Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 22:21:39 12/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 01:03:52, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >On December 08, 2003 at 23:42:11, Jay Urbanski wrote: > >>On December 08, 2003 at 00:12:38, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>>I don't believe there is 3x price difference between Opteron and Itanium >>>systems, at least for quad ones. >> >>For quads, you're probably right - it's more likely two to one. For duals >>(compared to 1.5ghz Itaniums) I maintain it's closer to 3. > >Compare to 1.4GHz Itanium2 :-). I just went to www.ioncomputer.com (I choose >them from list on Intel's web site, probably because they submitted some SPEC >results with their systems). I configured reasonable (but not top of the line) >dual Itanium2 (2x1.4GHz, 8Gb RAM, SCSI) for $9-12k, depending on the exact CPU >version. Comparable dual Opteron 2GHz cost $5k on www.pcusa.com (once again, I >choose it randomly). > >Both are not top of the line models from the reputable (but not famous) >companies. > >If you want, you can look at the top of the line vendors -- the picture is the >same. Dual HP rx2600 1.4GHz with 8Gb RAM costs ~$20.5k. Comparable IBM dual >Opteron 2GHz eServer 325 costs ~$10k... > >>>I also don't think there is lot of software written for Opteron out there as >>>well. I think the opposite is true -- there is more native Itanium software than >>>there is native Opteron software :-) >> >>I beg to differ. 32-bit x86 software is arguably just a "native" to Opteron as >>x86-64 applications. Unless you are going to buy one of these systems >>exclusively to run crafty, this makes all the difference in the world. I would >>estimate the number of people using Itanium systems to run chess engines rounds >>to zero. >> >>Let us also speculate that Intel may at some point extend the Xeon to 64-bits >>(they pretty much have to unless they intend to cede the x86 market to AMD, and >>I don't think they're that stupid). Native x86-64 applications will then be >>legion. I think your employer may have some influence in this as they're >>already developing a 64-bit version of Windows for Opteron. It would boggle the >>mind to think they would develop yet another incompatible 64-bit version of >>Windows for Xeon. >> >>>I have both quad Itanium2 and Opteron in my office. For Crafty Opteron is >>>somewhat faster -- after lot of work. Without that work single-CPU Opteron was >>>faster than single-CPU Itanium2, but quad Itanium2 was faster than quad Opteron. >>> >>>Lot of bright people worked to speed up Crafty on Opteron, including lead >>>developers of NT :-) Not sure that some arbitrary application will have such >>>attention. >> >> >>>You can look at TPC-C results for quad Opteron and Itanium systems. I think you >>>would be surprised. You can also look at the TPC-C results for Opteron with more >>>than 4 CPUs -- and please let me know when you'll find those results. >> >>I don't maintain that Opteron is used in large SMP systems to the extent that >>Itanium is today. > >"Quad" is not large SMP system. Once again -- please look at the *absolute* >TPC-C results. Quad Opteron is less than 90k tpmc. Quad Itanium2 is more than >130k tmpc... > >>But I do maintain that when they are, they will deliver >>better price performance than Itanium and allow one to run many more >>applications. Itanium can't run 32-bit applications worth squat - this matters >>to a whole lot of people. > >I am using pre-production Windows XP SP1 for Itanium2, to be released in several >months. With it 32-bit Itanium2 performance is comparable with performance of >Xeon running on the same frequence. Not great, but reasonable assuming that your >main application (database, or file server, or number crunching software, or >CAD, etc.) is native. 32-bit Spec2k runs on ~2/3 of 64-bit speed. > >Thanks, >Eugene PS. If you want to run Crafty (or some commercial chess program), or play games, or just use some desktop software, Opteron (or Athlon64) is obviously the right choice. For the number-crunching, Itanium2 is usually better. For low-end server applications -- it depends, but Opteron solution should be (somewhat) cheaper. Starting from mid-level, Opteron is absent. PPS. Of course I am writing about today; in several months it all can change... Thanks, Eugene
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.