Astrodog wrote:

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:38:43 -0800, Astrodog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 11:37:08 +0100 (CET), Claus Guttesen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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

_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-amd64
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


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
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to