If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
AMD SEMPRON CPU
There have been some questions about whether we should start building 64
bit systems. There is nothing that is true 64 bit clean (with NO 32bit code embedded) from Microsoft. Linux offers quite a bit of 64bit, clean, stuff, (with the source code!), and always has, with lots more coming... Here is a synopsis of 64 bit technology, from a published, and respected, engineer. "AMD is starting to phase out it's Duron and Athlon XP processors. In it's place, it has an interesting strategy ... Sempron. - What's in a name? Nothing actually. First off Sempron is a name, not a processor design. In fact, different Semprons are different processor cores. Socket-462 Semprons are based on the 256KB "Thoroughbred-B" (32-bit Athlon XP). Socket-754 Semprons are based on the 512KB "Newcastle" (64-bit Athlon 64) with half the cache disabled along with the x86-64 ISA. Socket-939 Semprons are planned in the near future. - So what is Sempron? The new Duron. Sempron is the new Duron, but it spans both AMD's old 32-bit and new 64-bit platforms. It uses the relevant core for each. On the legacy Socket-462 side, it completely replaces the Duron and Athlon XP, which will no longer be produced next year. On the newer Socket-754, it is a low-cost alternative more expensive, full Athlon 64 Socket-754 processors. The 64-bit x86-64 instructions are lost, but it gains the advantages of the segmented memory and HyperTransport busses. And in the near future, there will be the Socket-939 Sempron. Again, gone is the 64-bit instructions, but it gains having two (2) memory channels separate from the HyperTransport bus. If anything, as AMD releases newer CPUs and vendors release newer mainboards with DDR2 support or faster HyperTransport interconnects for I/O, Sempron can run on earlier generation systems with slower DDR channels and the older HyperTransport interconnect speeds. - No 64-bit? What's that mean to me? Depends on the OS. If you run Windows, 64-bit doesn't buy you anything. In fact, it can be slower as XP 64-bit Edition runs the CPU is in "Long" 64-bit mode, but the applications are still 32-bit with 32-bit libraries. Make no mistake, XP 64-bit Edition is heavily 32-bit and that's unlikely to change for compatibility. The reviews on AnandTech's site show how little difference there is in XP v. XP 64-bit. So Sempron v. Athlon 64 is really just a matter of cache size. But if you run Linux, nearly all libraries and software shipped in a Linux/x86-64 distro are 64-bit (with a few, common 32-bit libraries). With source code and the 64-bit "clean" GNU Toolchain which almost everything is written to, this is easy for the entire Linux world to do. The performance difference is staggering as shown on AnandTech's site of Linux/x86 v. Linux/x86-64. So Sempron v. Athlon 64 now becomes a 64-bit performance consideration. - So what should you buy? Depends. For maximum performance, it's no so much the CPU, but the Socket. Socket-939 sports (2) DDR400 channels segmented from (1) 2000MT HyperTransport channel. The total aggregate throughput is up to 2*3.2GBps+8.0GBps = 14.4GBps (DDR400). Socket-754 sports (1) DDR400 channel segmented from (1) 1600MT HyperTransport. The total aggregate throughput is up to 3.2GBps+6.4GBps = 9.6GBps. Socket-462 is the legacy "front-side bus" (shared memory-CPU-I/O) approach upto DDR400. The total aggregate throughput is up to 3.2GBps. In the case of Windows, which is really 32-bit even if you run XP 64-bit Edition, Sempron is really just a cache size issue versus Athlon XP/64 (and socket) and nothing else as far as the CPU itself. So the only other difference is the total aggregate throughput of the Socket as above. In the case of Linux, which is true 64-bit in Linux/x86-64, Sempron now becomes a performance hit versus Athlon 64 (64-bit, Socket-939/754), although relatively unchanged versus Athlon XP (32-bit, Socket-462), in addition to the cache size and total aggregate throughput. - Socket-754 Sempron v. Socket-939 Sempron According to the AnandTech review, the $120 Socket-754 Sempron 3100+ performs around the same as the $140 Socket-754 Athlon 64 2800+ in 32-bit Windows. It doesn't save you much, so it's a toss up for Windows. But for Linux, you probably want to splurge the extra $20. In reality, the Socket-939 with its two (2) DDR channels and slightly faster HyperTransport is the real winner for _any_ OS, especially workstations that throw a lot of data around (or servers for that matter, although you'll want more I/O options, which is another story .. But you'll pay for it as Socket-939 Athlon 64/FX processors or more costly than their Socket-754 bretheren. But soon there will be a Socket-939 Sempron, which brings us back to what OS you will run? If you run Windows, then Socket-939 Sempron might be "the cheap bomb," but for Linux, Socket-939 is probably worth going with even the lowest end Socket-939 Athlon 64. - SIDE STORY: Issues with 64-bit libraries and 32-bit applications One of the main reasons Microsoft doesn't want to tackle a true XP 64-bit is because of the support issues. First off, their entire toolbase is not 64-bit "clean." Complicating this is the fact that when the AMD x86-64 is in "Long" mode, you cannot have 32-bit applications calling 64-bit libraries -- at least not without the library being modified. The GNU Toolchain (Linux is a GNU system, and many other UNIX systems are GNU compatible these days) has been 64-bit "clean" since the mid-'90s. If the source code is available, the program can typically be recompiled for 64-bit, and use the 64-bit libraries, without issue. In other words, there's probably a 64-bit version out there that is easy to find, or can be built easily for Linux/x86-64 (without all that techie stuff . You see, in Linux, most programs are written by developers to use GNU Autoconf. Using GNU Autoconf means it's not only "portable" to 64-bit, but even non-PC platforms. If GNU Autoconf detects /[usr/]lib64, it will attempt to build against it and create a Linux/x86-64 "target" (i.e., a true 64-bit version of the program using those 64-bit libraries). In other words, if you use an RPM distro, you build the binary version of programs from the same Source RPM (.src.rpm) file, with the same _single_ command (e.g., "rpmbuild -bb program.src.rpm") as for 32-bit x86 (or any non-PC architecture for that matter). That usually takes care of it, 0 issues. In the rare case of a Linux application (typically a binary one without source code -- like a commercial program) requiring 32-bit libraries, the Linux/x86-64 distro may already include them. Applications that use Linux/x86-64 libraries link to those in /[usr/]lib64, and those that don't link to /[usr/]lib, the latter being the same as 32-bit x86. If the distro doesn't include the 32-bit version required for an application, automatic fetching and dependency checking becomes easy with APT/YUM commonly used by modern Debian or Red Hat platforms (among others). In other words, a Red Hat Linux/x86-64 system (Fedora Core x86-64 or even Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS/AS x86-64) could fetch the 32-bit libraries from the 32-bit Fedora Core/Extras repositories via its normal method with APT or YUM. The process is very transparent altogether to the user. Likewise, in the case where source code _is_ available, APT or YUM could be used to fetch the source RPM (.src.rpm) and attempt to build and install it against /[usr/]lib64. Source code is so rare in the Windows world, and the Microsoft Toolchain is not 64-bit "clean" except for some core components, it's virtually impossible for Microsoft to do the same. Hence why XP 64-bit is still heavily 32-bit. So even though AMD x86-64 is x86 compatible, there is still the issue of 32-bit programs being unable to use 64-bit libraries, even if the 64-bit "kernel" of the OS can run 32-bit programs. Confused yet? Don't worry about it, the Linux/x86-64 distros hide the majority of this from you. I just talk about it for completeness. -- Discussing distributions is like discussing political parties. Not only do they enflame people, but they often break down into sets of blind assumptions. Instead, people should focus on the specific details of underlying technologies, just like one should when it comes to specific terms in legislation. Because the similarities are often more surprising than the differences. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan J. Smith, E.I. _______________________________________________ PC_Support mailing list http://www.matrixlist.com/mailman/listinfo/pc_support" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why 2200+ & 2800+ in both model 8 & model 10 Sempron? | Michael Brown | Overclocking AMD Processors | 3 | September 27th 04 07:07 AM |
Why 2200+ & 2800+ in both model 8 & model 10 Sempron? | [email protected] | General | 3 | September 27th 04 05:40 AM |
Why 2200+ & 2800+ in both model 8 & model 10 Sempron? | [email protected] | Overclocking AMD Processors | 0 | September 14th 04 12:46 AM |
Socket A & 754 Sempron caution. | Wes Newell | Overclocking AMD Processors | 0 | July 30th 04 06:54 AM |
AMD Sempron - New processor | johny | Overclocking AMD Processors | 6 | June 12th 04 05:02 PM |