Intel or AMD?

[justly]

Thanks n0cmonkey, Cerb and Boonesmi

I'm glad to find out that the Opteron has this much versatility and support with its current platforms. I didn't realize that they had improved so much.

 

[OffTopic1]

Just looked at Tyan site & the Opteron look promissing, and we will be buying pre fab servers. It will be nice to see MS-SQL bench & use as ammo for my next meeting, because the new servers will be use exclusively for MS-SQL.

 

[Cerb]

Check Ace's Hardware. I can't find it now, but I'm pretty sure they had MS SQL benchmarks. If memory serves, the Xeon 2.6GHz and Operon 1.8GHz (244) were on par.

 

[OffTopic1]

Originally posted by: Cerb
Check Ace's Hardware. I can't find it now, but I'm pretty sure they had MS SQL benchmarks. If memory serves, the Xeon 2.6GHz and Operon 1.8GHz (244) were on par.

Thanks

I found the bench at Aceshardware.com, and the Opteron is trailing Xeon on MS-SQL 2000 ++ Windows 2000. According to Ace's "Windows 2000 does not manage memory very efficiently", therefore Opteron don't do well in this senario. However, Windows 2003 & the next version of MS-SQL should do well on the Opteron specially utilizing the AMD64 architecture.

It looks like the Intel camp in my company will win this debate, because the business managers only have heard of Intel. I have to prove that Opteron have a wide margin of advantage over Xeon for them to even consider it because they think Intel == reliability.

I personally can?t wait till the day that we migrate off MS-SQL and uses Boland Firebird or Postgre SQL as the backend, and migrate the front end to a more user friendly application other than MS Great Plains Dynamics.

 

[Boonesmi]

Originally posted by: OffTopic

Originally posted by: Cerb
Check Ace's Hardware. I can't find it now, but I'm pretty sure they had MS SQL benchmarks. If memory serves, the Xeon 2.6GHz and Operon 1.8GHz (244) were on par.

Thanks

I found the bench at Aceshardware.com, and the Opteron is trailing Xeon on MS-SQL 2000 ++ Windows 2000. According to Ace's "Windows 2000 does not manage memory very efficiently", therefore Opteron don't do well in this senario. However, Windows 2003 & the next version of MS-SQL should do well on the Opteron specially utilizing the AMD64 architecture.

It looks like the Intel camp in my company will win this debate, because the business managers only have heard of Intel. I have to prove that Opteron have a wide margin of advantage over Xeon for them to even consider it because they think Intel == reliability.

I personally can?t wait till the day that we migrate off MS-SQL and uses Boland Firebird or Postgre SQL as the backend, and migrate the front end to a more user friendly application other than MS Great Plains Dynamics.

you gotta remember that review is a year old... one of the very nice things about the opteron is how well it scales (meaning an up to date comparison would look a lot different)

also im pretty sure those first opterons used the older stepping (cant remember what it was called? B3??, but the one before C0), and the C0 has better memory performance. plus this article was written right when the opteron was first released. an up to date comparison would be using much more mature parts

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Boonesmi

Originally posted by: OffTopic

Originally posted by: Cerb
Check Ace's Hardware. I can't find it now, but I'm pretty sure they had MS SQL benchmarks. If memory serves, the Xeon 2.6GHz and Operon 1.8GHz (244) were on par.

Thanks

I found the bench at Aceshardware.com, and the Opteron is trailing Xeon on MS-SQL 2000 ++ Windows 2000. According to Ace's "Windows 2000 does not manage memory very efficiently", therefore Opteron don't do well in this senario. However, Windows 2003 & the next version of MS-SQL should do well on the Opteron specially utilizing the AMD64 architecture.

It looks like the Intel camp in my company will win this debate, because the business managers only have heard of Intel. I have to prove that Opteron have a wide margin of advantage over Xeon for them to even consider it because they think Intel == reliability.

I personally can?t wait till the day that we migrate off MS-SQL and uses Boland Firebird or Postgre SQL as the backend, and migrate the front end to a more user friendly application other than MS Great Plains Dynamics.

you gotta remember that review is a year old... one of the very nice things about the opteron is how well it scales (meaning an up to date comparison would look a lot different)

also im pretty sure those first opterons used the older stepping (cant remember what it was called? B3??, but the one before C0), and the C0 has better memory performance. plus this article was written right when the opteron was first released. an up to date comparison would be using much more mature parts

...like updated BIOSes, which have proven effective, at least for the FXs, I don't know about the steppings, aside from the fact that newer ones all support PC3200 (which really helps out, given the tight margin). It'd be interesting to see a 2.2 vs. 3.2 on 2003 server.

However, for MS-SQL, the margin is just too small, whereas DB2 and MySQL (don't know about Oracle) greatly excel on the Opterons.

 

[Boonesmi]

a new article was just posted on the anandtech main page
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982

i havent read it yet
but im planning to right now

 

[pecel]

AMD !!!

 

[Regs]

lol @ this thread.

--*brings out the AMD cheerleaders* Rawr Rawr Rawr*--

Another vote for the opteron.

 

[Ghostt]

Amd Opteron

more power for less price ,,especially when you go to the quad set up

the cpu part ,,the Opteron will probably be half the price of the xeon

With Amd 32/64 ,,you are paying for 32 bit and having the ability to advance to 64 bit later and still use your 32 bit software in a 64 bit OS ,,this way you can take your time upgrading

also remember those benchmarks that you see ,,are all running in 32 bit OS

Amd is slowly getting a foothold in the server market

Good luck on your choice

 

[MDE]

Originally posted by: Ghostt
AMD Opteron

more power for less price ,,especially when you go to the quad set up

the cpu part ,,the Opteron will probably be half the price of the xeon

With Amd 32/64 ,,you are paying for 32 bit and having the ability to advance to 64 bit later and still use your 32 bit software in a 64 bit OS ,,this way you can take your time upgrading

also remember those benchmarks that you see ,,are all running in 32 bit OS

Amd is slowly getting a foothold in the server market

Good luck on your choice

Originally posted by: NFS4


Look at it this way,

Opteron 848 [OEM] = $1,469.00
Xeon MP 2.8 2MB [1,000 Lot] = $3,692
Xeon MP 3.0 4MB = > $3,692

From this thread.

 

[Harvey]

Intel or AMD?

Yes, unless you want to go with the 5% (Mac) crowd.

 

[AIWGuru]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Intel or AMD?

Yes, unless you want to go with the 5% (Mac) crowd.

Actually, for the first time ever, apple market share has dipped below 2% this year. 1.7something actually.
Anyway, while Intel's Prescott Xeons will have x86-64 support, they chose not to implement some of the X86-64 set namely the NX bit which is the hardware prevention AMD has implimented for buffer overflow exploits (all of those windows vulnerabilities.) Really simplified: the processor recognizes a BU and kills it. This feature will be enabled in win Xp Sp2.
The long and the short, not only is Opteron faster, cheaper, cooler, more scalable, it's also more secure.