Opteron 1356 vs Today

[CsG_kieran_2]

Hey,
How will does this quad-core Opteron stack up to today's standard 4 core?
what is its equivalent for today?

Any idea guys?

http://www.eclipsecomputers.com/product.aspx?code=CPA-O1356

 

[MU_Engineer]

Hey,
How will does this quad-core Opteron stack up to today's standard 4 core?
what is its equivalent for today?

Any idea guys?

http://www.eclipsecomputers.com/product.aspx?code=CPA-O1356

The rough modern equivalent of the Opteron 1356 is the 45-watt low-voltage Athlon II X4 615e, since the 65 nm Opterons perform pretty similarly clock-for-clock with the Athlon II X4s and the 615e has the same clock speed as the Opteron 1356. All but one of the Athlon IIs are faster that that model, some significantly so. The Phenom II X4s are a little faster clock-for-clock than the Athlon IIs and have even higher top clock speeds. I'd expect a Phenom II X4 970BE to be a good 50% faster than the Opteron 1356, for example. If you want to compare to Intel CPUs, the Opteron 1356 is slower than any of the desktop Core i-series CPUs by a good margin (just like it is slower than most of the Athlon IIs and all of the Phenom IIs by a good margin as well) and is roughly in line with the Core 2 Quad Q8200 as far as performance in concerned.

 

[CsG_kieran_2]

hmm... i see, Thanks for clearing that up with me

 

[jf-amd]

The Opteron 1389 fits in the same socket. I use one and it has been fine.

 

[MU_Engineer]

The Opteron 1389 fits in the same socket. I use one and it has been fine.

His board just has to support Socket AM3 CPUs to get the Opteron 1389 or the other two 45 nm Socket AM3 Opterons to work. I don't know what board he has the Opteron 1356 in, so I can't tell right off the bat if it will work or not.

 

[CsG_kieran_2]

lol i don't have one of them was just wondering how it would compare, thought xeon/opteron was (in a seance) a generation ahead off there desktop brothers?

 

[MU_Engineer]

lol i don't have one of them was just wondering how it would compare, thought xeon/opteron was (in a seance) a generation ahead off there desktop brothers?

No, if they are sold at the same time, they are generally comparable. You do get a little different feature set and configuration, the amount of which varies by chip line. For example:

- The Xeon 3400s are nearly identical to the Core i7 800 series units, except that the Xeons support error-correcting (ECC) memory.
- The Xeon 3500s are nearly identical to the Core i7 900 Bloomfields, except that the Xeons support ECC memory.
- The Xeon 3600s are nearly identical to the Core i7 970 and 980X Gulftowns, except that the Xeons support ECC memory.
- The Xeon 5500s are similar to the Core i7 900 Bloomfields, except that the memory controller speeds and QPI speeds are different, they support ECC and registered memory, and you can use them in 2-processor configurations.
- The Xeon 5600s are similar to the Core i7 970 and 980X Gulftowns, except that there are low-voltage versions available, they support ECC and registered memory, and you can use them in 2-processor configurations.
- The Opteron 4100 series are similar to the Phenom II X4 and X4 CPUs, except that they use a much different socket, come in ULV EE versions, support registered memory (all AMD desktop CPUs support ECC memory AFAICT) and can be used in two-processor configurations.

The quad-processor-capable units like the Opteron 6100s and Xeon 7500s are the ones that are really different. They have far significantly more cores than are available on desktop CPUs, they have a lot more memory channels, and are much more complicated as a platform than desktop and two-processor-capable CPUs. The Xeon 7500s have an internal ring bus that none of their desktop chips have (yet- it is coming on Sandy Bridge) and the memory setup requires the use of memory buffers that no desktop system uses. The Opteron 6100s are also considerably different as they are AMD's only product with two silicon dies on one CPU in an MCM arrangement. They also look a lot different from AMD's other chips as they are oblong and much larger than any other current, square AMD chip.

 

[CsG_kieran_2]

wow you know alot about server chips. Interesting to know that
So most chips are basic desktop Processors with added advanced tech? how can this add 800$ to a comparable xeon/i7?

Thanks for the detailed reply

 

[jf-amd]

There are a couple of differences. For AMD it is probably 90% the same, but there are always differences in feature sets.

Also, there is a difference in silicon life. Server is rated at 7x24, high utilization, for 5 or so years (don't remember the specific) and desktop is usually rated a lot lower.

 

[CsG_kieran_2]

^fair enough tnx