• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

64-bit Intel is official

Hmmmm...AMD x86-64 for Prescott...still doesn't fix the heat issue :). But then again, that's what the D-0 stepping will supposedly fix. I think AMD should license SSE3 :D
 
they don't have to license it, the cross licensing agreements say that anything intel makes in the x86 world amd has access to for free, and vice versa. that is why itanium is different as it isn't x86, so amd doesn't have access.
 
Originally posted by Merlin45
they don't have to license it, the cross licensing agreements say that anything intel makes in the x86 world amd has access to for free, and vice versa. that is why itanium is different as it isn't x86, so amd doesn't have access.
Click to expand...

Which unfortately is why the A64/Opteron are out first. Intel spent way too much $$ on Itanium to allow competing cpu's from themselves at a fraction of the cost.
 
opteron is not a direct competator to itanium in most of itaniums markets, Itanium's real power comes from glueless smp systems that the opteron can only dream of. (128 way maximum) plus IA-64 has been around around much longer than a64, and in a pure 64 bit environment, it would reign supreme.
 
Originally posted by Bomber
Which unfortately is why the A64/Opteron are out first. Intel spent way too much $$ on Itanium to allow competing cpu's from themselves at a fraction of the cost.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really make that much of a difference.

Intel lost a little in the Xeon market, but Opteron is not a direct competitor to Itanium.

In the desktop market, the only thing lost was marketing hype.
 
And through all this AMD still managed to loose some market share to Intel [thoough they managed to turn a profit which I'm greatly thankfull for].
 
Originally posted by VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVI
It doesn't really make that much of a difference.

Intel lost a little in the Xeon market, but Opteron is not a direct competitor to Itanium.

In the desktop market, the only thing lost was marketing hype.
Click to expand...

The Opteron isn't much of a competitor, but now that Intel has 2 different 64-bit architechture CPU's, it is going to be interesting for Intel to say "We have 64-bit CPU's that cost $x.00 and we have 64-bit CPU's that cost $x.00-lots" The Xeon is a server/workstation chip. The Itanium is a server/workstation chip. The Itanium may just see the beginning of it's demise in the mid-sector. Hmm...
 
Originally posted by Merlin45
opteron is not a direct competator to itanium in most of itaniums markets, Itanium's real power comes from glueless smp systems that the opteron can only dream of. (128 way maximum) plus IA-64 has been around around much longer than a64, and in a pure 64 bit environment, it would reign supreme.
Click to expand...

Opteron is glueless via Hypertransport, and Itanium requires a northbridge to be glueless.
 
different means, but the numbers still stand, 8 for opteron, and 128 for itanium.
 
Originally posted by Morley
Opteron is glueless via Hypertransport, and Itanium requires a northbridge to be glueless.
Click to expand...
but itanium still offer more than opteron can
 
Originally posted by Merlin45
the fact that coppermine, like willamette, would not benefit from ht (though for very different reasons) is a major reason why neither ever had it enabled. but as the p7 architecture was ready to go long before the p5 ever hit 1ghz, it seems very possible that it was added.
Click to expand...

The P5 design never came close to 1GHz. I think you are talking about P6, aka P-Pro, PII, PIII and all their happy little Celeron children.
 
Originally posted by Bling
but itanium still offer more than opteron can
Click to expand...

Yeah...in pure 64-bit operation. Too bad you might have to lay off lots of employees to buy Itaniums.
 
Originally posted by Merlin45
different means, but the numbers still stand, 8 for opteron, and 128 for itanium.
Click to expand...
128-way systems are offered by SGI (Altix). This for a CPU that's been around (more or less) since 1994.

Compared to 8-way for a CPU made last year by a company hardly anyone wants to touch for fear of angering The Great One.

Are you actually saying the iTanium is more scaleable than Opteron?

SGI also offers 512-way MIPS systems. So does Sun (UltraSPARC). So by your definition those are better?
 
Originally posted by Morley
Better tell that to Newisys.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=7093
Click to expand...

Either you missed his point or you don't know what glueless means.

In a glueless system, Opteron can only have 8 CPUs while Itanium can have up to 128.

Above 8 CPUs, Opteron needs external logic (ie. it is no longer glueless). Above 128 CPUs, Itanium also needs external logic to "glue" all the CPUs together into one massive supercomputer.

Both can obviously have more than 128 CPUs in a system, but Opteron requires more overhead.
 
Originally posted by Bling
but itanium still offer more than opteron can
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could elaborate?

It's not really sufficient to simply state a 'fact', and attempt to let it stand on its own. ;)
 
Originally posted by Josh_B
Perhaps you could elaborate?

It's not really sufficient to simply state a 'fact', and attempt to let it stand on its own. ;)
Click to expand...

I chose to ignore that particular post....

Anyway, Itanium has SPEC numbers to back it up, but cost-wise it's a really tough call. Does Itanium's 128-way glueless configuration and far greater SPECfp performance per CPU offset its cost compared to an Opteron system with more overhead above 8-way, less power consumption, and less cost per-CPU? I'd say it's highly dependant on what the system's used for and the size of the system. Opteron's dirt cheap for its SPECint performance.

Someone go buy some supercomputers and benchmark them. :)
 
A while back i became interested in the Itanium chip and did a little research on its performance. It seems to be ultimate performer when used as a workstation. I really don't see AMD making anything as fast as it. The itanium also does everything that AMD is currently trying to accomplish but has been doing it for years. I'm talking about the low MHZ rating and being a 64bit processor.
If Intel were smart they would make this chip more attractive price-wise. My suggestion would be to lower the 1.4ghz to around $400 and make available MB's less than $300.
 
Originally posted by Neurofreeze
Either you missed his point or you don't know what glueless means.

In a glueless system, Opteron can only have 8 CPUs while Itanium can have up to 128.

Above 8 CPUs, Opteron needs external logic (ie. it is no longer glueless). Above 128 CPUs, Itanium also needs external logic to "glue" all the CPUs together into one massive supercomputer.

Both can obviously have more than 128 CPUs in a system, but Opteron requires more overhead.
Click to expand...

What? AMD's 8000 chipset, with its Hypertransport hub and the ability to 'hook' more hypertransport CPU's and hubs together is more 'glueless' than Intel's traditional northbridge/FSB design!

The e8870 chipset requires an additional e9870 scalability port to get beyond 4 way which is closer to NUMA patchsets...

You were saying about overhead again?
 
Originally posted by Burning Phoenix

If Intel were smart they would make this chip more attractive price-wise. My suggestion would be to lower the 1.4ghz to around $400 and make available MB's less than $300.
Click to expand...

And what would run on it? Sure as hell won't be Windows 64...MS said that's strictly x86-64.

And yeah, 6MB cache CPU for $400...that'll be the day.
 
Originally posted by batotman
I love HT. I do alot of shit, divx encoding, dvd authoring, and run as a server. On my non-HT p4 2.53 these things were slow as molasses, especially the print serving. With HT I no longer have the lag. Its a "free" feature in the C procs so I don't think anyone can complain about having it...lol.
Click to expand...

That wouldn't have anything to do with the fact you're running around 280FSB versus around 170FSB tops with the B? :)
 
Originally posted by Morley
And what would run on it? Sure as hell won't be Windows 64...MS said that's strictly x86-64.

And yeah, 6MB cache CPU for $400...that'll be the day.
Click to expand...
psst, there already is a winxp 64 bit for the itanium architecture, it has been around for years.
 
Originally posted by Merlin45
psst, there already is a winxp 64 bit for the itanium architecture, it has been around for years.
Click to expand...

No shit, a professionally aimed offering. MS is certainly not going to release a version of IA64 Windows for the public.
 
Originally posted by Neurofreeze
Either you missed his point or you don't know what glueless means.

In a glueless system, Opteron can only have 8 CPUs while Itanium can have up to 128.

Above 8 CPUs, Opteron needs external logic (ie. it is no longer glueless). Above 128 CPUs, Itanium also needs external logic to "glue" all the CPUs together into one massive supercomputer.

Both can obviously have more than 128 CPUs in a system, but Opteron requires more overhead.
Click to expand...
I call bullshit. Just because AMD has only validated the Opteron up to 8-way doesn't mean it suddenly needs a northbridge or "extra glue" after that.

The Opteron is built from the ground up to be tremendously scaleable. The iTanium isn't.

Anyway, even XeonMPs are called "glueless" so maybe according to the definition of the word you're correct in stating that Itanium is glueless up to 128-way. That doesn't preclude Opteron from being the same brand of glueless up to n-way, however.
 
I love HT. I do alot of shit, divx encoding, dvd authoring, and run as a server. On my non-HT p4 2.53 these things were slow as molasses, especially the print serving. With HT I no longer have the lag. Its a "free" feature in the C procs so I don't think anyone can complain about having it...lol.
Click to expand...

LOL - I think the fact that you were using a 2.53 p4 is the reason your machine was 'slow as molasses'. Next thing you're going to tell me is that HT mixes you drinks while blowing smoke up your ass. There's some useful multitasking right there!

Funny enough, I was doing a Norton Anti-virus scan with all the heuristics jacked up, and my P4C 3.2 ghz was dragged down to the point of almost non-responsive despite the vaunted hyperthreading technology. I could literally count the seconds before I could switch between normal IE windows while this was going on.
 
Originally posted by redpriest
LOL - I think the fact that you were using a 2.53 p4 is the reason your machine was 'slow as molasses'. Next thing you're going to tell me is that HT mixes you drinks while blowing smoke up your ass. There's some useful multitasking right there!

Funny enough, I was doing a Norton Anti-virus scan with all the heuristics jacked up, and my P4C 3.2 ghz was dragged down to the point of almost non-responsive despite the vaunted hyperthreading technology. I could literally count the seconds before I could switch between normal IE windows while this was going on.
Click to expand...

Yeah I guess next you're going to tell me a 2.53 is slower than a 2.4.....must be because of the FSB....:rolleyes:....I run a server at stock speeds as well. HT is still a huge improvement. Funny....I can run a NAV scan and I don't have any problems. Must be you.
 
Who runs NAV 'windows explorer is a VIRUS---DELETE!!!- in the first? I try to stay away from anything Norton puts out.
 
I've always found Norton to be good, much better than the competitors. I don't like the realtime protection but other than that its saved my ass quite a few times...lol.
 
Originally posted by Mark Larson
I call bullshit. Just because AMD has only validated the Opteron up to 8-way doesn't mean it suddenly needs a northbridge or "extra glue" after that.

The Opteron is built from the ground up to be tremendously scaleable. The iTanium isn't.

Anyway, even XeonMPs are called "glueless" so maybe according to the definition of the word you're correct in stating that Itanium is glueless up to 128-way. That doesn't preclude Opteron from being the same brand of glueless up to n-way, however.
Click to expand...

Yup, I already explained that...more hypertransport hubs are a lot more efficient than the e9870 addition to the e8870 chipset.
 
Originally posted by Mark Larson
I call bullshit. Just because AMD has only validated the Opteron up to 8-way doesn't mean it suddenly needs a northbridge or "extra glue" after that.

The Opteron is built from the ground up to be tremendously scaleable. The iTanium isn't.

Anyway, even XeonMPs are called "glueless" so maybe according to the definition of the word you're correct in stating that Itanium is glueless up to 128-way. That doesn't preclude Opteron from being the same brand of glueless up to n-way, however.
Click to expand...
uhh, the whole point of the itaniums existance is massive scalability in an enterprise server situation. yes you do need external logic for more than 8 way opteron as cray needed to create a bridge for use in red storm. you run out of ht links after 8 processors.
 
Originally posted by Merlin45
uhh, the whole point of the itaniums existance is massive scalability in an enterprise server situation. yes you do need external logic for more than 8 way opteron as cray needed to create a bridge for use in red storm. you run out of ht links after 8 processors.
Click to expand...

That's what hypertransport hubs are for.

And I don't think you understand the nature of the Itanium's 'patchset'.
 
I was under the impression that every 4 procs has a snc and the sncs link together.
 
Originally posted by Morley
And what would run on it? Sure as hell won't be Windows 64...MS said that's strictly x86-64.

And yeah, 6MB cache CPU for $400...that'll be the day.
Click to expand...

In case you didn't know Windows Server 2003 is used on the Itanium systems. You can see specs here for WS2003 here.
Also in case you didn't know Microsoft have been making patchs to improve performance of 32bit apps. Here's the latest

As for the pricing of the Itanium i have been mentioning this for quite a while and now it seems it may possibly happen as i read Here the other day.
 
And in case you didn't know, we were discussing the home user.

We have an HP Itanium 2 machine at work for testing. I'm very aware of 64-bit Windows.

Jesus people, I should have been more specific. But since we were talking about the home user, I thought it went without saying.
 
I'm a home user with WS2003. WS2003 is easily works as a OS. What rules are you using to differentiate the home user from the commercial user? I don't think it would be cost because quite a few home users are buying complete systems from Dell or Hp for around $2000. Or how about the enthusiasts whom spend tons of $'s buying the latest CPU's at high prices let alone $200 MB's.
If the Itanium MB's were reasonably priced and the 1.4 or 1.5 ghz were under $500 i'd buy them. Actually if the total system price were under $2000 with dual Itanium II's I'm sure AMD would have a hell of a time selling anything at least top end.
 
Originally posted by Burning Phoenix
I'm a home user with WS2003. WS2003 is easily works as a OS. What rules are you using to differentiate the home user from the commercial user? I don't think it would be cost because quite a few home users are buying complete systems from Dell or Hp for around $2000. Or how about the enthusiasts whom spend tons of $'s buying the latest CPU's at high prices let alone $200 MB's.
If the Itanium MB's were reasonably priced and the 1.4 or 1.5 ghz were under $500 i'd buy them. Actually if the total system price were under $2000 with dual Itanium II's I'm sure AMD would have a hell of a time selling anything at least top end.
Click to expand...

You're dreaming. We're 1% of the market. Intel doesn't care. Why the hell would they do that when their margin is much higher as it is?

And there's no way in hell ANY of the top-tier OEM's would sell a Server OS to the home user...that would be folly and would dilute their brand at the top end. Simple marketing.

While people may buy $2000 Dell's, much MORE people buy their $500 bargains. eMachines didn't do $1.1 BILLION in revenue last year just by pulling it our of their ass.

And do you SERIOUSLY think that you'll ever see an eMachines in Best Buy with Windows 2003 Server?

Yeah right.

The point is that Microsoft will be selling ONE version of its 64-bit Windows operating system for the end user. You will only see ONE version of MS's 64-bit OS's on computers in Best Buy, and that is x86-64.
 
Originally posted by Burning Phoenix
I'm a home user with WS2003. WS2003 is easily works as a OS. What rules are you using to differentiate the home user from the commercial user? I don't think it would be cost because quite a few home users are buying complete systems from Dell or Hp for around $2000. Or how about the enthusiasts whom spend tons of $'s buying the latest CPU's at high prices let alone $200 MB's.
If the Itanium MB's were reasonably priced and the 1.4 or 1.5 ghz were under $500 i'd buy them. Actually if the total system price were under $2000 with dual Itanium II's I'm sure AMD would have a hell of a time selling anything at least top end.
Click to expand...

You got a license for that Win2003?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top