Opteron series 100 vs athlon 64 fx

  • Thread starter Thread starter Martin
  • Start date Start date
M

Martin

Anyone got a nice article that compares the two?

I know opteron is for servers, and fx for multimedia/gaming, but I'd like to
see a comparison of the two, including value for money.

Thanks
Martin
 
Anyone got a nice article that compares the two?
Click to expand...
The Opteron and 940 pin FX's are basically the same, except I believe the
multiplier is not locked on the FX's. Both require reg. ram.

The 939 FX's don't need registered ram.
 
Wes Newell said:
The Opteron and 940 pin FX's are basically the same, except I believe the
multiplier is not locked on the FX's. Both require reg. ram.

The 939 FX's don't need registered ram.
Click to expand...
 
So the price difference between
Opteron146 2GHz 1MB S940 Box (£191exVAT)
and
Athlon 64 FX-53 1MB S940 (£589 ex VAT)
is just down to clock speed 2GHz vs 2.4 GHz??

Martin
 
So the price difference between
Opteron146 2GHz 1MB S940 Box (£191exVAT)
and
Athlon 64 FX-53 1MB S940 (£589 ex VAT)
is just down to clock speed 2GHz vs 2.4 GHz??
Click to expand...

Yes the price difference is mostly due to clock speed although there
are also marketing issues at work. The Opteron 1xx is aimed at the bottom
of the server market whereas the FX is aimed at the very top of the
desktop market. The 64 bitness of the Opteron is a significant
differentiator in the server and workstation markets because Linux is
available in a 64 bit flavor. This allows AMD to compete for all segments
of the server market, something they could never do before. In the desktop
area the only OS that really counts is Windows which is still in beta for
the 64 bit version. Until MS releases 64bit Windows the only reason to buy
an AMD64 for ordinary desktop use is for top performance so AMD is only
offering the fastest speed grades for the FX. When MS finnaly ships the 64
bit version of XP I expect you'll see reasonably priced FX chips.
 
Interesting insight.

I would have expected some aspects like 3DNow and SSE2 instructions to be
missing from the Opteron, but I can't clearly see if it's in or out.
 
Martin said:
Interesting insight.

I would have expected some aspects like 3DNow and SSE2 instructions to be
missing from the Opteron, but I can't clearly see if it's in or out.
Click to expand...

They'll be there. The usefulness of the instructions/architecture extends
way beyond desktop multimedia apps.

Ben
 
They'll be there. The usefulness of the instructions/architecture extends
way beyond desktop multimedia apps.

Ben
Click to expand...

Most importantly they don't want to have to maintain two different
processor cores. The differences between the different flavors mostly come
down to the cache size and packaging. The three Opterons are nearly
identical except the 1xx doesn't do any coherency checking on the
hypertransports, the 2xx does it on 1 bus and the 8xx does it on all
three. I'd guess that the difference comes down to a couple of enable bits
which are configured either on one of the metal layers or possible even
inside of the package. The 754 only has a single DDR interface but it's
possible that it's the same die as the Opterons and that it's strictly a
packaging difference, or if it is a die difference it's the same basic
core with one interface ripped off. The 939 is a slightly tweeked version
but the changes are likely very small and will eventually appear in the
Opteron when they do the next spin.
 
General said:
Most importantly they don't want to have to maintain two different
processor cores. The differences between the different flavors mostly come
down to the cache size and packaging. The three Opterons are nearly
identical except the 1xx doesn't do any coherency checking on the
hypertransports, the 2xx does it on 1 bus and the 8xx does it on all
three. I'd guess that the difference comes down to a couple of enable bits
which are configured either on one of the metal layers or possible even
inside of the package. The 754 only has a single DDR interface but it's
possible that it's the same die as the Opterons and that it's strictly a
packaging difference, or if it is a die difference it's the same basic
core with one interface ripped off. The 939 is a slightly tweeked version
but the changes are likely very small and will eventually appear in the
Opteron when they do the next spin.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I was gonna mention that, but was not sure of the differences in
the core between the XP and the Athlon64s. I assumed they were different
enough to warrant such modifications (but that they wouldn't bother removing
the features - why, anyway?). Of course, the FX and Opteron, are, as we
know, practically identical.

Ben
 
I would have expected some aspects like 3DNow and SSE2 instructions to be
missing from the Opteron, but I can't clearly see if it's in or out.
Click to expand...

Nope, everything is on opteron (in fact the amd64 architecture manuals
don't make any distinction between them). The only thing "missing" is
Intel's "prescott new instructions".
--email: (e-mail address removed) icbm: Delray Beach, FL |
<URL:http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley> Free Software and Politics <<==+
 
Thomas A. Horsley said:
Nope, everything is on opteron (in fact the amd64 architecture manuals
don't make any distinction between them). The only thing "missing" is
Intel's "prescott new instructions".
Click to expand...

Prescott new instructions as outlined in
http://www.thejemreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=109
??

Does the FX also omit these?

Although apparently not a functional enhancement, it will still lead to CPU
specific software in Linux/Windows. Would I lose out on software
availability if I bought AMD instead of Intel?

Thanks
Martn
 
Prescott new instructions as outlined in
http://www.thejemreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=109
??

Does the FX also omit these?

Although apparently not a functional enhancement, it will still lead to CPU
specific software in Linux/Windows. Would I lose out on software
availability if I bought AMD instead of Intel?
Click to expand...
In short, no. Now think about it. Do you really think anyone would write
software that would require the customer to have a Prescott or newer CPU?
Answer, no.
 
Wes Newell said:
In short, no. Now think about it. Do you really think anyone would write
software that would require the customer to have a Prescott or newer CPU?
Answer, no.
Click to expand...
In 9 months time I think it will matter less who was first, and more who has
which instructions.

Are you saying no one will write code to take advantage of SSE3 in
Prescott??
 
In short, no. Now think about it. Do you really think anyone would write
In 9 months time I think it will matter less who was first, and more who has
which instructions.

Are you saying no one will write code to take advantage of SSE3 in
Prescott??
Click to expand...

What he is saying is that x86-64 (iAMD64) programs will run on either chip
even if they cant use every feature of said chip.
 
Does the FX also omit these?
Although apparently not a functional enhancement, it will still lead to CPU
specific software in Linux/Windows. Would I lose out on software
availability if I bought AMD instead of Intel?
Click to expand...

All the amd64 family chips have identical instruction sets as near as I
can tell, but you can "lose out" in the other direction as well,
the Intel amd64 clone ("nocona" or ia32-e or whatever it is called these days)
doesn't have the AMD 3dNow instructions, so they are both "missing"
pieces :-).
 
Tom Horsley said:
All the amd64 family chips have identical instruction sets as near as I
can tell, but you can "lose out" in the other direction as well,
the Intel amd64 clone ("nocona" or ia32-e or whatever it is called these days)
doesn't have the AMD 3dNow instructions, so they are both "missing"
pieces :-).
Click to expand...
Fair point, though interestingly, Intel have said it's 64-bit x86 processors
will run 64 bit *OSes* developed for AMD64.
(http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS3581750843.html)
 
In 9 months time I think it will matter less who was first, and more who has
which instructions.
Click to expand...
They all have the same basic instruction set.
Are you saying no one will write code to take advantage of SSE3 in
Prescott??
Click to expand...

No. I'm saying the software will still run on older cpu's. No software
company will write software that requires SSE3 just to run. That's what I
said, and that's what I meant. I didn't say that no one would take
advantage of the SSE3 (or any other extra instructions) in CPU's. And what
does it matter, AMD will have SSE3 instructions too in newer model cpu's
for what it's worth. And it isn't worth much from what I've read about it.
 
Wes Newell said:
They all have the same basic instruction set.


No. I'm saying the software will still run on older cpu's. No software
company will write software that requires SSE3 just to run. That's what I
said, and that's what I meant. I didn't say that no one would take
advantage of the SSE3 (or any other extra instructions) in CPU's. And what
does it matter, AMD will have SSE3 instructions too in newer model cpu's
for what it's worth. And it isn't worth much from what I've read about it.

--
Click to expand...
Okay
 
Fair point, though interestingly, Intel have said it's 64-bit x86 processors
will run 64 bit *OSes* developed for AMD64.
Click to expand...

I would imagine so. I have a hard time imagining any operating system
having a use for any of the 3DNow or SSE instructions,
--email: (e-mail address removed) icbm: Delray Beach, FL |
<URL:http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley> Free Software and Politics <<==+
 
Back
Top