I just borrowed a dual opteron system from a friend of mine and i was considering getting one. I was really excited about the possiblities that i would have with the new 64 bit technology. However, i have been really disappointed. I did some reseach before i bought it and i knew current IA 64 programs would not work on it, in fact i can't find any programs that are specialized for the amd 64. I have worked with IA 64 technology for some years now, mainly with SGI and Sun. USing the MIPS core and The UltraSparc. I have also used intel's itanium2 for a short time. As far as i can tell these opterons server absolutly no purpose. I know everyone has been saying applications are coming that utilize the new technology, but why waste the time on this stuff. In my line of work we utilize the IA 64 qualities in doing large analysis work in FEA. Mainly on nonlinear deformations, the IA 64 RISC processing power is much needed in this case. Simply put, an Intel processor will not do the trick, because it does not have the necessary benifits of a 64 bit processor, and neither does the AMD opteron 64. I was just wondering if anyone here knew of any uses of the AMD 64 technology that would persuade me to spend the extra $1000 over the dual xeon system i'm considering building as well. In reality if AMD kills the actual market for real IA 64 processors, it would be a massive step back in technology. In fact it would probably set us back 20 years of quality research.
Purpose of AMD 64???
- Thread starter imported_TheCadMan
- Start date
I hear that the Itanic is a sinking ship.
intel put too much money into a lost cause. We need the A64 as a transition to true 64-bit software. If you compare the performance of a Xeon server with a comparably priced Opteron one, it's my understanding that the AMD setup will blow the Xeons out of the water (which is probably a good thing if they sank with the Itanic).
A64 is an incredible piece of technology. How you could say it set us back 20 years is beyond me. If anything intel set itself back 20 years with its own stupidity and underhanded business practices.
intel put too much money into a lost cause. We need the A64 as a transition to true 64-bit software. If you compare the performance of a Xeon server with a comparably priced Opteron one, it's my understanding that the AMD setup will blow the Xeons out of the water (which is probably a good thing if they sank with the Itanic).
A64 is an incredible piece of technology. How you could say it set us back 20 years is beyond me. If anything intel set itself back 20 years with its own stupidity and underhanded business practices.
Soulkeeper
Diamond Member
- Nov 23, 2001
- 6,732
- 155
- 106
yeah x86-64 is much better than just 64-bit or 32-bit alone
you can just use 32-bit programs faster than most any other 32-bit machine, and when the time comes you can hopefully realize a nice boost in performance/features/etc from the transistion to a 64-bit software environment later this year or next.
you can just use 32-bit programs faster than most any other 32-bit machine, and when the time comes you can hopefully realize a nice boost in performance/features/etc from the transistion to a 64-bit software environment later this year or next.
The question i have is. What makes it an incredible piece of technology? Yes the itanic is a sinking ship, so is SGI, so is Sun and many more true 64 bit technology. If we were truely going to the 64 bit technology why don't they just add 32 bit extensions to a 64 bit processor?(Don't say thats what an opteron is, because that is not true because it's an IA 32 with a few more features.) But what makes it an incredible piece of technology. Maybe it outperforms a xeon by 1000000000% but what good is it if it doesn;t even work at all?
Jeff7181
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2002
- 18,368
- 11
- 81
I don't know why you think it doesn't work... it's not being used much because Microsoft can't get their 64-bit OS out the door for whatever reason. However, there are Linux distro's that fully support x86-64 CPU's.
What makes it an "incredible piece of technology" is that it's the first and only CPU capable of running both 32-bit and 64-bit code without taking HUGE performance hits to do so. So to answer your question, "what makes it an incredible piece of technology," my previous statement, along with that price AMD has been able to make it available at is what makes it incredible. Price an AMD Opteron system and an Intel Itanium system and I guarantee the Opteron will be cheaper.
I also don't see how it sets us back 20 years... I can't imagine any informed person making a statement like that... do you know what computers were like 20 years ago?
I just fail to see the point of this thread unless it was to discredit AMD. I don't think anybody would argue that AMD's x86-64 technology isn't the best for every application... your example is testament to that. But I don't understand why you think x86-64 sets us back 20 years. I don't know how else to say it... I'm thoroughly confused as to the nature of your question. Unless you're unable to rationalize and make decisionsed based on the research you said you've done on the x86-64 technology, I don't see any other reason for your post other than to try to discredit AMD and downplay the usefulness of their 64-bit processors.
"set us back 20 years of quality research"???
Somehow I think that the AMD64 is a little bit more powerful then the Commodore 64 I used some 20 years ago. And somehow, I don't see the 5.25 floppy drive making a comeback anytime soon. Although, maybe the ability to run 32 bit and 64 bit code isn't that novel. After all, the Commodore 128 code run programs for the Commodore 64 as well as it's own programs. Video out is not such a big deal after, because the Commodore 64 could hook up to a TV!!! That machine was way ahead of its time.
Why is SGI, Sun, and those guys going down? I can only assume they are going down because people are finding that they cost too much relative to their additional performance.
I know that over the past 7 or so years we've moved away from Unix based CAD workstations (Pro/E and Mechanica on HP C160 workstations) to Intel/MS based ones (P3-700 to P4 2.0, Nvidia Quadro, WinNT/2000).
The cost of the C160 when we bought it in 1997 was over $20,000. The P3-700 NT boxes with Elsa Gloria 2 were just over $5000.
Now, the point of this rambling is that the only reason high end systems are losing ground is because the low end stuff is usually almost as fast and costs significantly less.
I agree that neither Opteron nor Xeon will match the high end stuff currently, but many companies find that they don't need the extra power.
From what I've seen, it seems like Xeon and Opteron systems are closely matched when compared by price, and the only time Opterons pull away is when you get to a large number of processors and the superior memory architecture of the Opterons starts to shine.
Like all the gamers like to say, "Don't buy hardware for software that hasn't shipped yet." Your case might be different since you will probably keep your systems much longer than the average gamer, but it probably isn't worth the extra price to buy a 64-bit CPU unless you already like its performance or you already know of software that can take advantage of extra bits.
For a $1000 price difference, I'd do quite a bit of searching for application specific benchmarks to see how your usage would be affected by the two differenct choices. It seems that in some cases the Opterons are better than the Xeons and in others the roles are reversed.
Good luck.
-D'oh!
I know that over the past 7 or so years we've moved away from Unix based CAD workstations (Pro/E and Mechanica on HP C160 workstations) to Intel/MS based ones (P3-700 to P4 2.0, Nvidia Quadro, WinNT/2000).
The cost of the C160 when we bought it in 1997 was over $20,000. The P3-700 NT boxes with Elsa Gloria 2 were just over $5000.
Now, the point of this rambling is that the only reason high end systems are losing ground is because the low end stuff is usually almost as fast and costs significantly less.
I agree that neither Opteron nor Xeon will match the high end stuff currently, but many companies find that they don't need the extra power.
From what I've seen, it seems like Xeon and Opteron systems are closely matched when compared by price, and the only time Opterons pull away is when you get to a large number of processors and the superior memory architecture of the Opterons starts to shine.
Like all the gamers like to say, "Don't buy hardware for software that hasn't shipped yet." Your case might be different since you will probably keep your systems much longer than the average gamer, but it probably isn't worth the extra price to buy a 64-bit CPU unless you already like its performance or you already know of software that can take advantage of extra bits.
For a $1000 price difference, I'd do quite a bit of searching for application specific benchmarks to see how your usage would be affected by the two differenct choices. It seems that in some cases the Opterons are better than the Xeons and in others the roles are reversed.
Good luck.
-D'oh!
well AMD64 is the future. Intel was planning on IA64 for desktops with Tejas but we learned resently thier cancelling that program. my guess? Intel will rush into production a X86-64 dual core pentium-M, while they develop something that can compete with whatever amd has in the pipeline for the k9.
although I have to admit a 2.5ghz dual core pentium M sounds might good to me. and considering a Pentuim M is a Laptop chip and they are keeping the power running thru it low for mobile ussage if they beef the voltage up I bet Dothan would run at 2.5ghz now.
although I have to admit a 2.5ghz dual core pentium M sounds might good to me. and considering a Pentuim M is a Laptop chip and they are keeping the power running thru it low for mobile ussage if they beef the voltage up I bet Dothan would run at 2.5ghz now.
Tejas was NOT IA-64, it was a pentium 4 on .065 process, with 1200fsb, and 2MB of L2, further improved hyperthreading, and was to scale to 5ghz.
I'm not promoting intel over anyone else, in fact intel is mostly to blame for all of this. I think maybe my original post wasn't clear enough. My rant is the fact that we have had the technology AMD and intel are trying to promote as new technology for almost 20 years. The only reason the true IA 64 are more expensive is because typically intel or AMD will fabricate thousands of chips while the latter is not produced in mass quanitity. So if you look at the facts, we are moving to something that is realtively old technology by planned obsolescence. Since now AMD and intel will compete to get where we already are. I'm sorry if i sound like a forum troll, but i'm just trying vent my feelings, that is unfair to the consumer to push something as something it isn't. I just wanted to open up a debate as to how you guys felt about this new tech. I see that most of you like it; I just wondered why?
- Aug 22, 2001
- 31,722
- 31,650
- 146
For myself, I do not need 64bit power, I like the A64 because of it's superior performance in 32bit over anything AMD has previously had. If by having this excellent 32bit performance many companies use while offering 64bit capabilities, and by doing so help facilitate a smoother and more cost effective transition for that company I think that is a positive thing
Jeff7181
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2002
- 18,368
- 11
- 81
Exactly what isn't it? It's not a 64-bit RISC processor? Duh... it's a 64-bit x86 processor... nobody ever claimed otherwise.
The majority of people don't know why the Athlon-64 is as fast as it is, or what significance "64-bit" has. The main features that make the Athlon-64 as good as it is are:
1. Integrated memory controller (eliminates the FSB as a potential bottleneck)
2. Silicon on Insulator (reduces current leakage to allow higher clock speeds and less voltage)
3. SSE2 support (takes advantage of applications optimized for Intel's SSE2 instructions
4. Additional GPR's in 64-bit mode (more registers means less L1 cache hits, Less L2 cache hits, and less RAM hits = increased performance)
5. 40-bit memory address bus (supports up to 1 TB of RAM)
6. Hyper-Transport (provides a very high speed link between CPU's in a multi-processor configuration... also provides high speed links to other devices such as GB LAN controllers, SATA controllers, AGP and PCI buses)
Excuse me if I've forgotten any other benefits the Athlon-64 has over it's predecessor and current competition.
If you're saying AMD's 64-bit processor isn't good, or isn't a real 64-bit processor because it's not as powerful when performing nonlinear deformations... then your beef isn't with AMD's 64-bit processor... it's with x86 processors in general.
can anyone say in the last 12 months anything better then AMD 64 has come out in terms of CPU, well commercially anyway. How this is killing tech i dont know, if anything Intel with there approach of devaluing Mhz by extending the pipeline stage to 31 seems more of a , two steps back, one forward approach, spose one could argue the eventual high clock speed makes up for some of it, but we all the know the heat and leakage problems that are all so clear now, enter pentium M.
I think its small pipeline stage of 12 is great and is better with the branch predictor, however i dont know how much of a bottleneck for uping the Mhz is with only 12 pipelines, perhaps it is more to do with the process its made on 0.13 micron/0.9 Micron.
I think its small pipeline stage of 12 is great and is better with the branch predictor, however i dont know how much of a bottleneck for uping the Mhz is with only 12 pipelines, perhaps it is more to do with the process its made on 0.13 micron/0.9 Micron.
Ya know... the Technology for man to go to the Moon has been around for 35 years or so.... but not as a consumer product...
If GM came out with a Car that could go to the moon... but it would take you 5 times as long to get there... This being a Consumer product... would that be setting you back 35 years?
No.
--------
They are just trying to take what's been "around for quite a while" and make it into an "every day" consumer product.
I'd say it's not an easy task as the "entire planet" (for lack of a better word) is running on IA32 right now.
Give it a chance. :moon:
If GM came out with a Car that could go to the moon... but it would take you 5 times as long to get there... This being a Consumer product... would that be setting you back 35 years?
No.
--------
They are just trying to take what's been "around for quite a while" and make it into an "every day" consumer product.
I'd say it's not an easy task as the "entire planet" (for lack of a better word) is running on IA32 right now.
Give it a chance. :moon:
Jeff7181
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2002
- 18,368
- 11
- 81
I'm pretty sure I know what he meant by that... by adopting x86-64 instead of completely switching over to something like IA64, you're throwing out a technology (IA64) that is very powerful. However... IA64 is not suited to home use... for one, how much does an Itanium cost? Two, how many people actually perform tasks that would benefit from the Itanium's architecture? Apple has used RISC processors for years IIRC, yet the x86 based PC industry has never been in danger of being overtaken by the "more powerful" RISC powered Macs.
One thing to consider is... could an application like Microsoft Word be redesigned to take advantage of IA64 technology, and if so, could you run the processor at say, 500 MHz and get the same performance as an x86 processor running at 2000 MHz?
Or how could UT2k4 and HL2 and Doom3 benefit from the "IA64 RISC processing power?" Since IA64 RISC processing isn't a cost effective solution for the general population, it doesn't really matter. I don't care if a 500 MHz Itanium can run UT2k4 at the same speed as a 2.4 ghz Athlon-64... if the 500 MHz Itanium costs $2000 and the 2.4 Ghz Athlon-64 costs $500, guess which one I'm buying.
An intel itanium could cost as low as $100 if need be. Also IA 64 is a consumer product, i have an SGI octane i bought off ebay for $300. Nothing is stopping me from buying a new IA 64 computer, i'm just mad i have to spend $15000 on it, when it comes time to upgrade.
Jeff7181
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2002
- 18,368
- 11
- 81
And an Enzo Ferarri could cost as low as $40,000 if need be... but it doesn't.
I'd buy a lot of things too if they didn't cost so much... but the fact is, things do cost too much, so I can't buy them... the Itanium is one of them.
And your SGI Octane is probably great at what it was designed to do... on the other hand, it would be completely useless to me.
A ferarri is an intentional luxury item, a busniess could survive without it. Cost effective IA 64 technology is a necessity.
I guess you could say it's not needed, then again people said IA 32 was not need, in fact people said computers were not needed.
- Aug 22, 2001
- 31,722
- 31,650
- 146
Excellent rejoinder :beer: You should post more I enjoy your style of reasoning. To address that comment directly, the fact it is needed doesn't mean it cannot be argued that need is anywhere beyond what is in essence a "niche market" for these companies, does it?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter