Opteron vs. A64

[CrimsonChaos]

Can someone please explain the primary differences between server chips vs. typical consumer processors (i.e. Opteron and Xeon vs. Athlon and Pentium).

The only difference I've been made aware of is that the server chips are validated to run in certain multi-processor configurations. Is this the only advantage for buying a typical server chip versus buying a typical consumer processor?

Thanks for any input!

 

[bob4432]

you can always get a pari of xp-m and modify them to run in dual

 

[Appledrop]

well, the opteron vs a64... The opteron can use registered memory, which though slightly slower, is more reliable. Another difference like you say is the possibility of using multiple processors.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

It is the platform and not just the CPU itself that makes it the choice for professionals. The amount of ram you can populate, the inclusion of PCI-X and SCSI on the boards, the number of CPU sockets, that sort of thing.

 

[CrimsonChaos]

So it's more of a "usage" issue and not a "performance" issue?

I was just always under the assumption that server processors were more powerful, and therefore more expensive, and that's why they came out with the cheaper consumer versions for us lay-folk. But you're saying it has more to do with system configuration than anything else?

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: CrimsonChaos
So it's more of a "usage" issue and not a "performance" issue?

I was just always under the assumption that server processors were more powerful, and therefore more expensive, and that's why they came out with the cheaper consumer versions for us lay-folk. But you're saying it has more to do with system configuration than anything else?

Some Xeon processors come with huge amount cache (8mb) and again Intel has the Itaniums for really pro work. But the regular Xeons and Opterons aren't more powerfull at their desktop counterpart.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: biostud

Originally posted by: CrimsonChaos
So it's more of a "usage" issue and not a "performance" issue?

I was just always under the assumption that server processors were more powerful, and therefore more expensive, and that's why they came out with the cheaper consumer versions for us lay-folk. But you're saying it has more to do with system configuration than anything else?

Some Xeon processors come with huge amount cache (8mb) and again Intel has the Itaniums for really pro work. But the regular Xeons and Opterons aren't more powerfull at their desktop counterpart.

Well, I think all Opterons have 1MB L2 cache, whereas many Athlon64s have only 512KB (and Semprons only have 256KB, and the new 90nm low-end Sempron only has 128KB!). So there can be a (slight) difference there. The execution cores are identical, though.

But there is no difference between an Athlon64 FX CPU and an Opteron 1XX at the same speed (other than the use of registered memory on the Opteron). Opteron 2XX and 8XX CPUs have extra coherent HyperTransport links, which can be used for SMP operation.