Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD Joke?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 7, 2003 9:57:27 PM

<A HREF="http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/..." target="_new">Clicky</A>

:lol: 

More about : amd joke

October 7, 2003 10:45:44 PM

hehe, for me its true that there is no competition WRIGHT NOW, cos, the fx can run 16 bit 32 bit and 64 bit applications, withought EMULATION , so it can't be compared to the itanium, pentium and xeon processors.
if u take the 32 bit only, the fx beats all the range of intel 32 bit processors available now, and for 64 bit its not an IA 64, so its also diffirent, offcorse the itanium chip is way faster in 64bit applications, but for what money can buy, there is no question.
And its the first processor that uses memory controllers in it, so hehe, its truly withought competition, and for the price of a p4EE, that are also not in the market.
So tell me where is the fuking competition coming from now????????????????????????????????????????????
October 7, 2003 11:14:01 PM

What IS the price difference between EE and FX/FX-51?

...Meh, too lazy to think of a better sig.
Related resources
October 7, 2003 11:18:40 PM

Quote:
offcorse the itanium chip is way faster in 64bit applications, but for what money can buy, there is no question.

Um... I wasn't aware that money couldn't buy an Itanium. And yes, it is much faster in 64 bit than Opteron/A64

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
October 8, 2003 12:42:22 AM

You would know. Don't you use them at work?
October 8, 2003 3:42:38 AM

*spud hides Itanium 3 system from Intel* You dont nessarily need money to get em. But ya it lays the smack down on the Athlon 64-FX in 64 bit.

~Jeremy
Unofficial Intel PR Spokesman.(nVidia fill in rep for CoolSquirtle)

:evil:  <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&..." target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up In My Buddies Face!!!</A> :evil: 
October 8, 2003 3:48:09 AM

It is, but they should never be compared. Two entirely different beasts.
October 8, 2003 7:54:55 AM

Lol, if you could AFFORD one ;)  If the Opteron 8 way cost so much, I don't want to know how much the Itanium costs ;) 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 8, 2003 1:20:42 PM

> And yes, it is much faster in 64 bit than Opteron/A64

Have look <A HREF="http://www.aceshardware.com/SPECmine/index.jsp?b=0&s=0&..." target="_new"> here</A> and find out they are actually neck and neck running SpecINT. Integer code is like 90% of what business require.

SpecFP and floating point in general is a different matter, that is where EPIC shines and makes sense, but FP only performance only matters in a few niches like HPC. And even there Opteron beats Itanium in performance/$$, performance/watt and performance/mm² die space. If AMD would ever release a 6 MB Opteron, I wouldnt be betting any money on Itanium beating it.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
October 9, 2003 3:44:40 AM

^^^

Ohh boy Spuddy you're not gonna like Bayens' post... :tongue:

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
October 9, 2003 6:57:18 AM

Erm... which one?

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
October 9, 2003 3:13:36 PM

Quote:
Integer code is like 90% of what business require.

Funny how many people seem to think integer performance is the most important one... I don't know about that exactly. I'm a physicist, and I can tell you that I couldn't care less about integer performance, when you get stellar FP performance.
Quote:
performance/mm² die space

What the hell does that have to do with anything? A CPU isn't chosen because its performance/mm² is good!...
Quote:
If AMD would ever release a 6 MB Opteron, I wouldnt be betting any money on Itanium beating it.

You are aware that Itanium is radically different, aren't you? Different architectures react differently to cache increases...

Just one more thing: If Itanium is neck and neck with Opteron in SpecINT (which it is) and MUCH FASTER than Opteron in SpecFP, then it is logical to assume that, in any linear combination of FP and INT ops, <i>Itanium is faster than Opteron</i>, right? Plus, SPEC also shows Itanium to scale that much better than Opteron... check <A HREF="http://www.aceshardware.com/SPECmine/top.jsp" target="_new">this</A> out: Itanium beats Opteron rather easily in all configs above 2CPUs, even in SPECint. So really, the only thing speaking against Itanium is price! That is what I keep saying... If only 1.5Ghz IA-64 architecture would cost something like $1000-1250 and not $4000...




:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 9, 2003 4:17:43 PM

> I'm a physicist, and I can tell you that I couldn't care
>less about integer performance, when you get stellar FP
>performance.

You're right, but I bet most single image MP systems are not being sold to crunch numbers, but to run business apps like SAP or Oracle. I have no hard numbers though, so I could be wrong, but my guess is most scientific number crunching is done on (linux) clusters because they so much cheaper than single image MP systems.

>What the hell does that have to do with anything? A CPU
>isn't chosen because its performance/mm² is good!...

Of course not; I just tried to point out that Itaniums lead in (spec)FP is more due to its large caches than to some inherent superiority of IA64 over x86. That doesnt matter when you are in the market for a platform though, I agree.

>Just one more thing: If Itanium is neck and neck with
>Opteron in SpecINT (which it is) and MUCH FASTER than
>Opteron in SpecFP, then it is logical to assume that, in
>any linear combination of FP and INT ops, Itanium is faster
>than Opteron, right?

Probably. But not very often will a such a machine be bought for both integer and FP performance, so I am not sure how relevant it is to declare one overall fastest platform. Also, SPEC is one thing, but I hear lots of echo's of people actually coding on Itanium systems, that see no where near the theoretical performance unless they spend huge ammounts of time optimizing and using PGO. While this may not be a big issue in many situations, there are tons of others (like yours ?) where you just can't afford to let PGO run 24 hours after each minor recompile to get decent performing code. Anyway, this is just hear say, I have no experience on IA64 whatsoever, so YMMV.

>Plus, SPEC also shows Itanium to scale that much better
>than Opteron...

Careful.. you are comparing a 24 GB 8-way Itanium with 6x8=48 MB L3 cache to a 4 GB opteron with 4x1=4 MB L2 cache. I guess its not all that surprising the Itanium beats the opteron.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
October 10, 2003 3:56:55 PM

Well ..i sit and wonder why we aren't seeing 8 way opteron systems.Cache coherency problems??One thing i sure : if this is a scalable cpu it means there is something wrong with it not scaling to 8 way systems.

Second to that ..many dream about the cheap opteron and expesnive Itaniums.Some forgot to check that an 846 which is used in 4 way systems costs <b>3200 $ </b>.A 1,5Ghz 6MB L3 Itanium 2 is 4226$ acording to Intel.So in the end only 1000$ between them.Is it too much??For 1000 cpus yes.But if you want top notch performance that isn't so much.

If you're cashed strapped you can always use the Itanium 2 1.40GHz with 4M of L3 which costs $2247 or the Itanium 2 1.30GHz with 3MB of L3 for $1338 in quantities starting from 1000 units.

And i bet any of those would be very close in SpecINT and leaders in SpecFP vs. a 846 Opteron.Did i mentioned 1000$ cheaper?? If you spell the magic word Opteron" to Intel they could be your for half the price.What's that?? 2.5 times cheaper than a 846 Opteron??



Long live Intel!

From the darkside...you know!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 10, 2003 4:22:19 PM

>Well ..i sit and wonder why we aren't seeing 8 way opteron
>systems.

Simple. >8 way systems are NEVER bought from white box vendors. Any corporation looking for such beast will only deal with IBM, HPQ, SUN or Fujitsu. Since none of these companies have embraced opteron yet (only 1 1U server from IBM) its not surprising you are not seeing any >8 way machines.

>Second to that ..many dream about the cheap opteron and
>expesnive Itaniums.Some forgot to check that an 846 which
>is used in 4 way systems costs 3200 $

True, but you could also opt for the 842 which is still a very capable cpu, and available from newegg for only $1295

>If you're cashed strapped you can always use the Itanium 2
>1.40GHz with 4M of L3 which costs $2247 or the Itanium 2 1.
>30GHz with 3MB of L3 for $1338 in quantities starting from
>1000 units.

>and i bet any of those would be very close in SpecINT and >leaders in SpecFP vs. a 846 Opteron

Actually, they are close in specFP and the itanium gets destroyed in spec int by the opteron. If you compare a $1338 Itanium 1.3 /3MB with a similary priced 842 you might have more meaningfull results. Anyway, the itanium is only an option if 32 bit x86 support is not an issue.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 10, 2003 4:33:36 PM

>or the Itanium 2 1.30GHz with 3MB of L3 for $1338 in
>quantities starting from 1000 units

Actually, HP will charge a healty $3200 for that same 1.3 /3mb cpu. <A HREF="http://www.smb.compaq.com/dstore/MiddleFrame.asp?page=c..." target="_new"> HP website</A>For that price I can almost buy a 1.8 GHz 844 cpu from newegg and have enough spare cash for 8 gigs of ram.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
October 10, 2003 5:36:08 PM

Thank God HP isn't the only Itanium 2 vendor.HP are plain idiots.I'm typing this from a HP machine ...P3 1Ghz/133 coupled with a HP made motherboard,VIA based.It is slower than a p3 650/BX440.

The RAM scores are so low ,even BX440 does better.It loads win 2k in 2min.

I wonder how HP turned into such a player in the computer arena...

Long live Intel!

From the darkside...you know!
October 10, 2003 7:53:06 PM

Quote:
True, but you could also opt for the 842 which is still a very capable cpu, and available from newegg for only $1295

If you compare a 1.3Ghz, 3MB cache Itanium to a 1.6Ghz Opteron, even the rather unrealistic SPEC benchmarks will tell you: Itanium is the better choice, and it costs the same as the 1.6Ghz 842.
Quote:
Actually, they are close in specFP and the itanium gets destroyed in spec int by the opteron. If you compare a $1338 Itanium 1.3 /3MB with a similary priced 842 you might have more meaningfull results. Anyway, the itanium is only an option if 32 bit x86 support is not an issue.

Erm, the 1.3Ghz Itanium easily destroys the 846, let alone the 842. And the $1250 Itanium 1.3Ghz is faster in SPECint than the $1250 Opteron 842... No doubt.

So stop trying to make the point that Itanium has been rendered obsolete because of Opteron, because it hasn't. Itanium certainly has its strengths. It is scalable, has strong performance, but is pricey. Opteron also has its own merits - being cheap is one of the most important ones.

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 10, 2003 9:14:12 PM

>Erm, the 1.3Ghz Itanium easily destroys the 846, let alone
>the 842. And the $1250 Itanium 1.3Ghz is faster in SPECint
>than the $1250 Opteron 842... No doubt.

lets just let the numbers speak:
Cpu specFP/SpecINT
Itanium 1300/3MB: 1783 / ??? (<900)
Itanium 1400/4MB: ??? / 933
Opteron 2.0 /1MB: 1339 / 1335
Opteron 1.6 /1MB: 1120 /1053

Nothing new here.. itanium shines on specfp, but it can't match opteron (or xeon) on specint, let alone integer performance/$$$.

>So stop trying to make the point that Itanium has been
>rendered obsolete because of Opteron,

I'm not claiming that, but its natural habitat is being limited mostly to FP/HPC or extremely large memory >8 way single image systems.

>Opteron also has its own merits - being cheap is one of the
>most important ones.

No, IMHO being fast, 64 bit and x86 compatible is the most important one.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
!