lahatte
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 230
- Joined: 2003/11/05 17:16:06
- Location: Vicksburg, Mississippi
- Status: offline
OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
Does anyone know the performance differences in comparing these processors?
I would like to get the one that will perform best with applications such as
Sonar, Avid, etc.
I am looking into building a dual processor system, and I would like to use
the best performing processor from Intel. I haven't been able to gleam much
in way of comparison information between these.
Thanks.
Clay.
|
D.Triny
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 870
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:24:39
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/05 19:34:21
(permalink)
are you sure you want Itanium in the running? Last I heard the prices were through the roof, and Win32 apps had to be run using (slow) emulation.
|
C Hudson
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 990
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:02:51
- Location: Canada
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/05 19:47:15
(permalink)
Hi Clay,
The choice is quite easy, P4's do not do duals. That only leaves Itanium and Xeon. Itaniums have to run 32 bit code ( Sonar, Avid) in emulation mode which makes them brutally slow. The only viable choice of the options you listed for a dual CPU box is the Xeon line of CPU's
Hope that helps
|
Shep2112
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4
- Joined: 2003/11/06 06:14:59
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/06 06:31:01
(permalink)
Why do you specifically want Intel processors only? I would advise one of the new 64 bit Athlons. I think the FX53 is the better performing of the 2 lines..Less money, better compatibility, better performance.. What else is there?
< Message edited by Shep2112 -- 11/6/2003 6:32:49 AM >
|
lahatte
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 230
- Joined: 2003/11/05 17:16:06
- Location: Vicksburg, Mississippi
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/06 15:30:09
(permalink)
Thanks people. You have told me what I needed to know. I need the Intel because Avid doesn't list Athlon as supported hardware. Besides, the Xeon beat the Athlon in a Tom's Hardware test when running audio and video applications. Clay.
< Message edited by lahatte -- 11/6/2003 2:32:16 PM >
|
Scott Reams
Max Output Level: -56 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1918
- Joined: 2003/11/06 15:32:28
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/06 15:47:35
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: lahatte
Thanks people. You have told me what I needed to know.
I need the Intel because Avid doesn't list Athlon as supported hardware.
Besides, the Xeon beat the Athlon in a Tom's Hardware test when running audio and video applications.
Clay.
Tom's Hardware is the only site that came to that conclusion... and it is one that has historically shown an Intel bias. Intel and Dell ads abound on the front page. As for AVID, you might want to contact them and ask them about Opteron. You may be surprised. -S
|
Scott Reams
Max Output Level: -56 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1918
- Joined: 2003/11/06 15:32:28
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/06 16:02:15
(permalink)
Here's a link describing AVID's view on Opteron when it comes to supporting it as a 64bit CPU: Interview with AVID Product Manager A quote from Mr. Allard of AVID: "If you look at Pentium, that's one of the bottlenecks of the NorthBridge chip set design. That puts a big bottleneck right between memory and the CPU. You can get much higher performance with these new Opterons -- there's a direct memory connection between processor and memory. It's huge, 3.2GHz." Also... if you look at AVID's hardware compatibility feedback database, you can see that AMD and Intel CPUs appear to be equally compatible: AVID Hardware Compatibility Feedback Database
|
shea
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 343
- Joined: 2003/11/06 16:21:31
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/06 16:30:46
(permalink)
|
Scott Reams
Max Output Level: -56 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1918
- Joined: 2003/11/06 15:32:28
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/06 16:36:29
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: shea
yes stick with p4
If you read his post, he's asking about dual-CPU. P4 is not an option. -S
|
Shep2112
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4
- Joined: 2003/11/06 06:14:59
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/06 22:23:50
(permalink)
You gotta admire his quickness in replying though.. whether he read it or not.. ;)
Yeah I would definatly go with AMD too, much better numbers with the majority of independent tests. It really bothered me when I heard Cakewalk and Intel had teamed up together a year or two ago, whenever that was.
Tom's Hardware is a great site, but I think it was better a few years back, before all the ads n junk seemed to bias it.
Maybe a dual G5 would be a better performance option? Haha, it's been shown in a *few* tests to be better performing than Intel's 2 year old technology.
Don't believe everything you read, in other words, check out a bunch of sources. :)
|
Alndln
Max Output Level: -65 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1275
- Joined: 2003/11/06 10:15:35
- Location: NY
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/07 03:47:10
(permalink)
A quote from Mr. Allard of AVID:
"If you look at Pentium, that's one of the bottlenecks of the NorthBridge chip set design. That puts a big bottleneck right between memory and the CPU. You can get much higher performance with these new Opterons -- there's a direct memory connection between processor and memory. It's huge, 3.2GHz."
Also... if you look at AVID's hardware compatibility feedback database, you can see that AMD and Intel CPUs appear to be equally compatible:
With Dual opterons(mobo's/chips) availible and killer FX singles,I guess case closed.
|
Shep2112
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4
- Joined: 2003/11/06 06:14:59
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/07 04:06:22
(permalink)
Yup, definately.. I think that will be my next move. For now, my Athlon XP 3000+ is performing flawlessly with S3 and Photoshop CS and all the other tools I use. So I can't complain.. :)
|
melloman
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 228
- Joined: 2003/11/07 00:37:32
- Location: Portland OR, USA
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/07 12:23:56
(permalink)
I have a 3.1 Ghz P4/ 800 Mhz bus and for audio, and it works great. I understand you need Intel for compatibiliy with another app, so my next question for you is why do you need dual CPU? if you run XP you can get hyperthreading, and have almost half again the CPU speed. A Xeon board, dual CPU, is going to be fast, but you'll need to run 2000 or 2003 server to use it( this is because both the P4 and Xeon have hyperthreading, and they are seen as 2 cpu's though they are only one), and the gear's advantages (PCI-X and other server type bells and whistles) will be extras that don't really help. Not many Xeon boards are workstation boards, most are server boards. Alos, many of the present Xeons are 533 mhz bus, not 800. All told, when you look at a dual Xeon setup, you are looking at about as much money as 2 fast P4 setups. (different chassis, power, memory, OS, and motherboards)
As for Itanium, the 64 bit OS issue, and the 64 bit application issue makes this point moot.
Personally, I could use the extra for better audio monitors, and a couple of nice flat panels. They keep the EMI down. That's my biggest issue now. I have a very small place for tracking, and my bass picks up the CRT radiation like nobody's business, but it sounds fine 4 feet away from the CRT.
"There's no problem that the proper application of high explosives can't solve" Cpl Mallory www.mindlayer.com
|
Marquis42
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 123
- Joined: 2003/11/07 13:34:53
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/07 13:44:30
(permalink)
A Xeon board, dual CPU, is going to be fast, but you'll need to run 2000 or 2003 server to use it( this is because both the P4 and Xeon have hyperthreading, and they are seen as 2 cpu's though they are only one), and the gear's advantages (PCI-X and other server type bells and whistles) will be extras that don't really help. Not many Xeon boards are workstation boards, most are server boards. Alos, many of the present Xeons are 533 mhz bus, not 800. All told, when you look at a dual Xeon setup, you are looking at about as much money as 2 fast P4 setups. (different chassis, power, memory, OS, and motherboards)
Your statement about needing one of MS's server OSes is not true. Windows XP sees a Hyperthreaded CPU as just one in terms of licensing. Therefore, Windows XP Professional would function just fine on a dual-Xeon box. In fact, it's preferable to use this OS (or a Windows 2003 variant) for a Hyperthreaded CPU anyway, as it is capable of issuing halts to the "second" CPU in order to improve performance on single-threaded code. It will also schedule threads in order of physical-CPU preference as it enumerates the first virtual processors on each CPU and then the secondaries. That is, PID0 is the first virtual CPU on the first physical, and PID1 is the first virtual CPU on the second physical, PID2 is the second virtual on the first physical, and PID3 is the second virtual on the second physical. This will improve performance as there are some limitations to the "dual-CPU" nature of Hyperthreading (sharing of caches, TLBs, etc.). You can overcome some of the other cost issues if you explore the Asus PC-DL Deluxe. It uses the Intel i875 chipset, thus avoiding the expenses associated PCI-X and most workstation and server chipsets. However, what is it you hope to achieve with the dual CPU configuration? Does Avid recommend a dually for your particular application?
< Message edited by Marquis42 -- 11/7/2003 1:49:36 PM >
|
Scott Reams
Max Output Level: -56 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1918
- Joined: 2003/11/06 15:32:28
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/07 15:38:08
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: melloman
I have a 3.1 Ghz P4/ 800 Mhz bus and for audio,
No such CPU. Typo? and it works great. I understand you need Intel for compatibiliy with another app,
This is what he believes. He should contact Avid. This does not appear to be the case. so my next question for you is why do you need dual CPU? if you run XP you can get hyperthreading, and have almost half again the CPU speed.
Not even close. Hyperthreading affects performance by -5 to +10% typically (that's right... sometimes it hurts performance). A Xeon board, dual CPU, is going to be fast, but you'll need to run 2000 or 2003 server to use it( this is because both the P4 and Xeon have hyperthreading, and they are seen as 2 cpu's though they are only one),
Not true. All versions of WinXP support Hyperthreading... and don't treat it as 2 CPUs from a license perspective. -S
|
lahatte
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 230
- Joined: 2003/11/05 17:16:06
- Location: Vicksburg, Mississippi
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/07 17:24:25
(permalink)
Nice to see all the talk here. It is helpful. I haven't been aware that AVID has said they officially support Athlon processors. That has been my reason for going with Intel. I would like two cpu's so my application can perform renders, etc., and still be able to update the screen. I might look at the Athlons. Is there some additional cost for Windows XP if running on two processors???? Clay.
< Message edited by lahatte -- 11/7/2003 4:25:16 PM >
|
lahatte
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 230
- Joined: 2003/11/05 17:16:06
- Location: Vicksburg, Mississippi
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/07 17:34:00
(permalink)
Ok then, with all this said, what is your recomendation for a Motherboard and Dual CPU combination for the Athlon chips? What memory type? I have been putting most of my energy toward researching the Intel stuff, I am not very familiar with Athlon hardware requirements.
Thanks.
Clay.
|
Scott Reams
Max Output Level: -56 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1918
- Joined: 2003/11/06 15:32:28
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/07 17:58:49
(permalink)
I haven't been aware that AVID has said they officially support Athlon processors. That has been my reason for going with Intel. Sure... and you've taken the right approach with that in mind. It is probably worth contacting AVID about it, however... considering their position on AMD64 CPUs. Who knows what they'll say... but it sure would be nice to know. Is there some additional cost for Windows XP if running on two processors???
You must move up to WinXP Pro. The OEM Pro version is about $50 more than the OEM Home Edition. Ok then, with all this said, what is your recomendation for a Motherboard and Dual CPU combination for the Athlon chips? What memory type? I have been putting most of my energy toward researching the Intel stuff, I am not very familiar with Athlon hardware requirements. If price is not an issue... and top performance is... the Tiger K8W (S2885) is a good choice. Each CPU gets its own memory bank (remember that since each CPU has a memory controller... you'll have two of them). Tyan Thunder K8W Here are two more price-conscious choices. Each connects to memory through one CPU's memory controller: Tyan Tiger K8W MSI K8T Master2-FAR The latter is the least expensive at just over $200... and includes heatsinks/fans. As for memory... you'll need PC2700 or PC3200 Registered DDR. Kingston makes some nice PC3200 modules that fit the bill (I use them in my own system). -S
|
Scott Reams
Max Output Level: -56 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1918
- Joined: 2003/11/06 15:32:28
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/07 18:04:25
(permalink)
If price is not an issue... and top performance is... the Tiger K8W (S2885) is a good choice.
One important consideration I forgot to mention with this board... It is very high-end, and so it is designed with highspeed 64bit PCI cards in mind. Only one of the slots is a "legacy" PCI slot... so if you need more than an AGP card and a single PCI card, this may not be the best choice. Remember, however, that this board has quite a bit already integrated, including Firewire, Gigabit LAN, and SATA RAID. This will be the typical price paid when going with larger server/workstation boards.
|
lahatte
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 230
- Joined: 2003/11/05 17:16:06
- Location: Vicksburg, Mississippi
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/07 19:06:02
(permalink)
Thanks Scott. From what I have been able to find, it looks to me like the Athlon option is at least the same cost as the Xeon option. Is this a correct assumption? I would likely choose the 242 type Opteron, 1.6GHz. Comparing to a 2.8GHz Xeon configuration, price seems around the same, at least for motherboard and cpu's. I assume 1.8GHz is the fastest Opteron speed, and I would need to use the 24x series for dual processing, rather than the 14x series. As for PCI, I will be needing to install a MOTU PCI324 at a minimum. By the way, RAID, LAN, Firewire and USB are some things I would like the motherboard to include. 6 Channel audio is also desirable. Thanks. Clay.
< Message edited by lahatte -- 11/7/2003 6:10:53 PM >
|
Scott Reams
Max Output Level: -56 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1918
- Joined: 2003/11/06 15:32:28
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/07 19:13:36
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: lahatte
Thanks Scott.
From what I have been able to find, it looks to me like the Athlon option is at least the same cost as the Xeon option. Is this a correct assumption?
Yes. Cost is similar between these two. I assume 1.8GHz is the fastest Opteron speed, 2.0GHz is the fastest. That would be the 246. and I would need to use the 24x series for dual processing, rather than the 14x series. Yes. As for PCI, I will be needing to install a MOTU PCI324 at a minimum. You might try to get your hands on a PCI424 so that you'll have the one extra audiowire connection, as well as CueMixDSP (which works with the older interfaces as well). -S
|
lahatte
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 230
- Joined: 2003/11/05 17:16:06
- Location: Vicksburg, Mississippi
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/07 19:22:53
(permalink)
Yes, a 424 would be nice. If I can find one by itself, I might be interested. I think my budget will not like me if I go above the Opteron 1.6/Xeon2.8 level. I'm guessing those two are comparable in performance. My fastest computer now is a Dell Inspiron 1.6GHz, connected to firewire drives. Any last words on a deciding factor? I know you prefer Athlons. I don't care one way or the other, as long as I can get my projects done (I am assuming AVID will run on the Athlons as well as on the Intels). Oh, maybe it's that the Opterons use a 800MHz bus, as opposed to a 533MHz for the Xeons? I think that's right. Thanks for all. Clay.
< Message edited by lahatte -- 11/7/2003 6:26:57 PM >
|
Scott Reams
Max Output Level: -56 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1918
- Joined: 2003/11/06 15:32:28
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/07 19:34:39
(permalink)
Any last words on a deciding factor? I guess the one thing, if all other things are equal (they may or may not be)... the Opteron is still an interesting choice simply because AVID has made it clear that they are interested in supporting it as a 64bit CPU down the road (I assume when 64bit WinXP comes out, which I'm running a beta of now)... so who knows how much headroom you are looking at besides what you'll start with. I know you prefer Athlons. I don't care one way or the other, as long as I can get my projects done (I am assuming AVID will run on the Athlons as well as on the Intels). There is no reason for it not to work... but definitely worth calling them to get their take. Oh, maybe it's that the Opterons use a 800MHz bus, as opposed to a 533MHz for the Xeons? I think that's right. That's actually an effective 1600MHz FSB... it's a double-pumped 800MHz. The Xeon's 533MHz FSB is a quad-pumped 133MHz. -S
|
lahatte
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 230
- Joined: 2003/11/05 17:16:06
- Location: Vicksburg, Mississippi
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/08 01:59:18
(permalink)
Let's say I go with the MSI Dual Opteron MSI K8T Master2-FAR Motherboard. Will the system perform well with only one Opteron processor installed? How would it compare to a similar priced single Athlon system?
I am thinking about only getting one processor now, and adding another one later if I see the need.
Thanks.
Clay.
|
Scott Reams
Max Output Level: -56 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1918
- Joined: 2003/11/06 15:32:28
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/08 05:40:46
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: lahatte
Let's say I go with the MSI Dual Opteron MSI K8T Master2-FAR Motherboard. Will the system perform well with only one Opteron processor installed? How would it compare to a similar priced single Athlon system?
I am thinking about only getting one processor now, and adding another one later if I see the need.
Thanks.
Clay.
A single Opteron on that board will perform just as well as a single Opteron on a single CPU board. If you are going with just one initially, try to get at least the 244, if not the 246. It's hard to compare a single Athlon system to a single Opteron system fairly... because there are important differences, each of which means different things to different apps. Opterons have a significant advantage over AthlonXP in terms of memory latency and bandwidth. Athlon64 is more like Opteron than AthlonXP is... but has only a single-channel memory controller (half the bandwidth) and does not support registered memory (meaning you won't ever be able to put 8GB in an Athlon64 system like you can with an Opteron or AthlonFX system). AthlonFX (which I'm running) is merely a 2.2GHz Opteron... and is priced that way... although it does not work in a multi-CPU setup.
|
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Cakewalk Staff
- Total Posts : 6475
- Joined: 2003/11/03 17:22:50
- Location: Boston, MA, USA
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/08 10:07:42
(permalink)
2.2 GHz? My Opteron 242 is supposedly clocked at 1.4 GHz. Do they have different speeds on the Athlon 64's? ORIGINAL: Scott Reams
AthlonFX (which I'm running) is merely a 2.2GHz Opteron... and is priced that way... although it does not work in a multi-CPU setup.
|
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Cakewalk Staff
- Total Posts : 6475
- Joined: 2003/11/03 17:22:50
- Location: Boston, MA, USA
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/08 10:25:17
(permalink)
I'm running dual opteron 242's myself. One of the first bleeding edge early adopters :-) You should be fine starting out with only one CPU and adding another later but if you go this route there are two important things to watch out for. Dual proc combo's are picky about the CPU steppings. i.e. if you buy your first CPU now and a add a second a year from now, its possible you may end up with incompatibilities. You preferably want to buy both CPU's from the same batch to avoid this. Secondly, you will have to do a repair install of XP/2003 when you do add the second CPU. Windows actually uses a different HAL when you have multiple CPU's and you cant just swap in a multi CPU HAL. ORIGINAL: lahatte
Let's say I go with the MSI Dual Opteron MSI K8T Master2-FAR Motherboard. Will the system perform well with only one Opteron processor installed? How would it compare to a similar priced single Athlon system?
I am thinking about only getting one processor now, and adding another one later if I see the need.
|
Scott Reams
Max Output Level: -56 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1918
- Joined: 2003/11/06 15:32:28
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/08 15:27:03
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
2.2 GHz? My Opteron 242 is supposedly clocked at 1.4 GHz. Do they have different speeds on the Athlon 64's? Yes. Here's the entire line-up: Opteron x40 - 1.4GHz, dual-channel registered memory Opteron x42 - 1.6GHz, dual-channel registered memory Opteron x44 - 1.8GHz, dual-channel registered memory Opteron x46 - 2.0GHz, dual-channel registered memory Athlon64 lineup, released Sept. 23rd: Athlon64 3200+ - 2.0GHz, single channel unregistered memory AthlonFX 51 - 2.2GHz, dual channel registered memory The AthlonFX 51 may as well be called an Opteron 148. It's the exact same CPU. -S
|
jcschild
Max Output Level: -41 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3409
- Joined: 2003/11/08 00:20:10
- Location: Kentucky y'all
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/08 19:41:06
(permalink)
alot of good comments. personally for Avid i would do Dual opteron, if you want to cut render time in 1/2 and if your multistreaming. the Tyan K8W (as mentioned rocks) Xeon until now has always been beat by Dual AMD MP's. the new Asus PC-DL Deluxe uses the 875 chipset for Xeon and is the first to have support for DDR 333. since this board is out it now beats the Dual AMD MPs. more so due to memory bandwidth than actual CPU. however the hyper threaded Xeons are now seen as 4 CPU's. if i were on a budget i would do the Xeons, if i could afford the extra $4-700 i would go Dual Opteron. especially once the 64 bit OS is out and Avid could take advantage of it. as to running Sonar. you wont see any improvement over a standard P4 unless you are very very plug-in heavy. or trying to run mass sampling. in other words you dont need the power.. for the record i am using an Athlon 64 for my Audio/Video setup. the only down side is my render times are not as good as my techs who has a dual MP set up. Scott ADK Pro Audio ADK Video editing
< Message edited by jcschild -- 11/8/2003 7:56:25 PM >
|
jcschild
Max Output Level: -41 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3409
- Joined: 2003/11/08 00:20:10
- Location: Kentucky y'all
- Status: offline
RE: OT: Xeon vs. P4 vs. Itanium
2003/11/08 19:54:20
(permalink)
MSI K8T Master2-FAR
The latter is the least expensive at just over $200... and includes heatsinks/fans.
As for memory... you'll need PC2700 or PC3200 Registered DDR. Kingston makes some nice PC3200 modules that fit the bill (I use them in my own system).
-S
Hi Scott, the MSI uses a VIA chipset.. dont think i would suggest that for Audio.. Scott ADK
|