Re: AMD64 VS EM64T
On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 05:50:05AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: did you read http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/1441/index.html ? A bunch of 32bit windows benchmarks run on 32bit windows XP. Is that NOT providing what you meant ? Certainly not what I meant. Non of that article has any 64bit mode benchmarks at all. And I am quite sure of that even though my knowledge of German is pretty low. Lennart Sorensen
Re: AMD64 VS EM64T
Lennart, did you read http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/1441/index.html ? Is that NOT providing what you meant ? Best regards Nils Valentin On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 11:49:15PM +0900, Nils Valentin wrote: there is a 67 page Benchmark comparison betweeen the Athlon type CPUs and the Pentium 4 types (including Prescott). The review does NOT include the Opterons ;-(, but is has a lot of very detailed benchmark charts. 29 charts for data transfers of each CPU alone + 35 benchmark charts (comparison). The only problem is as far as I know this article is only available in German. http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/1244/index.html "Test: Athlon 64 FX-55 4000+" They have a english website here : http://www.tecchannel.com/ ,but unfortunately it does not contain even as near info as the german pages. The article above does not seem to be available in english. The article is free to read online or you can buy the PDF version for 0.80 Euro (1$). I have it but the copyright does not allow me to forward it to anybody
Re: AMD64 VS EM64T
Hi lennart, sorry I meant this link http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/1456/index.html Its a Linux comparison (but only 32 bit - waiting for the 64 bit update) Best regards Nils Valentin On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 11:49:15PM +0900, Nils Valentin wrote: there is a 67 page Benchmark comparison betweeen the Athlon type CPUs and the Pentium 4 types (including Prescott). The review does NOT include the Opterons ;-(, but is has a lot of very detailed benchmark charts. 29 charts for data transfers of each CPU alone + 35 benchmark charts (comparison). The only problem is as far as I know this article is only available in German. http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/1244/index.html "Test: Athlon 64 FX-55 4000+" They have a english website here : http://www.tecchannel.com/ ,but unfortunately it does not contain even as near info as the german pages. The article above does not seem to be available in english. The article is free to read online or you can buy the PDF version for 0.80 Euro (1$). I have it but the copyright does not allow me to forward it to anybody
Re: AMD64 VS EM64T
Jin Zhao wrote: I am currently faced with choosing one of them as our forthcoming 64 bit platform. So far I read a couple of reviews, most of which seems favor AMD64 a little bit. I also did some initial testings on an opteron box with Debian pure64 unstale. So far it looks good. Here's a review comparing amd64 to emt64 under SuSE 9.1 Pro with Linux 2.6.4. Slightly dated and limited review, but should give you a good feel. http://anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163 -Peter
Re: AMD64 VS EM64T
Hi Everybody, there is a 67 page Benchmark comparison betweeen the Athlon type CPUs and the Pentium 4 types (including Prescott). The review does NOT include the Opterons ;-(, but is has a lot of very detailed benchmark charts. 29 charts for data transfers of each CPU alone + 35 benchmark charts (comparison). The only problem is as far as I know this article is only available in German. http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/1244/index.html Test: Athlon 64 FX-55 4000+ They have a english website here : http://www.tecchannel.com/ ,but unfortunately it does not contain even as near info as the german pages. The article above does not seem to be available in english. The article is free to read online or you can buy the PDF version for 0.80 Euro (1$). I have it but the copyright does not allow me to forward it to anybody. (Thank you for understanding) Best regards Nils Valentin On Friday 03 December 2004 09:04, Jin Zhao wrote: Just found out this excellent article about server performance: http://www.samag.com/documents/s=9408/sam0411b/0411b.htm This is the best I read so far and I highly recommend it to everybody considering 64 bit. However, it is still purely from a hardware view. Does anybody knows any reviews from OS softwares, esp Linux? Which platform linux works better with, AMD64 or EM64T? Thanks, Jin Paolo Alexis Falcone wrote: On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:41:10 -0600, Jin Zhao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am currently faced with choosing one of them as our forthcoming 64 bit platform. So far I read a couple of reviews, most of which seems favor AMD64 a little bit. I also did some initial testings on an opteron box with Debian pure64 unstale. So far it looks good. The price differrence is not a big issue. The most important are performance, reliability and compatibility, esp on Linux, most likely Debian. We will use them to run server side java applicaitons. Redhat mentioned this in their realease statement: Software IOTLB Intel EM64T does not support an IOMMU in hardware while AMD64 processors do. This means that physical addresses above 4GB (32 bits) cannot reliably be the source or destination of DMA operations. Therefore, the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 Update 2 kernel bounces all DMA operations to or from physical addresses above 4GB to buffers that the kernel pre-allocated below 4GB at boot time. This is likely to result in lower performance for IO-intensive workloads for Intel EM64T as compared to AMD64 processors. This issue may affect database usage, but probably not a java applicaiton server. There might be other unkown issues as well. I am eager to know what are the Debian team and users' point on these two platforms, esp those who already used them. AMD's original implementation of their AMD64 architecture is gauged as superior engineering-wise by many hardware reviewers. The Intel implementation still suffers from bandwidth starvation as the same bus architecture as of old is still being used. This causes problems when you get more processors and memory, which the AMD implementation solves by making each processor have its own set of memory and resources. -- kind regards Nils Valentin Tokyo/Japan http://www.be-known-online.com/mysql/
Re: AMD64 VS EM64T
Hi veverybody, also this two articles are only in german http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/1441/index.html http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/1456/index.html I still hope that somevody finds them useful. Best regards Nils Valentin Tokyo / Japan http://www.be-known-online.com On Friday 03 December 2004 09:04, Jin Zhao wrote: Just found out this excellent article about server performance: http://www.samag.com/documents/s=9408/sam0411b/0411b.htm This is the best I read so far and I highly recommend it to everybody considering 64 bit. However, it is still purely from a hardware view. Does anybody knows any reviews from OS softwares, esp Linux? Which platform linux works better with, AMD64 or EM64T? Thanks, Jin Paolo Alexis Falcone wrote: On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:41:10 -0600, Jin Zhao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am currently faced with choosing one of them as our forthcoming 64 bit platform. So far I read a couple of reviews, most of which seems favor AMD64 a little bit. I also did some initial testings on an opteron box with Debian pure64 unstale. So far it looks good. The price differrence is not a big issue. The most important are performance, reliability and compatibility, esp on Linux, most likely Debian. We will use them to run server side java applicaitons. Redhat mentioned this in their realease statement: Software IOTLB Intel EM64T does not support an IOMMU in hardware while AMD64 processors do. This means that physical addresses above 4GB (32 bits) cannot reliably be the source or destination of DMA operations. Therefore, the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 Update 2 kernel bounces all DMA operations to or from physical addresses above 4GB to buffers that the kernel pre-allocated below 4GB at boot time. This is likely to result in lower performance for IO-intensive workloads for Intel EM64T as compared to AMD64 processors. This issue may affect database usage, but probably not a java applicaiton server. There might be other unkown issues as well. I am eager to know what are the Debian team and users' point on these two platforms, esp those who already used them. AMD's original implementation of their AMD64 architecture is gauged as superior engineering-wise by many hardware reviewers. The Intel implementation still suffers from bandwidth starvation as the same bus architecture as of old is still being used. This causes problems when you get more processors and memory, which the AMD implementation solves by making each processor have its own set of memory and resources. -- kind regards Nils Valentin Tokyo/Japan http://www.be-known-online.com/mysql/
Re: AMD64 VS EM64T
O.K I found one more article. Here are all 4 articles neatly listed up http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/1441/index.html http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/1456/index.html http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/1244/index.html http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/1235/index.html Best regards Nils Valentin Tokyo / Japan http://www.be-known-online.com On Saturday 04 December 2004 00:35, Nils Valentin wrote: Hi veverybody, also this two articles are only in german http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/1441/index.html http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/1456/index.html I still hope that somevody finds them useful. Best regards Nils Valentin Tokyo / Japan http://www.be-known-online.com On Friday 03 December 2004 09:04, Jin Zhao wrote: Just found out this excellent article about server performance: http://www.samag.com/documents/s=9408/sam0411b/0411b.htm This is the best I read so far and I highly recommend it to everybody considering 64 bit. However, it is still purely from a hardware view. Does anybody knows any reviews from OS softwares, esp Linux? Which platform linux works better with, AMD64 or EM64T? Thanks, Jin Paolo Alexis Falcone wrote: On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:41:10 -0600, Jin Zhao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am currently faced with choosing one of them as our forthcoming 64 bit platform. So far I read a couple of reviews, most of which seems favor AMD64 a little bit. I also did some initial testings on an opteron box with Debian pure64 unstale. So far it looks good. The price differrence is not a big issue. The most important are performance, reliability and compatibility, esp on Linux, most likely Debian. We will use them to run server side java applicaitons. Redhat mentioned this in their realease statement: Software IOTLB Intel EM64T does not support an IOMMU in hardware while AMD64 processors do. This means that physical addresses above 4GB (32 bits) cannot reliably be the source or destination of DMA operations. Therefore, the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 Update 2 kernel bounces all DMA operations to or from physical addresses above 4GB to buffers that the kernel pre-allocated below 4GB at boot time. This is likely to result in lower performance for IO-intensive workloads for Intel EM64T as compared to AMD64 processors. This issue may affect database usage, but probably not a java applicaiton server. There might be other unkown issues as well. I am eager to know what are the Debian team and users' point on these two platforms, esp those who already used them. AMD's original implementation of their AMD64 architecture is gauged as superior engineering-wise by many hardware reviewers. The Intel implementation still suffers from bandwidth starvation as the same bus architecture as of old is still being used. This causes problems when you get more processors and memory, which the AMD implementation solves by making each processor have its own set of memory and resources. -- kind regards Nils Valentin Tokyo/Japan http://www.be-known-online.com/mysql/
Re: AMD64 VS EM64T
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 11:49:15PM +0900, Nils Valentin wrote: there is a 67 page Benchmark comparison betweeen the Athlon type CPUs and the Pentium 4 types (including Prescott). The review does NOT include the Opterons ;-(, but is has a lot of very detailed benchmark charts. 29 charts for data transfers of each CPU alone + 35 benchmark charts (comparison). The only problem is as far as I know this article is only available in German. http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/1244/index.html Test: Athlon 64 FX-55 4000+ They have a english website here : http://www.tecchannel.com/ ,but unfortunately it does not contain even as near info as the german pages. The article above does not seem to be available in english. The article is free to read online or you can buy the PDF version for 0.80 Euro (1$). I have it but the copyright does not allow me to forward it to anybody. (Thank you for understanding) I think what the original question wanted to know, is the performance of opteron/athlon 64 in 64bit mode vs. xeon em64t in 64bit mode. Most published benchmarks are for windows and in 32bit mode which doesn't tell anything useful unfortunately. Certainly comments I have seen on this list so far is that the athlon 64 is almost always faster in 64bit mode than 32bit mode, and the xeon varies, sometimes gaining a small amount, sometimes loosing a small amount, but no major improvement or loss in performance of 64bit vs. 32bit. of course programs that have optimized 32bit assembler but no optimized 64bit assembler are usually much faster in 32bit mode, although that is entirely due to optimized vs unoptimized. Len Sorensen
AMD64 VS EM64T
I am currently faced with choosing one of them as our forthcoming 64 bit platform. So far I read a couple of reviews, most of which seems favor AMD64 a little bit. I also did some initial testings on an opteron box with Debian pure64 unstale. So far it looks good. The price differrence is not a big issue. The most important are performance, reliability and compatibility, esp on Linux, most likely Debian. We will use them to run server side java applicaitons. Redhat mentioned this in their realease statement: Software IOTLB Intel EM64T does not support an IOMMU in hardware while AMD64 processors do. This means that physical addresses above 4GB (32 bits) cannot reliably be the source or destination of DMA operations. Therefore, the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 Update 2 kernel bounces all DMA operations to or from physical addresses above 4GB to buffers that the kernel pre-allocated below 4GB at boot time. This is likely to result in lower performance for IO-intensive workloads for Intel EM64T as compared to AMD64 processors. This issue may affect database usage, but probably not a java applicaiton server. There might be other unkown issues as well. I am eager to know what are the Debian team and users' point on these two platforms, esp those who already used them. Thanks, Jin
Re: AMD64 VS EM64T
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:41:10 -0600, Jin Zhao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am currently faced with choosing one of them as our forthcoming 64 bit platform. So far I read a couple of reviews, most of which seems favor AMD64 a little bit. I also did some initial testings on an opteron box with Debian pure64 unstale. So far it looks good. The price differrence is not a big issue. The most important are performance, reliability and compatibility, esp on Linux, most likely Debian. We will use them to run server side java applicaitons. Redhat mentioned this in their realease statement: Software IOTLB Intel EM64T does not support an IOMMU in hardware while AMD64 processors do. This means that physical addresses above 4GB (32 bits) cannot reliably be the source or destination of DMA operations. Therefore, the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 Update 2 kernel bounces all DMA operations to or from physical addresses above 4GB to buffers that the kernel pre-allocated below 4GB at boot time. This is likely to result in lower performance for IO-intensive workloads for Intel EM64T as compared to AMD64 processors. This issue may affect database usage, but probably not a java applicaiton server. There might be other unkown issues as well. I am eager to know what are the Debian team and users' point on these two platforms, esp those who already used them. AMD's original implementation of their AMD64 architecture is gauged as superior engineering-wise by many hardware reviewers. The Intel implementation still suffers from bandwidth starvation as the same bus architecture as of old is still being used. This causes problems when you get more processors and memory, which the AMD implementation solves by making each processor have its own set of memory and resources. -- Paolo Alexis Falcone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 VS EM64T
Just found out this excellent article about server performance: http://www.samag.com/documents/s=9408/sam0411b/0411b.htm This is the best I read so far and I highly recommend it to everybody considering 64 bit. However, it is still purely from a hardware view. Does anybody knows any reviews from OS softwares, esp Linux? Which platform linux works better with, AMD64 or EM64T? Thanks, Jin Paolo Alexis Falcone wrote: On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:41:10 -0600, Jin Zhao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am currently faced with choosing one of them as our forthcoming 64 bit platform. So far I read a couple of reviews, most of which seems favor AMD64 a little bit. I also did some initial testings on an opteron box with Debian pure64 unstale. So far it looks good. The price differrence is not a big issue. The most important are performance, reliability and compatibility, esp on Linux, most likely Debian. We will use them to run server side java applicaitons. Redhat mentioned this in their realease statement: Software IOTLB Intel EM64T does not support an IOMMU in hardware while AMD64 processors do. This means that physical addresses above 4GB (32 bits) cannot reliably be the source or destination of DMA operations. Therefore, the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 Update 2 kernel bounces all DMA operations to or from physical addresses above 4GB to buffers that the kernel pre-allocated below 4GB at boot time. This is likely to result in lower performance for IO-intensive workloads for Intel EM64T as compared to AMD64 processors. This issue may affect database usage, but probably not a java applicaiton server. There might be other unkown issues as well. I am eager to know what are the Debian team and users' point on these two platforms, esp those who already used them. AMD's original implementation of their AMD64 architecture is gauged as superior engineering-wise by many hardware reviewers. The Intel implementation still suffers from bandwidth starvation as the same bus architecture as of old is still being used. This causes problems when you get more processors and memory, which the AMD implementation solves by making each processor have its own set of memory and resources.
