Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)
Does any of the ASUS motherboards support dual AMD64 cpus ?
Thanks,
Lynn
Does any of the ASUS motherboards support dual AMD64 cpus ?
Thanks,
Lynn
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)
Do you mean two physical CPUs or a dual core processor?
Bobby
"Lynn" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:116fuprhfftns9c@corp.supernews.com...
> Does any of the ASUS motherboards support dual AMD64 cpus ?
>
> Thanks,
> Lynn
>
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Do you mean two physical CPUs or a dual core processor?
Bobby
"Lynn" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:116fuprhfftns9c@corp.supernews.com...
> Does any of the ASUS motherboards support dual AMD64 cpus ?
>
> Thanks,
> Lynn
>
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)
"Lynn" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:116fuprhfftns9c@corp.supernews.com...
> Does any of the ASUS motherboards support dual AMD64 cpus ?
>
> Thanks,
> Lynn
>
Ehmm, they announced the CPUs just the last days.... Wait a little more time
and you will see. For now you can tell that all 939 boards will be able to
use the AMD Dual CORE CPUs with a bios update if the manufacturer will
programm one.
Frank
"Lynn" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:116fuprhfftns9c@corp.supernews.com...
> Does any of the ASUS motherboards support dual AMD64 cpus ?
>
> Thanks,
> Lynn
>
Ehmm, they announced the CPUs just the last days.... Wait a little more time
and you will see. For now you can tell that all 939 boards will be able to
use the AMD Dual CORE CPUs with a bios update if the manufacturer will
programm one.
Frank
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)
> Do you mean two physical CPUs or a dual core processor?
I would prefer two physical cpus.
Lynn
> Do you mean two physical CPUs or a dual core processor?
I would prefer two physical cpus.
Lynn
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 14:14:54 -0500, "Lynn" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>> Do you mean two physical CPUs or a dual core processor?
>
>I would prefer two physical cpus.
>
>Lynn
So let's say you have a dual-core per CPU, dual physical CPU system.
That's four very fast CPUs!
How much memory would be needed to keep a system list that busy?
(hate to ask this but ) Does anyone really need a four CPU core
system, unless you are very heavy into video or Photoshop?
And, can Windows XP utilize all four CPU cores? Would you need to
wait until Longhorn becomes available?
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 14:14:54 -0500, "Lynn" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>> Do you mean two physical CPUs or a dual core processor?
>
>I would prefer two physical cpus.
>
>Lynn
So let's say you have a dual-core per CPU, dual physical CPU system.
That's four very fast CPUs!
How much memory would be needed to keep a system list that busy?
(hate to ask this but ) Does anyone really need a four CPU core
system, unless you are very heavy into video or Photoshop?
And, can Windows XP utilize all four CPU cores? Would you need to
wait until Longhorn becomes available?
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)
Lynn wrote:
>>Do you mean two physical CPUs or a dual core processor?
>
>
> I would prefer two physical cpus.
There should be little difference between two physical CPUs and a Dual
Core (Except availability) in many ways. Of course, a board with 2
sockets has the potential for 4 cores are 8 DIMMs...
I can't find any Dual Socket boards for AMD64, by Asus.
One of the best configurations you could have would be a couple of
nForce4 Pros with a couple of socket 939/940s. I guess that all depends
on what you want to do.
Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
Lynn wrote:
>>Do you mean two physical CPUs or a dual core processor?
>
>
> I would prefer two physical cpus.
There should be little difference between two physical CPUs and a Dual
Core (Except availability) in many ways. Of course, a board with 2
sockets has the potential for 4 cores are 8 DIMMs...
I can't find any Dual Socket boards for AMD64, by Asus.
One of the best configurations you could have would be a couple of
nForce4 Pros with a couple of socket 939/940s. I guess that all depends
on what you want to do.
Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)
> I can't find any Dual Socket boards for AMD64, by Asus.
Found an ASUS 940 dual opteron MB http://shop.store.yahoo.com/directron/k8ndl.html
for $289
The 2.0 GHZ Opteron CPUs http://shop.store.yahoo.com/directron/opteron246.html
are $360 each
The 2.2 GHz Opteron CPUs http://shop.store.yahoo.com/directron/opteron248.html
are $529 each
Arent the Athlon AMD64 cpus suppose to be faster than the Opterons ? I think
that the Athlon already goes to 2.4 GHz ???
Lynn
> I can't find any Dual Socket boards for AMD64, by Asus.
Found an ASUS 940 dual opteron MB http://shop.store.yahoo.com/directron/k8ndl.html
for $289
The 2.0 GHZ Opteron CPUs http://shop.store.yahoo.com/directron/opteron246.html
are $360 each
The 2.2 GHz Opteron CPUs http://shop.store.yahoo.com/directron/opteron248.html
are $529 each
Arent the Athlon AMD64 cpus suppose to be faster than the Opterons ? I think
that the Athlon already goes to 2.4 GHz ???
Lynn
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)
Lady Margaret Thatcher wrote:
> So let's say you have a dual-core per CPU, dual physical CPU system.
> That's four very fast CPUs!
Yeah.
> How much memory would be needed to keep a system list that busy?
Depends what you're doing.
But ideally, 2 DIMMS per socket. 4 DIMMS.
> (hate to ask this but ) Does anyone really need a four CPU core
> system, unless you are very heavy into video or Photoshop?
Good for multitasking... If the operations are highly threaded, then
great, provided they don't rely on each other too much. (Although AMDs
architecture minimises the latency, even for inter-socket communication)
> And, can Windows XP utilize all four CPU cores? Would you need to
> wait until Longhorn becomes available?
Windows NT 4 could utilise 4 CPUs ok. By the time you went to 8, given
the architectures back then, and the OS, you gained practically nothing
over 4 CPUS.
You might require a Server/Professional licence for XP though. I'm not
sure what Windows licencing is with respect to Dual Core CPUs.
Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
Lady Margaret Thatcher wrote:
> So let's say you have a dual-core per CPU, dual physical CPU system.
> That's four very fast CPUs!
Yeah.
> How much memory would be needed to keep a system list that busy?
Depends what you're doing.
But ideally, 2 DIMMS per socket. 4 DIMMS.
> (hate to ask this but ) Does anyone really need a four CPU core
> system, unless you are very heavy into video or Photoshop?
Good for multitasking... If the operations are highly threaded, then
great, provided they don't rely on each other too much. (Although AMDs
architecture minimises the latency, even for inter-socket communication)
> And, can Windows XP utilize all four CPU cores? Would you need to
> wait until Longhorn becomes available?
Windows NT 4 could utilise 4 CPUs ok. By the time you went to 8, given
the architectures back then, and the OS, you gained practically nothing
over 4 CPUS.
You might require a Server/Professional licence for XP though. I'm not
sure what Windows licencing is with respect to Dual Core CPUs.
Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)
"Ben Pope" <benpope81@_REMOVE_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114460705.fb71aa6cc69ff7ca8ab2bd6f6753be18@teranews...
> Lady Margaret Thatcher wrote:
> > So let's say you have a dual-core per CPU, dual physical CPU system.
> > That's four very fast CPUs!
>
> Yeah.
>
> > How much memory would be needed to keep a system list that busy?
>
> Depends what you're doing.
>
> But ideally, 2 DIMMS per socket. 4 DIMMS.
>
> > (hate to ask this but ) Does anyone really need a four CPU core
> > system, unless you are very heavy into video or Photoshop?
>
feast on this rack full of dual AMD-64's http://tinyurl.com/5uhd9
closeup of a (different) motherboard http://tinyurl.com/amv4t pulled from a
similar rack.
these systems all ran linux but don't tell SCO
--
=======================================================================
Beemer Biker joestateson@grandecom.net
http://TipsForTheComputingImpaired.com
http://ResearchRiders.org Ask about my 99'R1100RT
=======================================================================
> Good for multitasking... If the operations are highly threaded, then
> great, provided they don't rely on each other too much. (Although AMDs
> architecture minimises the latency, even for inter-socket communication)
>
> > And, can Windows XP utilize all four CPU cores? Would you need to
> > wait until Longhorn becomes available?
>
> Windows NT 4 could utilise 4 CPUs ok. By the time you went to 8, given
> the architectures back then, and the OS, you gained practically nothing
> over 4 CPUS.
>
> You might require a Server/Professional licence for XP though. I'm not
> sure what Windows licencing is with respect to Dual Core CPUs.
>
> Ben
> --
> A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
> Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
> I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
"Ben Pope" <benpope81@_REMOVE_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114460705.fb71aa6cc69ff7ca8ab2bd6f6753be18@teranews...
> Lady Margaret Thatcher wrote:
> > So let's say you have a dual-core per CPU, dual physical CPU system.
> > That's four very fast CPUs!
>
> Yeah.
>
> > How much memory would be needed to keep a system list that busy?
>
> Depends what you're doing.
>
> But ideally, 2 DIMMS per socket. 4 DIMMS.
>
> > (hate to ask this but ) Does anyone really need a four CPU core
> > system, unless you are very heavy into video or Photoshop?
>
feast on this rack full of dual AMD-64's http://tinyurl.com/5uhd9
closeup of a (different) motherboard http://tinyurl.com/amv4t pulled from a
similar rack.
these systems all ran linux but don't tell SCO
--
=======================================================================
Beemer Biker joestateson@grandecom.net
http://TipsForTheComputingImpaired.com
http://ResearchRiders.org Ask about my 99'R1100RT
=======================================================================
> Good for multitasking... If the operations are highly threaded, then
> great, provided they don't rely on each other too much. (Although AMDs
> architecture minimises the latency, even for inter-socket communication)
>
> > And, can Windows XP utilize all four CPU cores? Would you need to
> > wait until Longhorn becomes available?
>
> Windows NT 4 could utilise 4 CPUs ok. By the time you went to 8, given
> the architectures back then, and the OS, you gained practically nothing
> over 4 CPUS.
>
> You might require a Server/Professional licence for XP though. I'm not
> sure what Windows licencing is with respect to Dual Core CPUs.
>
> Ben
> --
> A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
> Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
> I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)
Lynn wrote:
>>I can't find any Dual Socket boards for AMD64, by Asus.
>
>
> Found an ASUS 940 dual opteron MB http://shop.store.yahoo.com/directron/k8ndl.html
> for $289
>
> The 2.0 GHZ Opteron CPUs http://shop.store.yahoo.com/directron/opteron246.html
> are $360 each
>
> The 2.2 GHz Opteron CPUs http://shop.store.yahoo.com/directron/opteron248.html
> are $529 each
>
> Arent the Athlon AMD64 cpus suppose to be faster than the Opterons ? I think
> that the Athlon already goes to 2.4 GHz ???
I think that the original Opterons were 133*6 = 800MHz Hypertransport.
Athlon64s are 200FSB * 5 = 100MHz Hypertransport.
In terms of speed, yeah, the Athlon64s outperform the Opterons.
I think they are bringing the Opterons up to date though.
You can see a comparison of the Opterons here, including dual core:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_8796_9240,00.html?redir=CPOS14
The Opterons have more coherant Hypertransport links for multiprocessor
inter-communication.
Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
Lynn wrote:
>>I can't find any Dual Socket boards for AMD64, by Asus.
>
>
> Found an ASUS 940 dual opteron MB http://shop.store.yahoo.com/directron/k8ndl.html
> for $289
>
> The 2.0 GHZ Opteron CPUs http://shop.store.yahoo.com/directron/opteron246.html
> are $360 each
>
> The 2.2 GHz Opteron CPUs http://shop.store.yahoo.com/directron/opteron248.html
> are $529 each
>
> Arent the Athlon AMD64 cpus suppose to be faster than the Opterons ? I think
> that the Athlon already goes to 2.4 GHz ???
I think that the original Opterons were 133*6 = 800MHz Hypertransport.
Athlon64s are 200FSB * 5 = 100MHz Hypertransport.
In terms of speed, yeah, the Athlon64s outperform the Opterons.
I think they are bringing the Opterons up to date though.
You can see a comparison of the Opterons here, including dual core:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_8796_9240,00.html?redir=CPOS14
The Opterons have more coherant Hypertransport links for multiprocessor
inter-communication.
Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)
Lynn wrote:
>>Do you mean two physical CPUs or a dual core processor?
>
>
> I would prefer two physical cpus.
>
Why ? So far all of the benchmarks show that when you compare a
single 2.2 GHz dual-core Opteron 275 to a pair of 2.2 GHz
single-core Opterons 248, the dual-core wins *every* time.
Sometimes the margin is quite small, but sometimes it gets up to
10 or 15 percent.
Not only that, a 2.2 GHz dual-core Opty 275 uses less power than
a single-core Opty 248.
Lynn wrote:
>>Do you mean two physical CPUs or a dual core processor?
>
>
> I would prefer two physical cpus.
>
Why ? So far all of the benchmarks show that when you compare a
single 2.2 GHz dual-core Opteron 275 to a pair of 2.2 GHz
single-core Opterons 248, the dual-core wins *every* time.
Sometimes the margin is quite small, but sometimes it gets up to
10 or 15 percent.
Not only that, a 2.2 GHz dual-core Opty 275 uses less power than
a single-core Opty 248.
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)
> Why ? So far all of the benchmarks show that when you compare a single 2.2 GHz dual-core Opteron 275 to a pair of 2.2 GHz
> single-core Opterons 248, the dual-core wins *every* time. Sometimes the margin is quite small, but sometimes it gets up to 10 or
> 15 percent.
>
> Not only that, a 2.2 GHz dual-core Opty 275 uses less power than a single-core Opty 248.
Hmmm. Do you have the URL for that performance test. I was
impressed that it was quite the other way around.
THanks,
Lynn
> Why ? So far all of the benchmarks show that when you compare a single 2.2 GHz dual-core Opteron 275 to a pair of 2.2 GHz
> single-core Opterons 248, the dual-core wins *every* time. Sometimes the margin is quite small, but sometimes it gets up to 10 or
> 15 percent.
>
> Not only that, a 2.2 GHz dual-core Opty 275 uses less power than a single-core Opty 248.
Hmmm. Do you have the URL for that performance test. I was
impressed that it was quite the other way around.
THanks,
Lynn
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)
Lynn wrote:
>>Why ? So far all of the benchmarks show that when you compare a single 2.2 GHz dual-core Opteron 275 to a pair of 2.2 GHz
>>single-core Opterons 248, the dual-core wins *every* time. Sometimes the margin is quite small, but sometimes it gets up to 10 or
>>15 percent.
>>
>>Not only that, a 2.2 GHz dual-core Opty 275 uses less power than a single-core Opty 248.
>
>
> Hmmm. Do you have the URL for that performance test. I was
> impressed that it was quite the other way around.
I guess it depends slightly on what you are doing. With 2 seperate
Opterons, you have 2 memory busses, with a dual core, you have one.
I guess if the 2 CPUs need to work on the same data, the dual core has
some advantages in terms of latency, otherwise they have some
disadvantages in terms of bandwidth.
Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
Lynn wrote:
>>Why ? So far all of the benchmarks show that when you compare a single 2.2 GHz dual-core Opteron 275 to a pair of 2.2 GHz
>>single-core Opterons 248, the dual-core wins *every* time. Sometimes the margin is quite small, but sometimes it gets up to 10 or
>>15 percent.
>>
>>Not only that, a 2.2 GHz dual-core Opty 275 uses less power than a single-core Opty 248.
>
>
> Hmmm. Do you have the URL for that performance test. I was
> impressed that it was quite the other way around.
I guess it depends slightly on what you are doing. With 2 seperate
Opterons, you have 2 memory busses, with a dual core, you have one.
I guess if the 2 CPUs need to work on the same data, the dual core has
some advantages in terms of latency, otherwise they have some
disadvantages in terms of bandwidth.
Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)
Lynn wrote:
>>Why ? So far all of the benchmarks show that when you compare a single 2.2 GHz dual-core Opteron 275 to a pair of 2.2 GHz
>>single-core Opterons 248, the dual-core wins *every* time. Sometimes the margin is quite small, but sometimes it gets up to 10 or
>>15 percent.
>>
>>Not only that, a 2.2 GHz dual-core Opty 275 uses less power than a single-core Opty 248.
>
>
> Hmmm. Do you have the URL for that performance test. I was
> impressed that it was quite the other way around.
Anandtech are testing 2x 252s (2 cores @2.6GHz) againt 1x 875 processor
(2 cores @ 2.2GHz) and 2x 875s (4 cores @ 2.2GHz). Shame about the
clock speed differences:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2397&p=6
Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
Lynn wrote:
>>Why ? So far all of the benchmarks show that when you compare a single 2.2 GHz dual-core Opteron 275 to a pair of 2.2 GHz
>>single-core Opterons 248, the dual-core wins *every* time. Sometimes the margin is quite small, but sometimes it gets up to 10 or
>>15 percent.
>>
>>Not only that, a 2.2 GHz dual-core Opty 275 uses less power than a single-core Opty 248.
>
>
> Hmmm. Do you have the URL for that performance test. I was
> impressed that it was quite the other way around.
Anandtech are testing 2x 252s (2 cores @2.6GHz) againt 1x 875 processor
(2 cores @ 2.2GHz) and 2x 875s (4 cores @ 2.2GHz). Shame about the
clock speed differences:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2397&p=6
Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)
> Anandtech are testing 2x 252s (2 cores @2.6GHz) againt 1x 875 processor (2 cores @ 2.2GHz) and 2x 875s (4 cores @ 2.2GHz). Shame
> about the clock speed differences:
I sure would like to see a dual core cpu test vs. a dual cpu test of the same
cpus. It is my impression that the 875 series of the opteron have much
higher memory bandwidth than the 252 series.
Lynn
> Anandtech are testing 2x 252s (2 cores @2.6GHz) againt 1x 875 processor (2 cores @ 2.2GHz) and 2x 875s (4 cores @ 2.2GHz). Shame
> about the clock speed differences:
I sure would like to see a dual core cpu test vs. a dual cpu test of the same
cpus. It is my impression that the 875 series of the opteron have much
higher memory bandwidth than the 252 series.
Lynn
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)
Lynn wrote:
>>Anandtech are testing 2x 252s (2 cores @2.6GHz) againt 1x 875 processor (2 cores @ 2.2GHz) and 2x 875s (4 cores @ 2.2GHz). Shame
>>about the clock speed differences:
>
>
> I sure would like to see a dual core cpu test vs. a dual cpu test of the same
> cpus. It is my impression that the 875 series of the opteron have much
> higher memory bandwidth than the 252 series.
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/opteron-x75/index.x?pg=3
Thats what you're looking for.
Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
Lynn wrote:
>>Anandtech are testing 2x 252s (2 cores @2.6GHz) againt 1x 875 processor (2 cores @ 2.2GHz) and 2x 875s (4 cores @ 2.2GHz). Shame
>>about the clock speed differences:
>
>
> I sure would like to see a dual core cpu test vs. a dual cpu test of the same
> cpus. It is my impression that the 875 series of the opteron have much
> higher memory bandwidth than the 252 series.
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/opteron-x75/index.x?pg=3
Thats what you're looking for.
Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)
>> I sure would like to see a dual core cpu test vs. a dual cpu test of the same
>> cpus. It is my impression that the 875 series of the opteron have much
>> higher memory bandwidth than the 252 series.
>
> http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/opteron-x75/index.x?pg=3
>
> Thats what you're looking for.
Cool ! The new dual core AMD64 cpus are very good ! I am still
thinking about building a dual cpu 250 system though.
Thanks,
Lynn
>> I sure would like to see a dual core cpu test vs. a dual cpu test of the same
>> cpus. It is my impression that the 875 series of the opteron have much
>> higher memory bandwidth than the 252 series.
>
> http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/opteron-x75/index.x?pg=3
>
> Thats what you're looking for.
Cool ! The new dual core AMD64 cpus are very good ! I am still
thinking about building a dual cpu 250 system though.
Thanks,
Lynn
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)
Ben Pope wrote:
> Lynn wrote:
>
>>>Why ? So far all of the benchmarks show that when you compare a single 2.2 GHz dual-core Opteron 275 to a pair of 2.2 GHz
>>>single-core Opterons 248, the dual-core wins *every* time. Sometimes the margin is quite small, but sometimes it gets up to 10 or
>>>15 percent.
>>>
>>>Not only that, a 2.2 GHz dual-core Opty 275 uses less power than a single-core Opty 248.
>>
>>
>>Hmmm. Do you have the URL for that performance test. I was
>>impressed that it was quite the other way around.
>
>
> I guess it depends slightly on what you are doing.
You seem to have found the TechReport benchmarks.
From those it seems clear that it does *not* depend on what you
are doing. An Opty 275 beats a single or pair of Opty 248's in
*everything* even though both the 275 and the 248 are 2.2 GHz chips.
> With 2 seperate
> Opterons, you have 2 memory busses, with a dual core, you have one.
True enough. However the memory controller in the dual-core
Opterons is supposed to be better and faster.
As well, whether you have two single-core chips or one dual-core
chip, in order to maintain cache coherency each core has to snoop
the caches on the other core before accessing main memory - which
adds substantial latencies to the RAM accesses. In a dual-core
Opteron those additional latencies should be substantially
reduced because there is no need for one core to go off the die
to take a peek at what is in the other core's caches.
Hence, a pair of single-core Opterons should have a substantial
memory bandwidth advantage over one dual-core Opteron. However,
the daul-core Opteron will have a big latency advantage. And, as
we have seen in AMD64 vs (P4 and Xeon), reductions in latencies
almost always do more for your performance than bandwidth increases.
A search at AnandTech will get you latency numbers for the
single-core Opterons but it will probably be a while longer
before they have similar numbers for the dual-core chips.
I expect a better explanation than my stumblings to also show up
soon at places like AnandTech and Ace's Hardware. I'm still
struggling to digest all I have read over the past few days.
>
> I guess if the 2 CPUs need to work on the same data, the dual core has
> some advantages in terms of latency, otherwise they have some
> disadvantages in terms of bandwidth.
>
> Ben
Ben Pope wrote:
> Lynn wrote:
>
>>>Why ? So far all of the benchmarks show that when you compare a single 2.2 GHz dual-core Opteron 275 to a pair of 2.2 GHz
>>>single-core Opterons 248, the dual-core wins *every* time. Sometimes the margin is quite small, but sometimes it gets up to 10 or
>>>15 percent.
>>>
>>>Not only that, a 2.2 GHz dual-core Opty 275 uses less power than a single-core Opty 248.
>>
>>
>>Hmmm. Do you have the URL for that performance test. I was
>>impressed that it was quite the other way around.
>
>
> I guess it depends slightly on what you are doing.
You seem to have found the TechReport benchmarks.
From those it seems clear that it does *not* depend on what you
are doing. An Opty 275 beats a single or pair of Opty 248's in
*everything* even though both the 275 and the 248 are 2.2 GHz chips.
> With 2 seperate
> Opterons, you have 2 memory busses, with a dual core, you have one.
True enough. However the memory controller in the dual-core
Opterons is supposed to be better and faster.
As well, whether you have two single-core chips or one dual-core
chip, in order to maintain cache coherency each core has to snoop
the caches on the other core before accessing main memory - which
adds substantial latencies to the RAM accesses. In a dual-core
Opteron those additional latencies should be substantially
reduced because there is no need for one core to go off the die
to take a peek at what is in the other core's caches.
Hence, a pair of single-core Opterons should have a substantial
memory bandwidth advantage over one dual-core Opteron. However,
the daul-core Opteron will have a big latency advantage. And, as
we have seen in AMD64 vs (P4 and Xeon), reductions in latencies
almost always do more for your performance than bandwidth increases.
A search at AnandTech will get you latency numbers for the
single-core Opterons but it will probably be a while longer
before they have similar numbers for the dual-core chips.
I expect a better explanation than my stumblings to also show up
soon at places like AnandTech and Ace's Hardware. I'm still
struggling to digest all I have read over the past few days.
>
> I guess if the 2 CPUs need to work on the same data, the dual core has
> some advantages in terms of latency, otherwise they have some
> disadvantages in terms of bandwidth.
>
> Ben
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)
Rob Stow wrote:
> Ben Pope wrote:
>
>> I guess it depends slightly on what you are doing.
>
> You seem to have found the TechReport benchmarks.
After my guessing, yes, I did.
> From those it seems clear that it does *not* depend on what you are
> doing. An Opty 275 beats a single or pair of Opty 248's in *everything*
> even though both the 275 and the 248 are 2.2 GHz chips.
Except raw memory bandwidth tests (not that it actually 'counts' in real
life).
> > With 2 seperate
>
>> Opterons, you have 2 memory busses, with a dual core, you have one.
>
>
> True enough. However the memory controller in the dual-core Opterons is
> supposed to be better and faster.
Yes, something I hadn't accounted for.
> As well, whether you have two single-core chips or one dual-core chip,
> in order to maintain cache coherency each core has to snoop the caches
> on the other core before accessing main memory - which adds substantial
> latencies to the RAM accesses. In a dual-core Opteron those additional
> latencies should be substantially reduced because there is no need for
> one core to go off the die to take a peek at what is in the other core's
> caches.
Or indeed, even over the Hypertransport link. SRI sorts that one out at
full whack. Something else I didn't know about. AMD have really
thought about their design.
> Hence, a pair of single-core Opterons should have a substantial memory
> bandwidth advantage over one dual-core Opteron. However, the daul-core
> Opteron will have a big latency advantage. And, as we have seen in AMD64
> vs (P4 and Xeon), reductions in latencies almost always do more for your
> performance than bandwidth increases.
Indeed.
> A search at AnandTech will get you latency numbers for the single-core
> Opterons but it will probably be a while longer before they have similar
> numbers for the dual-core chips.
>
> I expect a better explanation than my stumblings to also show up soon at
> places like AnandTech and Ace's Hardware. I'm still struggling to
> digest all I have read over the past few days.
The Techreport article is actually very well written and informative, I
felt. Will have to start going there more often.
Looks like the Athlon FX2 will probably arrive at around the £500 mark,
which will probably put me off for a while. Enough speculation, anyway.
I grabbed my Winchester a month ago and now there are Venice cores
available... the duals have the same advantages as the Venice, namely
SSE3. I like.
Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
Rob Stow wrote:
> Ben Pope wrote:
>
>> I guess it depends slightly on what you are doing.
>
> You seem to have found the TechReport benchmarks.
After my guessing, yes, I did.
> From those it seems clear that it does *not* depend on what you are
> doing. An Opty 275 beats a single or pair of Opty 248's in *everything*
> even though both the 275 and the 248 are 2.2 GHz chips.
Except raw memory bandwidth tests (not that it actually 'counts' in real
life).
> > With 2 seperate
>
>> Opterons, you have 2 memory busses, with a dual core, you have one.
>
>
> True enough. However the memory controller in the dual-core Opterons is
> supposed to be better and faster.
Yes, something I hadn't accounted for.
> As well, whether you have two single-core chips or one dual-core chip,
> in order to maintain cache coherency each core has to snoop the caches
> on the other core before accessing main memory - which adds substantial
> latencies to the RAM accesses. In a dual-core Opteron those additional
> latencies should be substantially reduced because there is no need for
> one core to go off the die to take a peek at what is in the other core's
> caches.
Or indeed, even over the Hypertransport link. SRI sorts that one out at
full whack. Something else I didn't know about. AMD have really
thought about their design.
> Hence, a pair of single-core Opterons should have a substantial memory
> bandwidth advantage over one dual-core Opteron. However, the daul-core
> Opteron will have a big latency advantage. And, as we have seen in AMD64
> vs (P4 and Xeon), reductions in latencies almost always do more for your
> performance than bandwidth increases.
Indeed.
> A search at AnandTech will get you latency numbers for the single-core
> Opterons but it will probably be a while longer before they have similar
> numbers for the dual-core chips.
>
> I expect a better explanation than my stumblings to also show up soon at
> places like AnandTech and Ace's Hardware. I'm still struggling to
> digest all I have read over the past few days.
The Techreport article is actually very well written and informative, I
felt. Will have to start going there more often.
Looks like the Athlon FX2 will probably arrive at around the £500 mark,
which will probably put me off for a while. Enough speculation, anyway.
I grabbed my Winchester a month ago and now there are Venice cores
available... the duals have the same advantages as the Venice, namely
SSE3. I like.
Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question ARRGGGH!!!! Looking for help finding a replacement screw.
- Started by Franknj229
- Replies: 15
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram