Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel versus AMD (August 24th,2004)

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2004 2:42:40 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Ed wrote:

> http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,39023760,39164010...
>
> P4 Power consumption, OUCH!
> Ed
>
>

No surprise there. One thing that has helped me
steer people to Opterons instead of Xeons is a simple
demonstration of the fact that a little 2 GHz Opty
dualie server might run for 40 minutes on the UPS
while a similarly configured 3.2 GHz Xeon dualie can
only run for 24 minutes off of the same UPS. If
the better server performance of the Opty doesn't
make idiotic Intel loyalists see the light, the UPS
times do.

When your business depends on being able to keep your
servers and workstations running during a power outage,
being able to place much smaller demands on your UPSes
and backup generators can make all the difference in the
world.


--
Reply to rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca
Do not remove anything.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2004 8:08:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote in
news:AvPWc.207525$J06.101347@pd7tw2no:

> Ed wrote:
>
>> http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,39023760,39164010...
>>
>> P4 Power consumption, OUCH!
>> Ed
>>
>>
>
> No surprise there. One thing that has helped me
> steer people to Opterons instead of Xeons is a simple
> demonstration of the fact that a little 2 GHz Opty
> dualie server might run for 40 minutes on the UPS
> while a similarly configured 3.2 GHz Xeon dualie can
> only run for 24 minutes off of the same UPS. If
> the better server performance of the Opty doesn't
> make idiotic Intel loyalists see the light, the UPS
> times do.
>
> When your business depends on being able to keep your
> servers and workstations running during a power outage,
> being able to place much smaller demands on your UPSes
> and backup generators can make all the difference in the
> world.
>
>

Is there any website that compares power and heat for all or most current
processors? I'll be using a slower speed than this article reports on.

Thanks.
Related resources
August 25, 2004 8:08:13 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm

"U. U." wrote:

> Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote in
> news:AvPWc.207525$J06.101347@pd7tw2no:
>
> > Ed wrote:
> >
> >> http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,39023760,39164010...
> >>
> >> P4 Power consumption, OUCH!
> >> Ed
> >>
> >>
> >
> > No surprise there. One thing that has helped me
> > steer people to Opterons instead of Xeons is a simple
> > demonstration of the fact that a little 2 GHz Opty
> > dualie server might run for 40 minutes on the UPS
> > while a similarly configured 3.2 GHz Xeon dualie can
> > only run for 24 minutes off of the same UPS. If
> > the better server performance of the Opty doesn't
> > make idiotic Intel loyalists see the light, the UPS
> > times do.
> >
> > When your business depends on being able to keep your
> > servers and workstations running during a power outage,
> > being able to place much smaller demands on your UPSes
> > and backup generators can make all the difference in the
> > world.
> >
> >
>
> Is there any website that compares power and heat for all or most current
> processors? I'll be using a slower speed than this article reports on.
>
> Thanks.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 26, 2004 12:10:17 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Rob Stow wrote:
>
> Ed wrote:
>
> > http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,39023760,39164010...
> >
> > P4 Power consumption, OUCH!
> > Ed
> >
> >
>
> No surprise there. One thing that has helped me
> steer people to Opterons instead of Xeons is a simple
> demonstration of the fact that a little 2 GHz Opty
> dualie server might run for 40 minutes on the UPS
> while a similarly configured 3.2 GHz Xeon dualie can
> only run for 24 minutes off of the same UPS. If
> the better server performance of the Opty doesn't
> make idiotic Intel loyalists see the light, the UPS
> times do.

If this is really a problem, you could always use two UPS. This 'all
or nothing' attitude is idiotic. As I said before, once you're into
interesting projects and programming, the type of CPU you happen to
employ for the next few years is not uppermost on your mind, it's
what you can do with the system.
August 26, 2004 12:10:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Johannes H Andersen wrote:

> Rob Stow wrote:
> >
> > Ed wrote:
> >
> > > http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,39023760,39164010...
> > >
> > > P4 Power consumption, OUCH!
> > > Ed
> > >
> > >
> >
> > No surprise there. One thing that has helped me
> > steer people to Opterons instead of Xeons is a simple
> > demonstration of the fact that a little 2 GHz Opty
> > dualie server might run for 40 minutes on the UPS
> > while a similarly configured 3.2 GHz Xeon dualie can
> > only run for 24 minutes off of the same UPS. If
> > the better server performance of the Opty doesn't
> > make idiotic Intel loyalists see the light, the UPS
> > times do.
>
> If this is really a problem, you could always use two UPS. This 'all
> or nothing' attitude is idiotic. As I said before, once you're into
> interesting projects and programming, the type of CPU you happen to
> employ for the next few years is not uppermost on your mind

Of course it is when you want to run 64 bit software. How many people
will be cursing in '05 because they bought a 32 bit processor in '04
instead of buying a 64 bit one? All 32 bit processors are old technology.
Imo anyone who pays more than $125 for a 32 bit processor is making
a very foolish choice.

> , it's
> what you can do with the system.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 26, 2004 1:06:54 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

JK wrote:
>
> Johannes H Andersen wrote:
>
{...]
> > > If
> > > the better server performance of the Opty doesn't
> > > make idiotic Intel loyalists see the light, the UPS
> > > times do.
> >
> > If this is really a problem, you could always use two UPS. This 'all
> > or nothing' attitude is idiotic. As I said before, once you're into
> > interesting projects and programming, the type of CPU you happen to
> > employ for the next few years is not uppermost on your mind
>
> Of course it is when you want to run 64 bit software. How many people
> will be cursing in '05 because they bought a 32 bit processor in '04
> instead of buying a 64 bit one? All 32 bit processors are old technology.
> Imo anyone who pays more than $125 for a 32 bit processor is making
> a very foolish choice.

And all the 32 bit software will disappear tomorrow???
August 26, 2004 1:06:55 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Johannes H Andersen wrote:

> JK wrote:
> >
> > Johannes H Andersen wrote:
> >
> {...]
> > > > If
> > > > the better server performance of the Opty doesn't
> > > > make idiotic Intel loyalists see the light, the UPS
> > > > times do.
> > >
> > > If this is really a problem, you could always use two UPS. This 'all
> > > or nothing' attitude is idiotic. As I said before, once you're into
> > > interesting projects and programming, the type of CPU you happen to
> > > employ for the next few years is not uppermost on your mind
> >
> > Of course it is when you want to run 64 bit software. How many people
> > will be cursing in '05 because they bought a 32 bit processor in '04
> > instead of buying a 64 bit one? All 32 bit processors are old technology.
> > Imo anyone who pays more than $125 for a 32 bit processor is making
> > a very foolish choice.
>
> And all the 32 bit software will disappear tomorrow???

The Athlon 64 gives a person the choice of running 32 bit or 64 bit software.
They can also run both side by side with a 64 bit OS.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 26, 2004 1:25:09 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

JK wrote:
>
> Johannes H Andersen wrote:
>
> > JK wrote:
> > >
> > > Johannes H Andersen wrote:
> > >
> > {...]
> > > > > If
> > > > > the better server performance of the Opty doesn't
> > > > > make idiotic Intel loyalists see the light, the UPS
> > > > > times do.
> > > >
> > > > If this is really a problem, you could always use two UPS. This 'all
> > > > or nothing' attitude is idiotic. As I said before, once you're into
> > > > interesting projects and programming, the type of CPU you happen to
> > > > employ for the next few years is not uppermost on your mind
> > >
> > > Of course it is when you want to run 64 bit software. How many people
> > > will be cursing in '05 because they bought a 32 bit processor in '04
> > > instead of buying a 64 bit one? All 32 bit processors are old technology.
> > > Imo anyone who pays more than $125 for a 32 bit processor is making
> > > a very foolish choice.
> >
> > And all the 32 bit software will disappear tomorrow???
>
> The Athlon 64 gives a person the choice of running 32 bit or 64 bit software.
> They can also run both side by side with a 64 bit OS.

Have you tried it?
August 26, 2004 2:03:23 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:25:09 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote:

>
>
> JK wrote:
>>
>> Johannes H Andersen wrote:
>>
>> > JK wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Johannes H Andersen wrote:
>> > >
>> > {...]
>> > > > > If
>> > > > > the better server performance of the Opty doesn't
>> > > > > make idiotic Intel loyalists see the light, the UPS
>> > > > > times do.
>> > > >
>> > > > If this is really a problem, you could always use two UPS. This 'all
>> > > > or nothing' attitude is idiotic. As I said before, once you're into
>> > > > interesting projects and programming, the type of CPU you happen to
>> > > > employ for the next few years is not uppermost on your mind
>> > >
>> > > Of course it is when you want to run 64 bit software. How many people
>> > > will be cursing in '05 because they bought a 32 bit processor in '04
>> > > instead of buying a 64 bit one? All 32 bit processors are old technology.
>> > > Imo anyone who pays more than $125 for a 32 bit processor is making
>> > > a very foolish choice.
>> >
>> > And all the 32 bit software will disappear tomorrow???
>>
>> The Athlon 64 gives a person the choice of running 32 bit or 64 bit software.
>> They can also run both side by side with a 64 bit OS.
>
> Have you tried it?

Certainly.

--
Keith
August 26, 2004 2:05:01 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:01:36 -0400, JK wrote:

> http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm

Ah, a trip down memory lane, when "high power" was 15W. ;-)

Thanks!

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 26, 2004 11:20:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

keith wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:25:09 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > JK wrote:
> >>
> >> Johannes H Andersen wrote:
> >>
> >> > JK wrote:
> >> > >
[...]
> >> > > All 32 bit processors are old technology.
> >> > > Imo anyone who pays more than $125 for a 32 bit processor is making
> >> > > a very foolish choice.
> >> >
> >> > And all the 32 bit software will disappear tomorrow???
> >>
> >> The Athlon 64 gives a person the choice of running 32 bit or 64 bit software.
> >> They can also run both side by side with a 64 bit OS.
> >
> > Have you tried it?
>
> Certainly.

Perhaps you could be a bit more specific: Which software, OS, Databases,
GIS, CAD, Compilers, COM, DCOM and network software did you try?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2004 1:23:26 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

> Perhaps you could be a bit more specific: Which software, OS, Databases,
> GIS, CAD, Compilers, COM, DCOM and network software did you try?

What does that have to do with running side-by-side? The message was that
you won't be "losing out" on not being able to run existing 32 bit software
for 32 bit Windows. More important question to ask is not to start listing
thousands of software packages that work but to ask which packages you rely
on that doesn't and when will the upgrade be out in case it doesn't!

You have some specific examples of software that is known to malfunction on
Windows XP 64 bit edition!?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2004 10:48:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

assaarpa wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you could be a bit more specific: Which software, OS, Databases,
> > GIS, CAD, Compilers, COM, DCOM and network software did you try?
>
> What does that have to do with running side-by-side? The message was that
> you won't be "losing out" on not being able to run existing 32 bit software
> for 32 bit Windows. More important question to ask is not to start listing
> thousands of software packages that work but to ask which packages you rely
> on that doesn't and when will the upgrade be out in case it doesn't!

But why should I submit to this upgrade tyranny when I didn't intend to run
Windows XP 64 in the first place?

> You have some specific examples of software that is known to malfunction on
> Windows XP 64 bit edition!?

Clean 32 bit software will probably run OK on Win XP 64. The problems will
come with mixed software and a mixture of dlls. E.g. you might have written
32 bit COM/.NET client extensions, these won't work if the target server
software becomes 64 bit.

Naturally, it will all settle down eventually, but it will take years, not
months. In the meantime I'll continue my work in 32 bits and produce useful
results.
!