Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 21:29:06 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> To: Astrodog <astrodog@gmail.com> Cc: Nathan Vidican <nvidican@wmptl.com> Subject: Re: Intel EMT64 Xeon vs AMD Opteron Message-ID: <42044B92.4040102@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <2fd864e05020419434705bf70@mail.gmail.com> References: <000001c50a3c$50f2eba0$6800000a@r3140ca> <20050204103708.21608.qmail@web26801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <2fd864e05020419382a5e21b3@mail.gmail.com> <2fd864e05020419434705bf70@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Astrodog wrote: > On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:38:43 -0800, Astrodog <astrodog@gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 11:37:08 +0100 (CET), Claus Guttesen >><cguttesen@yahoo.dk> wrote: >> >>>>Cost wise, AMD Opteron 246 is roughly the same cost >>>>as a 3.0Ghz Xeon ... But >>>>how do they compare performance wise; specifically >>>>related to FreeBSD? >>> >>>We have a dual xeon (nocona) @ 3.2 GHz and a dual >>>opteron @ 2 GHz, both with 4 GB RAM and running the >>>amd64-port. My impression is that the opteron performs >>>*slightly* better than it's Intel-cousin. >>> >>>regards >>>Claus >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org mailing list >>>http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-amd64 >>>To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-amd64-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >>> >> >> From what I understand, EM64T is essentally an extention to x86, so >>it will understand the AMD64 instructions, much the same way an >>Athlon64 does. Opteron, once again, from what I've read on the topic >>is "Actual" 64-bit, not an emulated version. Generally, I find Opteron >>to be the best "Bang for your Buck", though what motherboard, and what >>features you need there may also play a role there. AMD, so far, has >>implied that the dual core opterons will be Socket 940, If that pans >>out, the 940-based solution will be significantly more expandable, >>since there's little to no chance of Intel continuing to use their >>current Xeon socket when their Dual Core offerings come out, and I >>suspect it would be technically impossible, given the Memory >>Controller issues that its bound to create. Since AMD put the memory >>controller on-die, they can resolve this issue in the core, and not >>involve the chipsets of the motherboard itself. >> Remember, Hyperthreading isn't dual core, its kinda like adding >>another "Lane" to the processing pipeline of a single processor, so >>that when something stalls, other things can still happen. >> Hypertransport, on the other hand is AMD's method of connecting SMP >>CPUs to eachother, memory, and devices on the motherboard. >> >>Sorry about the Hypertransport/Hyperthreading thing, but there seems >>to be a great deal of confusion about what each are, and what's >>good/bad about them, and they relate to the AMD/Intel decsion you're >>making pretty explicitly. >> >>Personally, I say go with the Opteron. Worst case, performance and >>reliability are the same, and you're supporting the underdog. Best >>case, it blows your socks off, and in a year, you can go dual core. >>Either way, you can't loose. >> >>---- Harrison Grundy >> > > > D'oh. One other thing. In the benchmarks I've seen, Opterons "Play > Nicer" with SMP because of the Hypertransport setup in some > applications. (IE, they don't fight over memory the way Xeons do). > Look for a motherboard that uses a "4+4" or "4+2" memory configuration > to take full advantage of this. (Differnt memory for each processor, > kinda) With FreeBSD, it's a bit of a toss-up. There is no strong affinity set or enforced between process memory and where the process is running. Having some notion of affinity (i.e. NUMA support) would be a good thing. Oh, and the 4+2 configurations are typically pretty poor, regardless. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42044B92.4040102>