Opteron series 100 vs athlon 64 fx

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

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:03:39 +0100, Martin wrote:

Anyone got a nice article that compares the two?

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.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

"Wes Newell" wrote in message
newsan.2004.06.29.07.12.21.851014@TAKEOUTverizon .net...
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:03:39 +0100, Martin wrote:

Anyone got a nice article that compares the two?

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.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

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

"Wes Newell" wrote in message
newsan.2004.06.29.07.12.21.851014@TAKEOUTverizon .net...
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:03:39 +0100, Martin wrote:

Anyone got a nice article that compares the two?

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.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:48:10 +0100, Martin wrote:

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??

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.



"General Schvantzkoph" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:48:10 +0100, Martin wrote:

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??

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.

Martin wrote:
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.

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

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:36:46 +0100, Ben Pope wrote:

Martin wrote:
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.

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

Ben

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 Schvantzkoph wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:36:46 +0100, Ben Pope wrote:

Martin wrote:
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.

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

Ben

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.

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
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

In fact
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/cont...docs/23932.pdf
confirms the instructions are there.

Thanks all
Martin

"Ben Pope" wrote in message
...
General Schvantzkoph wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:36:46 +0100, Ben Pope wrote:

Martin wrote:
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.

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

Ben

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.

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
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...