[cooker-amd64] Re: suggest the right configuration

[Duncan]

Francesco posted <200401261430.29160.francesco_melo@tiscali.it>, excerpted
below,  on Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:30:29 +0100:

> 
> i use mdk from two years on i586..
> you installed and use  mdk 64 bit
> 
> can you suggest some hardware configurattion i am thinking to buy a 64 bit
> machine but it is not clear opteron
> amd64
> amd64fx
> 
> more cache or different socket
> ...
> can you tell wich are your machine configuration  thanks Francesco

The 64fx is for the folks that have more money to spend than they have
sense, IMO.  Well, that, and the die-hard gamers, again, with lots of $$
to spend.  It's the top of the line single-CPU offering, but as with most
CPU top-of-the-lines, it costs WAY more than a couple notches down the
performance ladder.  Thus, I can't recommend it, unless you DO have the
extra $$ to spend, and think the extra cost is worth it for top of the
line.

The normal Athlon64 is the pretty generic desktop and simple future
compatibility insurance chip, for single CPU machines.  It's the least
expensive, but still far better and more efficient clock-for-clock than
comparable normal 32-bit Athlons, in 32-bit mode, PLUS it has the ability
to do 64-bit, either now, or later.  If you are planning on keeping your
machine for several years and are simply wanting to ensure that you have
64-bit compatibility down the line, but don't have any overpowering desire
to run 64-bit now, the standard Athlon64 is probably your best bet.  Also,
64-bit operating platforms, including Mandrake, are still a bit rough
around the edges, so if this fits your description, I'd recommend sticking
with Mdk for i586, until probably Mdk 10.1, at least, even if you get an
AMD64 capable chip.  That's one of the advantages of the AMD solution. 
You can do just that, purchase the 64-bit hardware now, but still run the
32-bit platform, until 64-bit is a bit more mature, or you decide you need
to switch, to run a specific application.

Opterons are the server grade chip.  Clock rates are a bit more
conservative, with prices a bit higher, but they are still a better buy
for your $$ than the fx series.  The first digit in the three-digit
Opteron model number is the number of CPUs it's designed to pair with. 
Thus, an Opteron 1xx is designed to run alone, with 2xx Opterons being
designed to be capable of tight dual-CPU cooperation (tho they'll still
run as singles just fine), and 4xx Opterons being designed for 4-way and
larger systems, with many CPUs.  Thus, if you are thinking about getting a
dual CPU machine, the choice is easy, you go Opteron.  One of the special
benefits of doing so, in the Opterons, as compared to any of the others,
or to standard x86 chips before it, is that the Opterons are designed for
much tighter coupling, much better cooperation between CPUs, and much
faster communication, than other processors.  The dedicated
hyper-transport buss between CPUs, as well as the internal architecture,
makes the Opterons the thing to get for multi-CPU use, even if you are
only going to run 32-bit on them.

Here, I chose to go with a pair of Opteron 242s.  There's a bit of history
in my decision.  I've been running computers since 486s.  The upgrade
several years ago to the first Athlons that came out was real impressive
for me.  I had an Athlon 500, and it ran far better and far more
efficiently than anything I'd had b4.  That was the first time I could
download 300kbps streaming video off the net, and not only play it live
without frame skipping, but do so while moving the still-playing video
window around on the desktop!  That it had the CPU horsepower to not ONLY
play the video, not ONLY do so without interruption while I was moving the
window around the desktop, but that it could STILL do that, AND keep up
with the network streaming, was REALLY impressive to me!

Unfortunately, I was NOT so impressed with my next upgrade, to an Athlon-C
running at 1.2GHz.  That was more than twice the speed, and in some things
I got twice the performance, but in many other things I didn't.   I
couldn't, for instance, now play TWO such streaming videos, tho I tested
it, to see, and tho my internet connections was up to the task.  I was
rather disappointed, actually, and decided that what I needed for full
responsiveness even with one CPU intensive task going full throttle, was a
dual CPU system.

Thus, I'd decided on a dual-CPU system before I knew about AMD64s at all.
When AMD64 was announced, I knew I wanted that as well, but didn't know if
I'd be able to afford it.  Then they delayed and delayed releasing it, and
then delayed the desktop Athlong64 even after the Opteron was out, and I
kept putting off my next computer upgrade as well, in the hopes of getting
an AMD64.  At the time, I didn't know that only the Opterons would do dual
CPU better than any other processors, and I was hoping to get a standard
dual CPU system but using AMD64 -- again, **IF** I could afford it.

Then the Athlon64 DID finally come out, and it was priced within reach,
and I began investigating things seriously.  As I did, I began to realize
that the Opteron was what I wanted anyway, because only the Opteron had
the bonus of the extra close cooperation between CPUs in the dual CPU
system architecture I was planning to get.  Once I realized that, and that
the 200 series Opterons were the ones designed for dual CPU operation,
that decision was made for me.  All I had to decide then was what speed I
could afford, and what mobo to purchase, and how I wanted to balance
memory against CPU speed, as well as whether I could afford to get both
CPUs at the same time or whether I'd have to wait on one.

Well, there aren't a lot of brands of dual Opteron board out there. 
There's Tyan, MSI, and a third brand, which I never could find out a lot
about.  Of course, there are several models from each brand, but..  As I
said, the third brand I couldn't find out much about.. including failing
to find a web site for them, so I marked them off my list right away. 
That left Tyan and MSI.  A visit to the MSI site quickly made up my mind
there as well, as everything there is in MSWormOS executable format. 
Their manuals, their BIOS updates.  Their product data sheets, pretty much
everything.  I sent them an e-mail, asking them if some worm took over
their site and replaced all the PDFs and zip files with executables or
what, and telling them exactly why I was NOT purchasing their boards. 
That left me with Tyan, which makes a point of certifying its boards on
Linux.

Luckily, as I was doing all this shopping, data gathering, and price and
product comparisons, prices on the Opterons dropped a notch.  I ended up
with a Tyan s2885  Thunder k8w.  (The other board on my short list was the
Tyan s2880, I believe it was, with SCSI and built-in video, instead of
firewire and an AGP card slot.  I decided I wanted the card slot of the
2885, plus I liked the other features a bit better.)  Because prices
dropped a notch, I was able to fill both CPU sockets at initial purchase. 
I also had to purchase memory, since my existing memory wasn't registered,
so I couldn't carry it over from my old mobo/cpu unit.  I got a gig, in
two 512MB sticks, since the price knee in registered memory was between
512MB and 1G/stick.  (By that, I mean 512MB sticks were roughly twice the
cost of 256MB sticks, but 1G sticks were FOUR TIMES the cost of 512MB
sticks, not just double, so it didn't pay to get over 512MB/stick.  I got
two sticks to enable me to give one to each CPU.)  I kept my old hard
drives, and case and case fans, but had to buy a more powerful power
supply, with additional power cables to plug into the board to power the
dual CPUs.

The last part won't help you much if you don't want/need to go dual CPU,
but the top part should still help.  I agree, it's a bit confusing out
there, with all the available options, until you know what is what.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --
Benjamin Franklin