Server CPU vs Desktop CPU

[mariosoft034]

Since each CPU manufacturer has its own specific workstation/sever design, and they are quite expensive, i would like to know what makes a pentium 4 so diferent to an itanium, or an athlon64 to an opteron.

How bad would perform an athlon64 in a server and an opteron in gaming.

Any link will be helpful

 

[sangyup81]

This is what I know. Servers are designed for reliability and 24/7 operation under heavy stress while regular desktop parts are designed for value and price/performance.

Server CPUs use ECC and Registered RAM while Desktop CPUs can use the regular stuff that won't cost an arm and a leg. Servers can also use multiple CPU configurations (which don't benefit today's games) and SCSI HDD setups which benefit I/O intensive applications.

The main difference for me though is cost. There is no way I can afford a server setup.

 

[bersl2]

An Opteron would perform almost as well as an A64 at the same clock speed. All Opterons have 1MB L2, which doesn't really matter too much in games. The extra register in registered RAM adds an extra clock cycle of latency to any memory operations. Opterons are more expensive since they are made for reliability.

Now, the Itanium uses a completely different architecture from x86(-64). It can emulate x86 code at a greatly reduced speed. When in native mode, it is a very good performer. If you check the list of top supercomputers, many are Itanium-powered.

 

[Traire]

Originally posted by: mariosoft034
Since each CPU manufacturer has its own specific workstation/sever design, and they are quite expensive, i would like to know what makes a pentium 4 so diferent to an itanium, or an athlon64 to an opteron.

How bad would perform an athlon64 in a server and an opteron in gaming.

Any link will be helpful

If you want to compare server/workstation, it should be P4 and Xenon, not Itanium.

 

[IntelUser2000]

If you want to compare server/workstation, it should be P4 and Xenon, not Itanium.

That's mostly true since even the review sites cannot get their hands on an Itanium system. I saw the list for programs not supported by Itanium and one of them is even MSN Messenger!!! Of course for the people who use them MSN Messenger support is not important.

 

[Fenuxx]

Originally posted by: Traire
If you want to compare server/workstation, it should be P4 and Xenon, not Itanium.

BTW, its not Xenon, its Xeon

Anyway, here's the basic (emphasis on BASIC) low-down on these CPU's

--Opteron: Athlon 64-FX with more HTT links (Opteron has 3, A64-FX has 1), and Registered RAM requirement.

--Xeon: P4EE essentially. Not much of a difference between the two.

--Itanium: Intel's IA64 CPU. Entirely different architecture than other CPU's, and can only run x86 code with emulation.

 

[Sentential]

Originally posted by: mariosoft034
Since each CPU manufacturer has its own specific workstation/sever design, and they are quite expensive, i would like to know what makes a pentium 4 so diferent to an itanium, or an athlon64 to an opteron.

How bad would perform an athlon64 in a server and an opteron in gaming.

Any link will be helpful

Xeons and current P4s are almost identical. Currentally the primo-primo Xeons come on the Prestonia core. Prestonia is identical to current 5xx series chips currentally in production. Instead of being 3.2E they are 3.2F. The only remarkable difference between the 2 is that the Xeons support EMT64 just like the 6xx series does, however Xeons only have 1MB of cache and do not support EIST (as I remember)

Itaniaum is a whole differnt matter. Itanium would be much closer to a server chip that say Sun or others would produce. They cary insane amounts of cache. I wish I could give you further details but I really dont know a thing about em. Here's a link to Intel proper with a list of Itanium 1 / 2 features

http://developer.intel.com/design/itanium/itanium/

Itanium falls closer in line with CPU designs like Dothan or AMD's hammer design. The "next big thing" from Intel, the pentium 5 is thought to be a cross between Dothan (Pentium-M) and Itanium.

As for the AMD tree there is very very little difference between an Opteron and current S939 chips. Like the 4000+ and FX series, current non E0 opterons sport the Clawhammer core. Newer E0 Opterons use Venice. Both sport 1MB of cache.

The only real difference between an Opteron and a Clawhammer/Sandiego S939 CPU is that the Opterons have 940 pins and not 939. They also require the use of Registered (buffered) / ECC (error correction) based RAM modules for ultimate stability and reliability. Abit has been working hard at producing an Nforce Professional board that strips the requirement for registered RAM (which is expensive) so even that difference may soon be removed.

Overall current opterons peform identically as current S939 clawhammers would.

 

[imported_Kensai]

YupYup. You stole my line(s)

 

[gobucks]

In terms of performance, there is little difference between server and desktop chips. In fact, since desktop chips are less concerned about stability, they often have faster features (ex. P4's faster bus and memory support in many cases, A64's non-registered memory). The price premium for Opteron/Xeon is mainly for stability and scalability. They usually used registered memory which is more reliable, although slower and more expensive, and they are the only chips that can be run in multi-CPU environments (which are a rip-off unless you really NEED the power for some important 24/7 task, doubling cost for like 20% performance boost). Anyways, if you want to play games, do media encoding, go online, and do other standard PC tasks, then there is no reason to go for a server chip. Plus, using non-registered RAM makes OCing easier.

I recommend an A64 3000+, 3200+, or 3500+, depending on your budget. They overclock great and perform very well overall, tearing comparable P4s apart in gaming while being competitive in multimedia apps.

 

[stevty2889]

The other differance between xeons/opterons and P4's/A64's is that they can be used in dual/multi-cpu configurations. There are also different versions of the xeons, that have extra L3 cache. Itanium is totaly differant all together, it's a totaly different architecture, and as somebody else said, it can't even run normal software without emulation.