AMD Opteron

[Ken']

Hi
What is the above CPU's used for? Are they for Server"s or Workstations?
Would they make a good home computer, for general and occasional game use?
Thanks
Ken'

 

[Roger Hamlett]

Hi
What is the above CPU's used for? Are they for Server"s or Workstations?
Would they make a good home computer, for general and occasional game
use?
Thanks
Ken'

They are versions of the AMD64, targetted mainly for server applications.
Depends on the version, but many are designed for multi-processor server
boxes. Most _require_ ECC memory. Generally, given the relative pricing of
suitable motherboards, for a games application, you might be slightly
'better off' with a S939 AMD64. The 'answer', depends on the version, and
the price.

Best Wishes

 

[Ken']

They are versions of the AMD64, targetted mainly for server applications.
Depends on the version, but many are designed for multi-processor server
boxes. Most _require_ ECC memory. Generally, given the relative pricing of
suitable motherboards, for a games application, you might be slightly
'better off' with a S939 AMD64. The 'answer', depends on the version, and
the price.

Best Wishes

Roger
If price was not a factor, which AMD would you recommend for a home
computer, with a preference for games.
Dual core or one of the FX models?
Thanks for the prompt reply.
Ken'

 

[Ed]

Roger
If price was not a factor, which AMD would you recommend for a home
computer, with a preference for games.
Dual core or one of the FX models?
Thanks for the prompt reply.
Ken'

Right now the AMD 64 FX is the gamers choice, there's no doubt about it,
just go look at benchmarks. The FX is also going dual core very soon.

One nice thing about dual core is you don't have to stop something just
to play a game, it's basically 2 PCs in one.

Ed

 

[Bill]

Roger
If price was not a factor, which AMD would you recommend for a home
computer, with a preference for games.
Dual core or one of the FX models?
Thanks for the prompt reply.
Ken'

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/06/27/athlon_64_fx/

Pure gaming, price no object, I'd go with the FX-57. There's been
reports of problems in gaming with some combinations of AMD64 X2
processors, motherboards, video cards, and games. Most troublefree path
would be using a single core processor.

Bill

 

[Ken']

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/06/27/athlon_64_fx/

Pure gaming, price no object, I'd go with the FX-57. There's been
reports of problems in gaming with some combinations of AMD64 X2
processors, motherboards, video cards, and games. Most troublefree path
would be using a single core processor.

Bill

Bill
Thanks for the reply.
I have never had a AMD based computer, and I would hesitative to buy a
single core CPU and be stuck not being able to multi task.
My Son's friends that have AMD, if the are re- coding a DVD they can't do
anything else until it is done.
With my Intel I can re code a DVD, surf the net, download or whatever I
want.
I would prefer to have a dual core, but as you say, there are problems with
some configurations.
It isn't as clear cut choice as I would Like.
Thanks to all for the help.
Ken'

 

[Roger Hamlett]

Bill
Thanks for the reply.
I have never had a AMD based computer, and I would hesitative to buy a
single core CPU and be stuck not being able to multi task.
My Son's friends that have AMD, if the are re- coding a DVD they can't
do anything else until it is done.
With my Intel I can re code a DVD, surf the net, download or whatever I
want.

This actually suggests nothing about the processor, but that your Son's
friend's, have got their machine wrongly setup. I'd 'guess' that they are
probably running without the motherboard chipset drivers, and the DVD, is
being handled without DMA...

I would prefer to have a dual core, but as you say, there are problems
with some configurations.
It isn't as clear cut choice as I would Like.
Thanks to all for the help.
Ken'

The modern AMD machines, are fast, and _cool_ compared to Intel. A couple
of years ago, low heat dissipation in the CPU, was an Intel 'winning
factor', now the opposite is true. Multi-core processors, with things that
support them are 'great', and you can always setup a dual boot, with one
having the option '/ONECPU', which turns off the multi cpu operation. The
'downside' then is that an AMD4800+, only runs as a 3500+ in this mode. A
single procesasor, should still be able to multi-task quite well, provided
everything is running as it should be.
I'd 'toss' between the FX57, and the AMD4800+. The latter will give the
smoother performance most of the time, but for a few things, may need to
be 'throttled bacl' to run as a single CPU.

Best Wishes

 

[NoNoBadDog!]

Bill
Thanks for the reply.
I have never had a AMD based computer, and I would hesitative to buy a
single core CPU and be stuck not being able to multi task.
My Son's friends that have AMD, if the are re- coding a DVD they can't do
anything else until it is done.
With my Intel I can re code a DVD, surf the net, download or whatever I
want.
I would prefer to have a dual core, but as you say, there are problems
with some configurations.
It isn't as clear cut choice as I would Like.
Thanks to all for the help.
Ken'

Your friends computer is not set up properly. With my AMD Athlon64, I can
Re-code and record a DVD while continuing to use my computer for other
things.
FWIW, Intel D chips are not dual core, just two cores fused to a single die.
they have no crossbar to communicate, so can only "see" each other through
the archaic and slow Northbridge. They have no on-die memory controller, no
Hypertransport bus, no direct connect architecture, and no exclusive
dedicated L2 cache per CPU. I would not waste a single dime on any Intel
chip for the time being, until they start building something other than
ships based upon the P4 architecture with no on-die memory control and no
Hypertransport bus.

I used to buy and build *only* Intel, until Intel stop being an innovator.
When they decided not to design a later generation 64 bit chip, I stopped
buying them (and no, EM64T is not a true 64 bit technology).

Bobby

 

[Bill]

Bill
Thanks for the reply.
I have never had a AMD based computer, and I would hesitative to buy a
single core CPU and be stuck not being able to multi task.

It's the OS that multi tasks, did you mean multi thread?

My Son's friends that have AMD,

What AMD?

if the are re- coding a DVD they can't do
anything else until it is done.

That would depend on their setup. Right now I'm running Seti, burning
a dvd, and answering your post, all at the same time.

With my Intel I can re code a DVD,

What Intel? Are you now changing your mind and saying you want to do
other things than gaming?

surf the net, download or whatever I
want.

See above.

I would prefer to have a dual core, but as you say, there are problems with
some configurations.

Well, my motherboard supports dual core. As soon as they figure out
the bugs and the prices drop a bit I'll be installing a dual core here.

You could build your rig now with a single core processor on a
motherboard that supports dual core and upgrade later. Then give the
FX-57 to your son or sell it on E-Bay.

It isn't as clear cut choice as I would Like.

Life never is.

Thanks to all for the help.
Ken'

Bill

 

[IF-ONLY]

says...

[snip]

I have been planning to buy a fast Dual Opteron soon. But my old ASUS (CUV4X-D) using 2 Intel 1000 cpu's (1 gig RAM),
with full SCSI seems to be able to out do every computer I use. I can transcode a DVD, while burning a music CD in the
other drive, and be downloading my Newsgroups, and printing, and open a photo with Photoshop CS and edit it.

Oh yeah, on my second monitor, I sometimes watch TV in full screen mode while doing this.

I still can't wait to buy a new Opteron DUAL CPU system. Maybe when I am ready, it will be Dual-Core, multi-CPU, with 2
megs on the die.

Sorry to interupt. Just my 2 cents.