Intel guy looking the AMD direction for the first time.

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.microprocessors.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Hello everyone. I am looking to buy a new desktop PC. I currently have
a Compaq Pentium 3 733 MHz desktop and a Dell 2.0 GHz Celeron laptop.

I have always been a fan of Intel... mainly because when I got into
computers there was no AMD. My first IBM based PC was an 8088 with
640k RAM and a 21 megabyte hard drive.

The first time I had any knowledge of an AMD product was around 1996.
Because (and I might be remembering this incorrect ...) but as I
remember a good friend of mine had a K5 processor and I remember he
had all kinds of problems with Windows 95. MANY MANY more Windows 95
problems than I had on my 80486 SX 25... Or did I have the Packard
Hell Pentium (Classic) 100 MHz by then... Lol... I don't remember.

So as time went on I always stuck with Intel. I went from P classic to
PMMX to PIII to the latest which is the Celeron laptop.

Now I am looking to buy a new desktop and I am looking for the best
new technology. I am very interested in 64 bit technology. I know
Intel has had Itanium and Itanium II but as I understand it those are
not for consumers.

So I want the "straight poop" about the AMD 64 FX models. And is there
any new AMD 64 FX chip coming in the fourth quarter 2004?

Also can anyone explain the Intel roadmap for a consumer 64 bit CPU?

Any thoughts on the best place to order custom built High performance
PCs? I can't stand the newer all integrated systems. I do not want
integrated Graphics, sound, NIC, ect.



I was looking at Alienware. Are there other sites as well? I have to
say those Alienware systems always look damn cool.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.microprocessors.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

> Any thoughts on the best place to order custom built High performance
> PCs? I can't stand the newer all integrated systems. I do not want
> integrated Graphics, sound, NIC, ect.

newegg.com has a good selection and prices. Look for a motherboard with
the nForce3 250Gb chipset.

Your aversion to integrated graphics is understandable, since they've
always been somewhere between pathetic and mediocre on the performance
scale. But you'd be hard-pressed to find a new motherboard that doesn't
have both integrated NIC and sound these days. You're better off with
an integrated NIC anyway (particularly for gigabit ethernet), because it
can run straight off the south bridge and not tie up any PCI bandwidth.
As for sound, new motherboards support 8-channel audio and SPDIF
digital output, so I don't even see the need for an add-in sound
card--and nothing's stopping you from disabling the onboard sound
plugging a sound card if you want to anyway.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.microprocessors.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"No spam" <nathan_at_work@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:16a74909.0409121808.3eb339d9@posting.google.com...
> Hello everyone. I am looking to buy a new desktop PC. I currently have
> a Compaq Pentium 3 733 MHz desktop and a Dell 2.0 GHz Celeron laptop.
>
> I have always been a fan of Intel... mainly because when I got into
> computers there was no AMD. My first IBM based PC was an 8088 with
> 640k RAM and a 21 megabyte hard drive.
>
> The first time I had any knowledge of an AMD product was around 1996.
> Because (and I might be remembering this incorrect ...) but as I
> remember a good friend of mine had a K5 processor and I remember he
> had all kinds of problems with Windows 95. MANY MANY more Windows 95
> problems than I had on my 80486 SX 25... Or did I have the Packard
> Hell Pentium (Classic) 100 MHz by then... Lol... I don't remember.
>
> So as time went on I always stuck with Intel. I went from P classic to
> PMMX to PIII to the latest which is the Celeron laptop.
>
> Now I am looking to buy a new desktop and I am looking for the best
> new technology. I am very interested in 64 bit technology. I know
> Intel has had Itanium and Itanium II but as I understand it those are
> not for consumers.
>
> So I want the "straight poop" about the AMD 64 FX models. And is there
> any new AMD 64 FX chip coming in the fourth quarter 2004?
>
> Also can anyone explain the Intel roadmap for a consumer 64 bit CPU?
>
> Any thoughts on the best place to order custom built High performance
> PCs? I can't stand the newer all integrated systems. I do not want
> integrated Graphics, sound, NIC, ect.
>
>
>
> I was looking at Alienware. Are there other sites as well? I have to
> say those Alienware systems always look damn cool.

I'm not sure that AMD is really planning on releasing any new chips this
year, but it's been a while since I've looked at one of their processor road
maps. You may want to check www.amd.com for that information or do a google
search for "AMD Road Map" or something like that. As for the "straight poop"
on these chips, they are excellent preformers with amazing IPC. Which chip
you should buy will depend greatly on what kind of work you do, I use AMD
because I am a programmer who writes mostly web based applications. And as
it so happens AMD chips are much faster than Intel's chips when it comes to
running compiling source code, running webservers and running database
servers (espeacially in 64b mode). AMD's also tend to out preform Intel
chips in games, which was another factor in why I use AMD. As long as you
get a good quality AMD system preferably with an nForce 3 you shouldn't have
any problems what so ever with your system. From what I'm told Via chipsets
have gotten better recently, but I've heard that a lot and every time I've
ever tried one I was never happy with it. Which could explain your buddies
experience with his K5, chances are it was running in a system that had a
via chipset.

Carlo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.microprocessors.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

No spam wrote:
> Hello everyone. I am looking to buy a new desktop PC. I currently have
> a Compaq Pentium 3 733 MHz desktop and a Dell 2.0 GHz Celeron laptop.
>
> I have always been a fan of Intel... mainly because when I got into
> computers there was no AMD. My first IBM based PC was an 8088 with
> 640k RAM and a 21 megabyte hard drive.

Well hi, and welcome to the 21st Century, Rip Van Winkle. A lot of the
rest of us in these newsgroups started on those 8088 PC clones ourselves,
and we didn't seem to have much trouble accepting AMD as a credible
alternative.

Actually, AMD has been making Intel compatible chips for as long as Intel
has been making them. Initially it was making them with the complete
permission and support of Intel -- AMD was Intel's official second source
right from the days of the original IBM PC. And then later it was making
them without so much permission and support.

I think the first time I'd heard of AMD was when I was shopping for a cheap
287 coprocessor to fit to my 386DX CPU. (Yes, 386's could also be fitted to
287's rather than 387's.) Then later I found out that AMD not only made
coprocessors but also direct clones of the processors. This was around 1988
or thereabouts.

> The first time I had any knowledge of an AMD product was around 1996.
> Because (and I might be remembering this incorrect ...) but as I
> remember a good friend of mine had a K5 processor and I remember he
> had all kinds of problems with Windows 95. MANY MANY more Windows 95
> problems than I had on my 80486 SX 25... Or did I have the Packard
> Hell Pentium (Classic) 100 MHz by then... Lol... I don't remember.

The K5 was not AMD's most successful design, not by a long shot. It was
AMD's first attempt its own original design. It's previous processors were
much more successful (the 386, 486, and 5x86), and it's later processors
were much more successful (K6, Athlon, and Athlon 64). So yes, you could
call the K5 to be AMD's lowest valley. Prior to the K5, AMD's designs were
all direct copies transistor-for-transistor copies of Intel's processors --
since AMD had been Intel's second source for years prior to that. At around
the time of the 386 were when AMD and Intel started having their first
feuds; Intel no longer wanted to have AMD as its second source, while AMD
insisted that they had a binding contract for just that. The court battle
eventually came down to an agreement that AMD would stop cloning Intel's
chips as of the end of the 486. So K5 was AMD's attempt to engineer a
Pentium-workalike, but with their own original design inside. The K5 didn't
succeed, but AMD's second attempt was the K6, which was also a
Pentium-workalike, and it also fit into the Pentium socket. This was much
more successful, and it in fact extended the Pentium infrastructure beyond
the Pentium, beyond what Intel had imagined for that infrastructure. The K6
was competing against the Pentium II's and III's, which were on their
next-generation infrastructure. AMD's next design, the Athlon, was (and is
to this day) their most successful original design ever; and not only was it
original on the inside, it was also original on the outside, as the Athlon
uses no infrastructure at all that's similar to anything from Intel's; oh it
runs all of the same software as Intel's, and all of the same peripherals,
such as USB and PCI cards work with either Intel or AMD, but below that
level Intel and AMD had diverged completely. Now the Athlon is giving way
slowly to the Athlon 64, which is another completely original design, and
actually quite a quantum leap over even the original Athlon, and anything
that Intel has (including their Itanium).

> Now I am looking to buy a new desktop and I am looking for the best
> new technology. I am very interested in 64 bit technology. I know
> Intel has had Itanium and Itanium II but as I understand it those are
> not for consumers.

No, the Itanium is definitely not for consumers (though originally Intel may
have had such hopes and plans). These days, it's living out life as a
server-only processor.

> So I want the "straight poop" about the AMD 64 FX models. And is there
> any new AMD 64 FX chip coming in the fourth quarter 2004?

Well, the AMD Athlon 64 FX processors are AMD's ultimate gaming processors.
And as such they are more expensive than their regular Athlon 64's. They
typically have slightly better memory interfaces than the regular A64's,
either dual-channel memory, or bigger cache, or both. I think most people
suggest that you stay away from the FX's, as they are extremely expensive
compared to the regular A64's. Quite a bit more money for only slightly
better performance.

Similarly, people suggest you stay away from Pentium 4 Extreme Edition vs.
regular Pentium 4. Exact same reasons.

> Also can anyone explain the Intel roadmap for a consumer 64 bit CPU?

Intel has copied AMD's 64-bit language extensions now. But it hasn't
implemented these extension throughout the board on all of its processors.
It is first going to implement them in its server Xeon processors, before it
brings them to its desktop Pentium 4 processors. It's expect that these will
take until the middle of 2005 before Intel has it fully incorporated on all
of its non-Itanium processors. Intel calls its version EM64T, while AMD
calls it's AMD64, but they are exactly the same thing.

However, it's not just the extensions that matters here. AMD spent a great
deal of time not only improving the language, but it also came up with an
incredibly sophisticated infrastructure, which it calls Direct Connect
Architecture. That's just a marketing term for a processor that connects to
its RAM and its peripherals and to other processors directly with very few
other chips required in between, allowing for much higher throughput. This
is the real secret behind AMD64, not so much its 64-bittedness.

> Any thoughts on the best place to order custom built High performance
> PCs? I can't stand the newer all integrated systems. I do not want
> integrated Graphics, sound, NIC, ect.

Not having integrated graphics is a good choice. Integrated sound is
actually not so bad, especially if you get a motherboard with an Nvidia
chipset in it, because they have a version of the sound chipset that is
present inside the Microsoft Xbox. And integrated NICs are just great, no
reason why you would want a separate card for a NIC anymore.

> I was looking at Alienware. Are there other sites as well? I have to
> say those Alienware systems always look damn cool.

Sure, they're supposed to look cool. They are geared towards the gaming
enthusiast.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.microprocessors.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 19:08:38 -0700, No spam wrote:

> So I want the "straight poop" about the AMD 64 FX models. And is there
> any new AMD 64 FX chip coming in the fourth quarter 2004?
>
Very fast and very expensive. You'll pay a hefty premium (about $800) for
a small percentage of increased speed. Even the cheapest A64 (about $140)
will be at least 3 times faster than what you have now.

> Also can anyone explain the Intel roadmap for a consumer 64 bit CPU?
>
Not me. The Intel CPu I had was a 486.

> Any thoughts on the best place to order custom built High performance
> PCs? I can't stand the newer all integrated systems. I do not want
> integrated Graphics, sound, NIC, ect.
>
Sorry, I've always built my own. try pricewatch.com.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.microprocessors.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Lachoneus wrote:
> Your aversion to integrated graphics is understandable, since they've
> always been somewhere between pathetic and mediocre on the performance
> scale. But you'd be hard-pressed to find a new motherboard that
> doesn't have both integrated NIC and sound these days. You're better
> off with an integrated NIC anyway (particularly for gigabit
> ethernet), because it can run straight off the south bridge and not
> tie up any PCI bandwidth. As for sound, new motherboards support
> 8-channel audio and SPDIF digital output, so I don't even see the
> need for an add-in sound card--and nothing's stopping you from
> disabling the onboard sound plugging a sound card if you want to
> anyway.

You don't even need to disable the onboard sound system, you can keep it
completely enabled and still put a secondary sound card in. These days with
plug'n'play, you don't have to worry about resource conflicts as much. The
sound cards just rearrange themselves into different configurations to
accomodate whatever is in the computer.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.microprocessors.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Lachoneus <lachoneus@nonexistent.invalid> wrote:

>You're better off with
>an integrated NIC anyway (particularly for gigabit ethernet), because it
>can run straight off the south bridge and not tie up any PCI bandwidth.

Which does the average home user a whole lot of good, considering
they're limited by their internet connection of 1Mb/s (give or
take)... 8)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.microprocessors.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 22:43:33 -0600, Lachoneus
<lachoneus@nonexistent.invalid> wrote:

> As for sound, new motherboards support 8-channel audio and SPDIF
>digital output, so I don't even see the need for an add-in sound
>card--

Unless you are a musician who wants a lower-latency and higher quality
than the onboard audio can deliver.

 

[Poseidon]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.microprocessors.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"No spam" <nathan_at_work@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:16a74909.0409121808.3eb339d9@posting.google.com...



> So I want the "straight poop" about the AMD 64 FX models.
Everybody in here is really helpful. For benchmarks, I like
www.tomshardware.com
Figure out which components you like, and then ask people in here about
their experiences with those components.


> Any thoughts on the best place to order custom built High performance
> PCs? I can't stand the newer all integrated systems. I do not want
> integrated Graphics, sound, NIC, ect.
> I was looking at Alienware. Are there other sites as well? I have to
> say those Alienware systems always look damn cool.
The best custom shop there is for building your PC is either your basement,
coffeetable, or kitchen table. (IMHO) Building your system yourself, you
get a lot of knowledge about computers and how they work. Plus, most of the
main manufacturers will give you three year warranties on the parts (Asus,
MSI, Western Digital etc.)

And Personally (I'm probably going to get flamed for saying this) I like the
Athlon 64 3400+ Processor as the best value) There's not much of a
performance difference between it and the 3500+ (in fact in some benchmarks
I've seen, the 3400 can outdo the 3500) and you're going to pay less or the
motherboard, you don't have to buy the more expensive dual-hanel memory
kits, and the processor is a fair bit cheaper. So you now have a good
amount of extra money to put into the components you want to splurge on,
like more memory, better video card, or bigger hard drive....

But that's just me...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.microprocessors.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <5v91d.2623$zi01.453@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:
>No spam wrote:
>> Hello everyone. I am looking to buy a new desktop PC. I currently have
>> a Compaq Pentium 3 733 MHz desktop and a Dell 2.0 GHz Celeron laptop.
>>
>> I have always been a fan of Intel... mainly because when I got into
>> computers there was no AMD. My first IBM based PC was an 8088 with
>> 640k RAM and a 21 megabyte hard drive.
>
>Well hi, and welcome to the 21st Century, Rip Van Winkle. A lot of the
>rest of us in these newsgroups started on those 8088 PC clones ourselves,
>and we didn't seem to have much trouble accepting AMD as a credible
>alternative.
>
>Actually, AMD has been making Intel compatible chips for as long as Intel
>has been making them. Initially it was making them with the complete
>permission and support of Intel -- AMD was Intel's official second source
>right from the days of the original IBM PC. And then later it was making
>them without so much permission and support.

Toward that end, I have an IBM PC/XT at home (the real thing, not a clone)
that left the factory with an AMD processor. That would've been from the
era when AMD was copying Intel's stuff instead of rolling its own.

(Last time I switched it on, it still worked, too. It's currently set up
with DR DOS 6 and the DOS SMB client off of an NT Server 4 CD. When it's
hooked up to the network, it can access shared files on Linux and Win32
hosts (haven't tried it with Mac OS X, but that should work too) and it can
print to shared printers...not bad for 20-year-old technology. )

_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Linux)

iD8DBQFBRjGRVgTKos01OwkRAjN4AKCNjyhLnEUgRUGduIwXbyYfHnH7QwCgrEpn
KcsbwX7AJm3f6IZQyGCD0Lk=
=Ozrs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.microprocessors.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Scott Alfter wrote:
> Toward that end, I have an IBM PC/XT at home (the real thing, not a
> clone) that left the factory with an AMD processor. That would've
> been from the
> era when AMD was copying Intel's stuff instead of rolling its own.
>
> (Last time I switched it on, it still worked, too. It's currently
> set up with DR DOS 6 and the DOS SMB client off of an NT Server 4 CD.
> When it's hooked up to the network, it can access shared files on
> Linux and Win32
> hosts (haven't tried it with Mac OS X, but that should work too) and
> it can print to shared printers...not bad for 20-year-old technology.
> )

Oh, you mean to say, you still have a working XT?

Yousuf Khan

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.microprocessors.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:33:50 +0000, Yousuf Khan wrote:

> Scott Alfter wrote:
>> Toward that end, I have an IBM PC/XT at home (the real thing, not a
>> clone) that left the factory with an AMD processor. That would've
>> been from the
>> era when AMD was copying Intel's stuff instead of rolling its own.
>>
>> (Last time I switched it on, it still worked, too. It's currently
>> set up with DR DOS 6 and the DOS SMB client off of an NT Server 4 CD.
>> When it's hooked up to the network, it can access shared files on
>> Linux and Win32
>> hosts (haven't tried it with Mac OS X, but that should work too) and
>> it can print to shared printers...not bad for 20-year-old technology.
>> )
>
> Oh, you mean to say, you still have a working XT?

Last time I checked I still had a working 5150. ...last time I checked.
;-)

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.microprocessors.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

> Oh, you mean to say, you still have a working XT?

I'm considering buying a GeForce 5900 XT; is that close enough?

You'd think the 3MB/sec 8-bit ISA bus would be a bottleneck for a GPU
that fast, though... maybe I should splurge for the 5900 AT with the
16-bit bus.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.microprocessors.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

>>You're better off with
>>an integrated NIC anyway (particularly for gigabit ethernet), because it
>>can run straight off the south bridge and not tie up any PCI bandwidth.
>
>Which does the average home user a whole lot of good, considering
>they're limited by their internet connection of 1Mb/s (give or
>take)... 8)

That depends on the home user. If you have a local network at home,
gigabit ethernet can make transfering video fiels around a lot
quicker .

Back on the original amd/intel comparison question: We have both dual
Opteron and dual Xeon systems at work for linux development, and people are
constantly wondering what is wrong with the Opterons when they first start
using them because everything finishes too fast (something must have gone
wrong, right?), but no, nothing went wrong, they are just that fast . It
boggles the mind sometimes how fast they are.
--
>>==>> The *Best* political site <URL:http://www.vote-smart.org/> >>==+
email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL |
<URL:http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley> Free Software and Politics <<==+

 

[Poseidon]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.microprocessors.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

> Oh, you mean to say, you still have a working XT?
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
My Commodore 64 still worked the last time I hooked it up! (maybe a year
ago or so..)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Lachoneus wrote:
>> Oh, you mean to say, you still have a working XT?
>
> I'm considering buying a GeForce 5900 XT; is that close enough?
>
> You'd think the 3MB/sec 8-bit ISA bus would be a bottleneck for a GPU
> that fast, though... maybe I should splurge for the 5900 AT with the
> 16-bit bus.

You know that GPU by itself could probably emulate an 8088 at better than
full-speed.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Tony Hill wrote:

> You can safely ignore the Itanium line, it's definitely NOT what
> you're going to be looking for. First off, it's not software
> compatible with existing applications, requiring emulation to run
> all your current code.

Itanium can run IA-32 binaries. Why do you mention emulation?

> What's probably more important though is that you'll have a heck
> of a time finding an Itanium system for less than $20,000.

??

You can purchase a zx2000 workstation from HP for $5000.
http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/11665_na/11665_na.HTML

--
Regards, Grumble

 

[jk]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Where does it show prices on that page?
$5,000? Still not what the typical home user wants.
Under $1,000 would be good.

Grumble wrote:

> Tony Hill wrote:
>
> > You can safely ignore the Itanium line, it's definitely NOT what
> > you're going to be looking for. First off, it's not software
> > compatible with existing applications, requiring emulation to run
> > all your current code.
>
> Itanium can run IA-32 binaries. Why do you mention emulation?
>
> > What's probably more important though is that you'll have a heck
> > of a time finding an Itanium system for less than $20,000.
>
> ??
>
> You can purchase a zx2000 workstation from HP for $5000.
> http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/11665_na/11665_na.HTML
>
> --
> Regards, Grumble

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Grumble wrote:

> Tony Hill wrote:
>
>> You can safely ignore the Itanium line, it's definitely NOT what
>> you're going to be looking for. First off, it's not software
>> compatible with existing applications, requiring emulation to run
>> all your current code.
>
>
> Itanium can run IA-32 binaries. Why do you mention emulation?

Itanic can run x86-32 in hardware - but in that mode
it is equivalent to a Pentium running at about
20% of the Itanic's actual clock speed.

With a software emulator, the Itanic does much better -
apparently in some cases it is about as fast as a PIII
running at the Itanic's actual clock speed.

>
>> What's probably more important though is that you'll have a heck
>> of a time finding an Itanium system for less than $20,000.
>
>
> ??
>
> You can purchase a zx2000 workstation from HP for $5000.
> http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/11665_na/11665_na.HTML
>


--
Reply to rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca
Do not remove anything.

 

[russell]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.microprocessors.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Take a look at the higher-end systems we build, if not to buy from us, at
least to get an idea of what is compatible with what and to get an idea of
reasonable pricing. Alienware and Falcon Northwest are very pricy (high
profit margin for high overhead) and with Falcon Northwest, you're also
paying for a decent custom paint job. We offer both AMD-based and
Intel-based systems at reasonable prices including shipping costs and we use
only premium components for full retail component manufacturer warranties.
We handle all warranty replacement/repair work directly and offer free
advance replacement of any component(s)/system(s) found to be defective,
along with lifetime free tech support. We also offer a no-strings 30-day
full refund policy with no restocking fees on all systems, and we have a 10
rating at Reseller Ratings. You can see our current offerings (just a
starting point; we can also build anything else with any components you'd
like, as long as everything's compatible) at
http://tastycomputers.com/bistro_menu/bistromenu_main.htm.

Regarding integrated components, most newer motherboards offer all these
integrated bells and whistles these days, and a lot of them work just as
well or better than separate cards (especially Ethernet and onboard RAID),
and integrated sound and graphics is greatly improved recently over previous
incarnations, but you certainly don't have to enable the integrated stuff if
you don't want to (unless you buy a cheapee motherboard with limited
expansion options.) If you're buying or building a higher-end enthusiast
rig, you'd probably want a higher end 8x AGP or new 16x PCI-Express graphics
card, good processor, chipset, hard drive(s) and memory, but you can
certainly be very satisfied with integrated sound and NIC these days.

Hope this helps...and happy hunting on the right system for your unique
needs!
--
Russell
http://tastycomputers.com

"No spam" <nathan_at_work@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:16a74909.0409121808.3eb339d9@posting.google.com...

> Any thoughts on the best place to order custom built High performance
> PCs? I can't stand the newer all integrated systems. I do not want
> integrated Graphics, sound, NIC, ect.
>
>
>
> I was looking at Alienware. Are there other sites as well? I have to
> say those Alienware systems always look damn cool.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.microprocessors.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:13:51 GMT, "Russell"
<rsullivan@tastycomputersdotcom_replace_dot_with"."> wrote:

>Take a look at the higher-end systems we build, if not to buy from us, at
>least to get an idea of what is compatible with what and to get an idea of
>reasonable pricing. Alienware and Falcon Northwest are very pricy (high
>profit margin for high overhead) and with Falcon Northwest, you're also
>paying for a decent custom paint job. We offer both AMD-based and
>Intel-based systems at reasonable prices including shipping costs and we use
>only premium components for full retail component manufacturer warranties.
>We handle all warranty replacement/repair work directly and offer free
>advance replacement of any component(s)/system(s) found to be defective,
>along with lifetime free tech support. We also offer a no-strings 30-day
>full refund policy with no restocking fees on all systems, and we have a 10
>rating at Reseller Ratings. You can see our current offerings (just a
>starting point; we can also build anything else with any components you'd
>like, as long as everything's compatible) at
>http://tastycomputers.com/bistro_menu/bistromenu_main.htm.

>Regarding integrated components, most newer motherboards offer all these
>integrated bells and whistles these days, and a lot of them work just as
>well or better than separate cards (especially Ethernet and onboard RAID),
>and integrated sound and graphics is greatly improved recently over previous
>incarnations, but you certainly don't have to enable the integrated stuff if
>you don't want to (unless you buy a cheapee motherboard with limited
>expansion options.) If you're buying or building a higher-end enthusiast
>rig, you'd probably want a higher end 8x AGP or new 16x PCI-Express graphics
>card, good processor, chipset, hard drive(s) and memory, but you can
>certainly be very satisfied with integrated sound and NIC these days.

>Hope this helps...and happy hunting on the right system for your unique
>needs!

If I get hungry whilst in your shop do you sell SPAM also ?
BoroLad

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

[ It's harder to follow the discussion when you post your reply
above my message, instead of below. ]

JK wrote:

> Grumble wrote:
>
>> You can purchase a zx2000 workstation from HP for $5000.
>> http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/11665_na/11665_na.HTML
>
> Where does it show prices on that page?

I provided a link to the zx2000's specifications.

See HP's online store for prices.

--
Regards, Grumble

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Rob Stow wrote:

> Itanic can run x86-32 in hardware - but in that mode
> it is equivalent to a Pentium running at about 20%
> of the Itanic's actual clock speed.
>
> With a software emulator, the Itanic does much better -
> apparently in some cases it is about as fast as a PIII
> running at the Itanic's actual clock speed.

I googled around.

http://www.intel.com/products/server/processors/server/itanium2/itanium_wp.pdf

<quote>
5.9 Legacy Application Support

IA-32 application support allows Itanium 2 processor-based solutions
to be deployed when secondary applications have not yet been ported
to Itanium microarchitecture. It is possible that an application is
not performance critical, and therefore can run in the IA-32
execution mode. Because it is still a native IA-32 application, it
will not be able to address more than 2 to 3 GB of memory.

Currently, 32-bit execution is performed in hardware. In 2004, Intel
will introduce a software-based IA-32 Execution Layer (EL). IA-32
instructions will be translated in software and executed as native
Itanium instructions. IA-32 EL binaries will ship with the operating
system and will be initiated by the operating system when an IA-32
application is launched.

With the IA-32 EL and the Itanium 2 processor 6M at 1.5 GHz,
estimated IA-32 application performance is similar to the Intel Xeon
processor at 1.5 GHz. Performance will vary by application and is
expected to scale up with future processors.

Itanium-based operating systems do not support applications that
contain 32-bit device drivers or 16-bit applications (this is not
specific to Itanium microarchitecture), and outdated or incompatible
installers for 32-bit applications may also lead to incompatibility.

Native Itanium-based applications should be deployed for optimal
performance and capabilities, but the IA-32 Execution Layer may be
considered for running secondary IA-32 applications as needed.
</quote>

I'll take a look at Paul DeMone's article:
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT122803224105

--
Regards, Grumble

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Rob Stow wrote:

> Itanic can run x86-32 in hardware - but in that mode
> it is equivalent to a Pentium running at about
> 20% of the Itanic's actual clock speed.

Here's a naive matrix-matrix multiply implementation:

#include <stdio.h>
#define M 100
#define N 400

static double A[N][N], B[N][N], C[N][N];

int main(void)
{
unsigned long i, j, k, t;
double checksum = 0;

for (i=0; i < N; ++i)
for (j=0; j < N; ++j)
{
A[j] = i;
B[j] = j;
}

for (t=0; t < M; ++t)
for (i=0; i < N; ++i)
for (j=0; j < N; ++j)
{
double accu = 0;
for (k=0; k < N; ++k) accu += A[k]*B[k][j];
C[j] = accu;
}

for (i=0; i < N; ++i)
for (j=0; j < N; ++j)
checksum += C[j];

printf("checksum=%f\n", checksum);

return 0;
}

$ gcc-3.4.0 -static -O3 matmul.c -o a1
$ gcc-3.3.4 -O3 matmul.c -o a2
$ file a?
a1: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for
GNU/Linux 2.2.5, statically linked, not stripped
a2: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, IA-64 (Intel 64 bit architecture)
version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.4.0, dynamically linked (uses
shared libs), not stripped

Binary Computer Execution Time
a1 c1 51.0 s
a1 c2 99.5 s
a1 c3 123.6 s
a2 c3 39.7 s

c1 = 3.0 Ghz Pentium 4 (Northwood)
c2 = 1.0 GHz Pentium 3 (Coppermine)
c3 = 1.3 GHz Itanium 2 (McKinley)

For this specific benchmark, the IA-32 hardware execution unit on a
1.3 GHz Itanium 2 is equivalent to a ~800 MHz Pentium 3.

--
Regards, Grumble

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.microprocessors.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <O%q1d.55$NBi1.35@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:
>Scott Alfter wrote:
>> Toward that end, I have an IBM PC/XT at home...
>
>Oh, you mean to say, you still have a working XT?

Yes...and a working TRS-80 Color Computer 2, and a working VIC-20, and a
working TI-99/4A, and four working Apple IIs (two IIGSes, a IIe, and a II+).
I should open a museum.

(The IIe and II+ run 24/7 as temperature controllers for my beer, too. A
IIGS serves as the development system for the software running on those
systems. The rest are packed up, but it'd be nice to have a way to just sit
down and use any of them.)

_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Linux)

iD8DBQFBSKZeVgTKos01OwkRAkJQAJ9Z4FrKaWgRBSdajpIcaQRWKsdBTwCdH3kg
QlYlvwaTuEY0prb6B5vjlHA=
=HW72
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----