10 minutes to take the heat sink off the heat spreader if you used a coating of grease that covers the whole top of the chip, even if you used a thin coat. You have to wiggle the heat sink and gently pull up for quite a while before that vacuum is broken. It doesn't help that the heat sink design makes it impossible to see the chip or slide the heat sink to the side.
And be aware that it doesn't take a whole lot of force to yank the chip right from the ZIF, possibly damaging things in the process.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
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?
Nice article, but we need more Linux-centric bench and test sites.
.. means cheaper CPUs at the bottom end.
My needs are simple, Most of my systems would do just fine with a Duron 800MHz or even slower CPUs. With the advent of new high end chips heralds lower prices at the low end.
It's gotten to the point where only a few popular niches need to even bother with anything but the absolute bottom end chips. I.e. Gaming, video encoding and servers (Faster chips mean more users on a server).
Scientific Computing clusters, Compiling lots of code everyday etc.. are other niches worth noteing. For Web browsing, Office productivity, educational apps and old games I advise you to buy the chip so far behind the curve it won't be available in a few weeks.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
It will be interesting to see how Intel responds to these challenges - c't speculates that the future Pentiums will use the architecture they have in the Pentium M line (developed in Israel). If they're smart they'll introduce a dual core CPU based on the Pentium M architecture, if AMD is smart they'll modify their existing designs and beat intel to the punch again.
Speaking as a business user, I'd welcome an emphasis on ergonomics and environmental concerns over raw speed. I'd rather have silent systems that do not overload the air conditioning with enormous amounts of heat than screamers which spend 99.9 % of their time waiting for the user to press a key anyway.
"There are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare." - Blair Houghton
I'm sorry, but you do not truly understand how modern x86 chips work. You don't like them because they are 'CISC-mired'? The funny thing is, underneath they really aren't CISC. They are RISC to the bone. Each and every x86 instruction you feed a modern processor is deconstructed into many smaller RISC-like ops and they are processed independantly. Small register set you say? You don't get to address them directly, but both the Athlon and the P4 have had many more registers than the x86 ISA would lead one to believe for a really long time. The x86-64 is nice because now you get many more registers of larger size, directly addressable.
In a purely dollar/performance comparison, nothing beats x86.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
And still, that "technology of the 70's" is the fastest thing there is. Sure, you might have some CPU's that are even faster, but they are also alot more expensive. Those CPU's usually get better performance by adding lots and lots of cache to the CPU.
If PowerPC (for example) is SOOOO much better, why doesn't it wipe the floor with x86? Sure, it's competetive, but it does not annihilate x86
As to being register-starved... Again, that doesn't seem to hurt the performance of these chips that much. And if you use Opteron/Athlon64 with an 64bit OS, you get double the number of GP/SSE-registers (instead of 8, you get 16).
As to CISC... Modern x86-CPU's are very much RISCue in the inside. And being RISC does not automatically mean that it's somehow better. You can have kick-ass CISC-CPU's, and you can have crappy RISC-CPU's.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
x86-64 only doubles the number of registers.
Something tells me if the billions of dollars per year in R&D were spent on a fully-RISC system, externally and internally, it would be much faster, saving a stage or two of decoding and other internal mangagement, saving a lot of design and testing hassles.
For over half a decade, DEC held its own against Intel with $70M / year CPU development budget, when Intel was spending $2B. They only got tripped up with poor marketing and problems and delays in fabbing the EV6 and EV7.
For one, being fully RISC made it far easier to validate the chip design because it didn't involve lots of work disassembling instructions and keeping track of the results, predicting properly and so on.
Robert
For real 64bit performance visit VooDoo software tuning and download the 64bit 2004 Longsword Gamez Demo. The Download of UT2004 64-bit English Linux Demo is around 200Mb.
Has anyone actually checked on the price? Take a gander over at http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInforma tion/0,,30_118_609,00.html?redir=CPT301 The new 150/250/850 models are $637/$851/$1514 comparatively. Compare that to the *48 models, which are still expensive.
Does AMDs increased market share herald a a new strategy from AMD? Back "in the day" we all used to love AMDs more than Intels because of the great performance/cost ratio.
I would love to have a pair of opterons, but the prices are ridiculous. I miss the old AMD...
The budget is a few thousand euros, not over 10 000 (this is comparable in dollars). What would the best bang-for-the-euro be? Single-Dual? Xeon-Opteron-Itanium2? It must at least contain 4 gig of RAM.
Itanium servers are out of your league. A decent 1.5Ghz Itanium chip with 3Mb of on-die cache will set you back around $3,000. Not including memory, hard disks, etc. Just for ONE chip.
Xeon are way cheaper, but in most cases are more expensive than Opterons, do not scale very well when used in 2-way or higher configurations, and can only use 4Gb in flat mode. To access above 4Gb, you need to use PAE, which greatly hampers the performance (PAE is akin to the "high-memory" window trick they used back in the DOS days).
Opterons, on the other hand, are usually cheaper than Xeons, much cheaper than Itanium, almost always have better performance that Xeons, scale much better (in fact, a 2-way server performs better than a 1-way times 2!) and are only beat by Itanium in floating point performance, and then only barely.
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. Also, Opterons can access linearly up to 1Tb of physical RAM (that's 1,024 Gb), and up to 256Tb of virtual memory. And, finally, it's the only 64-bit processor you can get today that works with all your 32-bit x86 software. Finally, Opterons consume less energy than equivalent Xeons or Itaniums, and this becomes very important when thinking about A/C, UPS, standby power generators, etc.
I'd recommend you go with Opteron. Check out some well known tier-2 vendors such as Angstrom, Appro or Verari. They all make excellent quality Opteron servers and workstations. If you want brand names (and are willing to pay for it), check out Sun, Hewlett Packard or IBM for 2-way servers, or HP for a 4-way. IBM even has a dual Opteron workstation, if that's what you want.
Good Luck,
Marcos
AnandTech usually does them in their processor reviews, lemme dig one up.
Here's one, for example.
(Of note, the Athlon FX-51 and -53 are identical to Opteron 148 and 150 processors, respectively. The Athlon 64s are similar as well, difference is they use a different socket, have only single-channel memory controllers, and use unbuffered/unregistered memory.)
Basically, the Hammers are godlike at compilation.
The lowest-rated (at the time; a 2800+ has since been released) A64 3000+ beats the fastest P4 3.4GHz Extreme Edition.
Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively.
This problem does not arise however when we use 'double long' formats, or 64-bit floats, because these are way more precise and still can go a long way when 32-bit doubles already jump to zero, thus causing the problems.
On the x86 architecture, "long double" is 80-bit, and not 64-bit, which is plain "double". "float" is 32-bit.
However, note that the x86 does all floating point operations with 80-bit precision. So you don't get any performance advantage from using only single precision variables (other than lower memory bandwidth usage). Thus, a good rule of thumb is to always use double (long double might be better but isn't portable, and SSE doesn't support it if you want to use that). Single precision is mainly useful when you want to store large amounts of data (remember to cast the part of the data you're working on to double before calculating).
As others have pointed out, currently the Opteron is quite unbeatable in price/performance. 10000 EUR should certainly get you a 2 cpu system. Probably not 4 cpu:s though? Given that you need lots of memory, especially avoid the Xeon (or some other 32-bit architecture). Linux can only give 3 GB to one process with it's default configuration (I guess windows is similar?). With the so-called 4g/4g patch you can allow 4 GB for each process, but the price is lower performance. With a 64-bit architecture all those problems disappear.
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.
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.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
I respectfully disagree that Intel was ever competing with itself. They've been competing with AMD in the desktop/workgroup market for a long time now, and with Sparc/MIPS/Alpha in the enterprise market as well. Intel developed the high-clock rate Pentium 4 to compete directly with AMD's Athlon, after the Athlon whooped the Pentium 3. The Intel marketing people saw how much leverage AMD got from being the first to 1GHz with their Athlon and they didn't want that to happen again. Intel was *severely* embarrassed by loosing the race to 1Ghz. The Intel marketing people incorrectly concluded that the market was buying clock rate rather than performance. So they mandated a CPU that would have the highest possible clock rate, irrespective of performance. That's the P4/Netburst. Now they are getting burned on performance because AMD has shifted the dialog from clock rate to benchmarks. Intel also saw with the success of the Pentium M that benchmarks can triumph over clock rate. So now Intel has finally realized that they misread the market and they have to change their entire product strategy.