Socket939, AGPx8, and Linux ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stig Mogensen
  • Start date Start date
S

Stig Mogensen

I'm thinking of upgrading to AMD Athlon64 3000+, and have the above in mind.

But I have not decided on a MB yet. It obviesly needs t be well supportet by
the Linuxkernel, but still.....which?

I'm thinking MSI-k8t-neo2-fir

Any comments?

/Stig
 
I'm thinking of upgrading to AMD Athlon64 3000+, and have the above in mind.

But I have not decided on a MB yet. It obviesly needs t be well supportet by
the Linuxkernel, but still.....which?

I'm thinking MSI-k8t-neo2-fir

Any comments?

/Stig

I'm using the MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum with Fedora Core 3. The K8N uses the
Nforce3-250 Ultra which works fine with Fedora Core 3 but not with
Mandrake. The Mandrake installer hangs when it tries to load the SATA
driver, this is true as of the latest beta 10.2B3.

The system that I have is a Compaq GX5050 which comes with an MSI K8N Neo2
Platinum, A64 3800+, 512M DDR400, 200G SATA drive, CDRW/DVD+-R, CD/DVD
ROM, Audigy 2 sound card (doesn't work with FC3, don't know if
it's a Linux issue or a Fedora problem),Enermax 470W,Cooler Master
Wavemaster Case, Nvidia FX5700 256M graphics card. I paid $1400 at CompUSA
for it two weeks ago, check and see if they are still carrying them, $1400
is considerably than the component costs.

One thing that I've discovered since I bought it is that cache size is
much more important then main memory bandwidth. I also have a Compaq
R3000z notebook that has an Athlon 64 3400+ in it. The 3800+ in the GX5050
is a 939 pin with 1/2M of cache. The 3400+ is a 754 pin with 1M of cache.
When I run Verilog simulations with no I/O the 3400+ is twice as fast as
the 3800+. GCC performance is slightly faster than the 3400+ but I feel
safe in saying that a 754 pin A64 with a 1M cache will perform at least as
well as a 939 pin A64 with 1/2M cache. There are 939s with 1M of cache,
the FX parts, but they are so expensive that you would be much better
served by with a dual Opteron system for about the same money (Opterons
also have 1M of cache and they are available at reasonable prices).
 
I'm using the MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum with Fedora Core 3. The K8N uses the
Nforce3-250 Ultra which works fine with Fedora Core 3 but not with
Mandrake. The Mandrake installer hangs when it tries to load the SATA
driver, this is true as of the latest beta 10.2B3.

Yep...I'm trying to steer clear of closed source nVidia drivers, and stay
with the vanilla kernel supported ones. That's why I was thinking about VIA
chipsets.

Also, at first, I'll be adding my current bits - G4 TI-4800SE, 2 IDE ATA100
HDs, 512mb DDR400 ram, and SoundBlaster Live5.1!.

/Stig
 
One thing that I've discovered since I bought it is that cache size is
much more important then main memory bandwidth. I also have a Compaq
R3000z notebook that has an Athlon 64 3400+ in it. The 3800+ in the GX5050
is a 939 pin with 1/2M of cache. The 3400+ is a 754 pin with 1M of cache.
When I run Verilog simulations with no I/O the 3400+ is twice as fast as
the 3800+. GCC performance is slightly faster than the 3400+ but I feel
safe in saying that a 754 pin A64 with a 1M cache will perform at least as
well as a 939 pin A64 with 1/2M cache.

Could I beg you to do me a three minute benchmark favor
on your two different processors? This does multi-thousand
bit exponentiation and greatest-common-divisors, over and over.

If you have or can get the javac compiler and java runtime
on the two machines I would dearly love to see the amount
of time it takes for each of the two machines to run this.

You can get the free compiler in the JDK from
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/download.jsp
and the free runtime from
http://www.java.com/en/download/manual.jsp

If you want to compile the 45 line program below you save
it in a file ywe2t.java and then type
javac ywe2t.java
and it should create ywe2t.class

If you don't have the JDK Java Development Kit with the
compiler then you can grab my compiled program from
http://www.rdrop.com/users/dont/ywe2t.class
and the source is also there if you want that
http://www.rdrop.com/users/dont/ywe2t.java

Then, either way, to run it you type
java ywe2t
and I'm hoping that in about 90 seconds it will print out
how long it took to do the 100 iterations.

Running that on each machine will compare these on compute
intensive calculations.

For my Athlon 2000 I get a little under 90 seconds and I'm
right on the edge of buying an Athlon 64 3200. I'm wondering
which model will give more performance. If your machines
aren't doing anything else that would consume resources then
this would give me a good idea how much I might gain from each
model processor.

Thank you
=========
import java.math.BigInteger;
import java.util.Date;

public class ywe2t {

public static void main (String args[])
throws java.io.IOException {

BigInteger two = new BigInteger("2");
BigInteger fac1 = new BigInteger("3");
BigInteger fac2 = new BigInteger("13219");
BigInteger sqrt = new BigInteger("0");
BigInteger n = new BigInteger("0");
BigInteger T = new BigInteger("1");
BigInteger b = new BigInteger("1");
BigInteger a = new BigInteger("2");
BigInteger w = new BigInteger("2");
int loop;
long starttime;
long finishtime;
long duration;

n = two.pow(2203).add(BigInteger.ONE).divide(fac1).divide(fac2);

while (w.compareTo(n) < 0)
w = w.multiply(two);

// really simple but inaccurate approximation of sqrt(n)
sqrt = n.shiftRight(n.bitLength()/2);

loop = 100; // enough iterations to report about every 1 minute

starttime = System.currentTimeMillis();
while (a.compareTo(sqrt) <= 0 && (T.compareTo(BigInteger.ONE) == 0 || T.compareTo(n) == 0)) {
b = a.modPow(w, n);
T = n.gcd(b.modPow(n, n).subtract(b));

if (loop-- == 0) {
finishtime = System.currentTimeMillis();
duration = (finishtime-starttime);
starttime = finishtime;
System.out.println("a="+a.toString()+", duration=" + duration + " milliseconds");
System.exit(0);
}
a = a.add(BigInteger.ONE);
}
System.out.println("T="+T.toString());
}
}
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stig Mogensen said:
Yep...I'm trying to steer clear of closed source nVidia drivers, and stay
with the vanilla kernel supported ones. That's why I was thinking about VIA
chipsets.

What he is mentioning about the nVidia NForce 3 is in the
CHIPSET support, not the video card support. I'm using the GigaByte
K8NNXP-940 (Socket 940), and it has the same chipset. Slackware 10.1 is
the distribution I'm using, and it works fine. From the sounds of it,
Mandrake didn't compile in the option for using the NForce3 chipset
(support for that is in the vanilla kernel, as I'm using 2.4.29 and
2.6.11 with it cleanly).
Also, at first, I'll be adding my current bits - G4 TI-4800SE, 2 IDE ATA100
HDs, 512mb DDR400 ram, and SoundBlaster Live5.1!.

All of this will work just fine, with exception of the video
card. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your TI-4800SE uses the nVidia
video chipset, right? If so, then you'll be using closed source video
drivers. This isn't a real problem, unless you are trying to go with a
full 64-bit OS (I'm grabbing the amd64 port of Slackware right now, so
I'm still on a 32-bit OS). That would mean recompiling the video
driver, which you obviously wouldn't have the source for, or that
nVidia released a 64-bit version.

If it isn't nVidia, install $DISTRIBUTION, load up xorgconfig,
set it up, and you're golden.

<SOAPBOX>
All distributions should have the GENERIC motherboard chipset
support enabled in their kernels, so that you can at least boot it
after installation, or even during it. It's bloody stupid on their part
if they make the motherboard assumptions for you.
</SOAPBOX>

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email: (e-mail address removed)
Unix Systems Administrator, | (e-mail address removed)
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCKhSZyBkZmuMZ8L8RArwgAJ0TTRCUXg5z3TxxC1RePq2DZecwBwCdHkLk
OzrCM1Vd51hcatzUHkyGImA=
=pl/L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Could I beg you to do me a three minute benchmark favor
on your two different processors? This does multi-thousand
bit exponentiation and greatest-common-divisors, over and over.

If you have or can get the javac compiler and java runtime
on the two machines I would dearly love to see the amount
of time it takes for each of the two machines to run this.

You can get the free compiler in the JDK from
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/download.jsp
and the free runtime from
http://www.java.com/en/download/manual.jsp

If you want to compile the 45 line program below you save
it in a file ywe2t.java and then type
javac ywe2t.java
and it should create ywe2t.class

If you don't have the JDK Java Development Kit with the
compiler then you can grab my compiled program from
http://www.rdrop.com/users/dont/ywe2t.class
and the source is also there if you want that
http://www.rdrop.com/users/dont/ywe2t.java

Then, either way, to run it you type
java ywe2t
and I'm hoping that in about 90 seconds it will print out
how long it took to do the 100 iterations.

Running that on each machine will compare these on compute
intensive calculations.

For my Athlon 2000 I get a little under 90 seconds and I'm
right on the edge of buying an Athlon 64 3200. I'm wondering
which model will give more performance. If your machines
aren't doing anything else that would consume resources then
this would give me a good idea how much I might gain from each
model processor.

Thank you

I installed jre1.5.0_01 and ran your program on both machines. On the
3800+ I ran it at 2.2GHz (i.e. as a 3500+) and 2.4GHz.

3400+
a=102, duration=60257 milliseconds

3800+ 2.2GHz (3500+ speed)
a=102, duration=60507 milliseconds

3800+ 2.4GHz (3800+ speed)
a=102, duration=55435 milliseconds
 
I'm thinking of upgrading to AMD Athlon64 3000+, and have the above in mind.

But I have not decided on a MB yet. It obviesly needs t be well supportet by
the Linuxkernel, but still.....which?

I'm thinking MSI-k8t-neo2-fir

Any comments?
Make sure you get a Winchester or newer (if there is one) core and not an
older hammer core. If you plan on overclocking, get a MB with one of the
newer chipsets that has a working PCI lock, and lastly about the only
other thing to worry about is sata support. If you aren't planning on
using sata drives in the near future then don't even worry about it.
 
All of this will work just fine, with exception of the video
card. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your TI-4800SE uses the nVidia
video chipset, right? If so, then you'll be using closed source video
drivers. This isn't a real problem, unless you are trying to go with a
full 64-bit OS (I'm grabbing the amd64 port of Slackware right now, so
I'm still on a 32-bit OS). That would mean recompiling the video
driver, which you obviously wouldn't have the source for, or that
nVidia released a 64-bit version.

If it isn't nVidia, install $DISTRIBUTION, load up xorgconfig,
set it up, and you're golden.

The closed source Nvidia driver works fine with both 32 and 64 bit
kernels, at least when they work. I'm using the Nvidia drivers on my
5700FX card with a 1280x1024 and they are just fine there. My laptop has
a GeForce 440GO and a 1680x1050 screen, the current generation of drivers
don't work at all with that combination. Strangely and earlier generation,
th 5xx series, did work but they broke something in the 6xx series. The
Xorg drivers work fine on all Nvidia cards but they are noticeably slower.

Installing the Nvidia drivers is relatively simple. However they have the
extremely annoying characteristic of not only being kernel specific but
patch specific, i.e. if you've installed them with 2.6.10.foo and then you
make a change to the kernel and install 2.6.10.bar the Nvidia drivers will
refuse to load until you recompile them.
 
Then, either way, to run it you type
java ywe2t
and I'm hoping that in about 90 seconds it will print out
how long it took to do the 100 iterations.

Running that on each machine will compare these on compute
intensive calculations.

For my Athlon 2000 I get a little under 90 seconds and I'm
right on the edge of buying an Athlon 64 3200. I'm wondering
which model will give more performance. If your machines
aren't doing anything else that would consume resources then
this would give me a good idea how much I might gain from each


a=102, duration=53688 milliseconds

3500+ winchester running 2497MHz
Via K8T800 Pro chipset

Bill
 
Am Sat, 05 Mar 2005 15:55:01 +0100 schrieb Stig Mogensen:

Hi,
I'm thinking of upgrading to AMD Athlon64 3000+, and have the above in mind.

But I have not decided on a MB yet. It obviesly needs t be well supportet by
the Linuxkernel, but still.....which?

I'm thinking MSI-k8t-neo2-fir

I am running this board together with an Athlon64 3000+ Winchester. Works
fine. Im am not (yet) in linux, but I tried out a Knoppix CD. Machine works
quite good. Onboard LAN, USB2.0, Firewire is working out of the box, also
my AGP8x Geforce 440MX. Not tested: Onboard sound, S-ATA.

I know, this isn't very much information, but a prove, that the basic
components should work.
Any comments?

Try it. I think, it should work

Michael
 
Il Sat, 05 Mar 2005 15:55:01 +0100, Stig Mogensen ha scritto:
I'm thinking of upgrading to AMD Athlon64 3000+, and have the above in
mind.

But I have not decided on a MB yet. It obviesly needs t be well supportet
by the Linuxkernel, but still.....which?

I'm thinking MSI-k8t-neo2-fir

Any comments?

/Stig

A8V fantastic with gentoo amd64
nvidia geforce fx 5700
 
Back
Top