Advice needed for new PC: dual Xeon or dual Opteron, or neither...

Hi folks,

I am finally getting near buying a new PC to replace my ancient one, and I have some decisions to make.

My main use for it will be graphics, and both of the main programs I use (Photoshop and Ultra Fractal) can take advantage of dual processors. UF in particular depends primarily on pure number crunching, so CPU speed is the major determinant of speed. Its architecture is such that dual processors provide nearly twice the rendering speed of a single CPU.

I had originally thought of going with dual Xeons, say around 2.6 or 2.8 GHz, but I would be able to put something together with dual Opteron 64s for just around the same price. I haven't been able to find much on the net about dual Opterons, and I'm wondering about stability issues, etc. I'm not really interested in overclocking or anything extreme, and my needs apart from number crunching would be quite modest--I'm not a heavy gamer or anything.

For that matter I wonder if the 64 bit processors will really offer any advantages in the next few years in general computer use.

Another option would be to forget about dual CPUs completely and go with a moderately high end P4 or Athlon.

I'm wondering if anybody has any experience with any of this that they'd like to share, or links where I could find info on dual Opterons.

Thanks in advance,
Toby

"Toby" wrote in message

Hi folks,

I am finally getting near buying a new PC to replace my ancient one, and I have some decisions to make.

My main use for it will be graphics, and both of the main programs I use (Photoshop and Ultra Fractal) can take advantage of dual processors. UF in particular depends primarily on pure number crunching, so CPU speed is the major determinant of speed. Its architecture is such that dual processors provide nearly twice the rendering speed of a single CPU.
I had originally thought of going with dual Xeons, say around 2.6 or 2.8 GHz, but I would be able to put something together with dual Opteron 64s

for

just around the same price. I haven't been able to find much on the net about dual Opterons, and I'm wondering about stability issues, etc. I'm

not

really interested in overclocking or anything extreme, and my needs apart from number crunching would be quite modest--I'm not a heavy gamer or anything.

For that matter I wonder if the 64 bit processors will really offer any advantages in the next few years in general computer use.
Another option would be to forget about dual CPUs completely and go with a moderately high end P4 or Athlon.

I'm wondering if anybody has any experience with any of this that they'd like to share, or links where I could find info on dual Opterons.
Thanks in advance,
Toby

In my opinion a slower dual cpu system will totally outperform a single cpu with a much higher speed. i used to have a dual G4/450 and OSX. it would outperform single G4/733 and so on. running multiple apps at the same time or using multithreaded apps that will actually use all of the cpus, both of them, that is much better then running a single cpu. i think you should totally go for a dual cpu Xeon like you said instead of say a P4/3ghz. you'll in my opinion notice a difference for sure.

i know nothing on 64bit other then no big deal for a few more years in my opinion. windows doesn't even use it yet and won't for a long time. if you get a dual opteron 64bit, the only way i would do that is if it was the same or cheaper then similar from Xeon etc. i even hear it can slow the system down in some cases. not sure why or remember where i heard it, but i think it was on the screen savers on techtv.

me personally i would get the dual Xeon 2.8ghz unless the cost was a lot more then the dual Xeon 2.6ghz. then just install windows xp pro as home won't see the second cpu.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:05:45 -0700, "msi" scribbled:

"Toby" wrote in message

Hi folks,

I am finally getting near buying a new PC to replace my ancient one, and I have some decisions to make.

My main use for it will be graphics, and both of the main programs I use (Photoshop and Ultra Fractal) can take advantage of dual processors. UF in particular depends primarily on pure number crunching, so CPU speed is the major determinant of speed. Its architecture is such that dual processors provide nearly twice the rendering speed of a single CPU.
I had originally thought of going with dual Xeons, say around 2.6 or 2.8 GHz, but I would be able to put something together with dual Opteron 64s

for

just around the same price. I haven't been able to find much on the net about dual Opterons, and I'm wondering about stability issues, etc. I'm

not

really interested in overclocking or anything extreme, and my needs apart from number crunching would be quite modest--I'm not a heavy gamer or anything.

For that matter I wonder if the 64 bit processors will really offer any advantages in the next few years in general computer use.
Another option would be to forget about dual CPUs completely and go with a moderately high end P4 or Athlon.

I'm wondering if anybody has any experience with any of this that they'd like to share, or links where I could find info on dual Opterons.
Thanks in advance,
Toby

In my opinion a slower dual cpu system will totally outperform a single cpu with a much higher speed. i used to have a dual G4/450 and OSX. it would outperform single G4/733 and so on. running multiple apps at the same time or using multithreaded apps that will actually use all of the cpus, both of them, that is much better then running a single cpu. i think you should totally go for a dual cpu Xeon like you said instead of say a P4/3ghz. you'll in my opinion notice a difference for sure.

i know nothing on 64bit other then no big deal for a few more years in my opinion. windows doesn't even use it yet and won't for a long time. if you

You better tell Microsoft that. Apparently they say you're wrong:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/64bit/default.msp x

get a dual opteron 64bit, the only way i would do that is if it was the same or cheaper then similar from Xeon etc. i even hear it can slow the system down in some cases. not sure why or remember where i heard it, but i think it was on the screen savers on techtv.

me personally i would get the dual Xeon 2.8ghz unless the cost was a lot more then the dual Xeon 2.6ghz. then just install windows xp pro as home won't see the second cpu.

In article ,
Voivod wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:05:45 -0700, "msi" scribbled:

"Toby" wrote in message

Hi folks,

I am finally getting near buying a new PC to replace my ancient one, and I have some decisions to make.

My main use for it will be graphics, and both of the main programs I use (Photoshop and Ultra Fractal) can take advantage of dual processors. UF in particular depends primarily on pure number crunching, so CPU speed is the major determinant of speed. Its architecture is such that dual processors provide nearly twice the rendering speed of a single CPU.
I had originally thought of going with dual Xeons, say around 2.6 or 2.8 GHz, but I would be able to put something together with dual Opteron 64s

for

just around the same price. I haven't been able to find much on the net about dual Opterons, and I'm wondering about stability issues, etc. I'm

not

really interested in overclocking or anything extreme, and my needs apart from number crunching would be quite modest--I'm not a heavy gamer or anything.

For that matter I wonder if the 64 bit processors will really offer any advantages in the next few years in general computer use.
Another option would be to forget about dual CPUs completely and go with a moderately high end P4 or Athlon.

I'm wondering if anybody has any experience with any of this that they'd like to share, or links where I could find info on dual Opterons.
Thanks in advance,
Toby

In my opinion a slower dual cpu system will totally outperform a single cpu with a much higher speed. i used to have a dual G4/450 and OSX. it would outperform single G4/733 and so on. running multiple apps at the same time or using multithreaded apps that will actually use all of the cpus, both of them, that is much better then running a single cpu. i think you should totally go for a dual cpu Xeon like you said instead of say a P4/3ghz. you'll in my opinion notice a difference for sure.

i know nothing on 64bit other then no big deal for a few more years in my opinion. windows doesn't even use it yet and won't for a long time. if you

You better tell Microsoft that. Apparently they say you're wrong:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/64bit/default.msp x

get a dual opteron 64bit, the only way i would do that is if it was the same or cheaper then similar from Xeon etc. i even hear it can slow the system down in some cases. not sure why or remember where i heard it, but i think it was on the screen savers on techtv.

me personally i would get the dual Xeon 2.8ghz unless the cost was a lot more then the dual Xeon 2.6ghz. then just install windows xp pro as home won't see the second cpu.

You might want to check which operating system you are refering to. Windows SERVER 2003, that isn't on the list of supported OSes for Photoshop CS.

There is no point in going with the 64-bit processors in the near future, as the appleication software can't take advantage of it, and only server versions of Windoze can use it. I don't know if WinXP would even boot on a 64-bit processor, but it certainly can't take advantage of it.

You didn't mention the size of the photos you'll be processing. Unless you are using high-resolution scans of medium format film or larger, I think either dual Xeons or a fast P4 would be adequate. I use an older 1.7Ghz P4 with 1GB of RAM and PS 7.0.1, and find it plenty fast for 10 megapixel scans of 35mm slides. I can't recall ever taking more than 3-4 seconds to complete an unsharp filter or a saturation adjustment at 8-bit depth, usually among the slower operations. I think a lot of RAM is usually more important than processor speed. My machine is maxed out at 1GB, and there are times (using several layers) when I would have liked more.

Don

"Toby" wrote in message

Hi folks,

I am finally getting near buying a new PC to replace my ancient one, and I have some decisions to make.

My main use for it will be graphics, and both of the main programs I use (Photoshop and Ultra Fractal) can take advantage of dual processors. UF in particular depends primarily on pure number crunching, so CPU speed is the major determinant of speed. Its architecture is such that dual processors provide nearly twice the rendering speed of a single CPU.
I had originally thought of going with dual Xeons, say around 2.6 or 2.8 GHz, but I would be able to put something together with dual Opteron 64s

for

just around the same price. I haven't been able to find much on the net about dual Opterons, and I'm wondering about stability issues, etc. I'm

not

really interested in overclocking or anything extreme, and my needs apart from number crunching would be quite modest--I'm not a heavy gamer or anything.

For that matter I wonder if the 64 bit processors will really offer any advantages in the next few years in general computer use.
Another option would be to forget about dual CPUs completely and go with a moderately high end P4 or Athlon.

I'm wondering if anybody has any experience with any of this that they'd like to share, or links where I could find info on dual Opterons.
Thanks in advance,
Toby

i didnt think 2003 was 64bit at all considering they have now just released barely, a beta/alpha OS with 64bit.

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:05:45 -0700, "msi" scribbled:

"Toby" wrote in message

Hi folks,

I am finally getting near buying a new PC to replace my ancient one,

and I

have some decisions to make.

My main use for it will be graphics, and both of the main programs I

use

(Photoshop and Ultra Fractal) can take advantage of dual processors. UF

in

particular depends primarily on pure number crunching, so CPU speed is

the

major determinant of speed. Its architecture is such that dual

processors

provide nearly twice the rendering speed of a single CPU.
I had originally thought of going with dual Xeons, say around 2.6 or

2.8

GHz, but I would be able to put something together with dual Opteron

64s

for

just around the same price. I haven't been able to find much on the net about dual Opterons, and I'm wondering about stability issues, etc. I'm

not

really interested in overclocking or anything extreme, and my needs

apart

from number crunching would be quite modest--I'm not a heavy gamer or anything.

For that matter I wonder if the 64 bit processors will really offer any advantages in the next few years in general computer use.
Another option would be to forget about dual CPUs completely and go

with a

moderately high end P4 or Athlon.

I'm wondering if anybody has any experience with any of this that

they'd

like to share, or links where I could find info on dual Opterons.
Thanks in advance,
Toby

In my opinion a slower dual cpu system will totally outperform a single

cpu

with a much higher speed. i used to have a dual G4/450 and OSX. it would outperform single G4/733 and so on. running multiple apps at the same

time

or using multithreaded apps that will actually use all of the cpus, both

of

them, that is much better then running a single cpu. i think you should totally go for a dual cpu Xeon like you said instead of say a P4/3ghz. you'll in my opinion notice a difference for sure.

i know nothing on 64bit other then no big deal for a few more years in my opinion. windows doesn't even use it yet and won't for a long time. if

you

You better tell Microsoft that. Apparently they say you're wrong:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/64bit/default.msp x

get a dual opteron 64bit, the only way i would do that is if it was the

same

or cheaper then similar from Xeon etc. i even hear it can slow the system down in some cases. not sure why or remember where i heard it, but i

think

it was on the screen savers on techtv.

me personally i would get the dual Xeon 2.8ghz unless the cost was a lot more then the dual Xeon 2.6ghz. then just install windows xp pro as home won't see the second cpu.

"Toby" wrote in
news:407f4afe$0$196$:

I had originally thought of going with dual Xeons, say around 2.6 or
2.8 GHz, but I would be able to put something together with dual
Opteron 64s for just around the same price. I haven't been able to find much on the net about dual Opterons, and I'm wondering about stability issues, etc. I'm not really interested in overclocking or anything extreme, and my needs apart from number crunching would be quite modest--I'm not a heavy gamer or anything.

Depending on what you are doing, two Opterons are between 20% and 80% faster than two Xeons. In some tests, two Opterons score higher than a quad Xeon system.

For that matter I wonder if the 64 bit processors will really offer any advantages in the next few years in general computer use.

Not really for general use. However, the Opteron isn't just 64-bit, it also has a highly efficient inter-CPU connection with no shared buses (unlike the Xeon which shares both a memory bus and a bus connecting the CPUs to the Northbridge). Not to mention the onboard memory controller on the Opteron provides low latency, high speed access to RAM. Each CPU can also (depending on your motherboard) have it's own banks of RAM to work out of, access those at 6.4GB/sec while simultaneously accessing the second processor's RAM at 6.4GB/sec.

Overall, the chip is a beast. Don't get a Xeon, more money for less performance.

--
website: http://www.demonlag.com
AIM: FrznFoodClerk

damn, that's really good..........
"msi" wrote in message

"Toby" wrote in message

Hi folks,

I am finally getting near buying a new PC to replace my ancient one, and

I

have some decisions to make.

My main use for it will be graphics, and both of the main programs I use (Photoshop and Ultra Fractal) can take advantage of dual processors. UF

in

particular depends primarily on pure number crunching, so CPU speed is

the

major determinant of speed. Its architecture is such that dual

processors

provide nearly twice the rendering speed of a single CPU.
I had originally thought of going with dual Xeons, say around 2.6 or 2.8 GHz, but I would be able to put something together with dual Opteron 64s

for

just around the same price. I haven't been able to find much on the net about dual Opterons, and I'm wondering about stability issues, etc. I'm

not

really interested in overclocking or anything extreme, and my needs

apart

from number crunching would be quite modest--I'm not a heavy gamer or anything.

For that matter I wonder if the 64 bit processors will really offer any advantages in the next few years in general computer use.
Another option would be to forget about dual CPUs completely and go with

a

moderately high end P4 or Athlon.

I'm wondering if anybody has any experience with any of this that they'd like to share, or links where I could find info on dual Opterons.
Thanks in advance,
Toby

In my opinion a slower dual cpu system will totally outperform a single

cpu

with a much higher speed. i used to have a dual G4/450 and OSX. it would outperform single G4/733 and so on. running multiple apps at the same time or using multithreaded apps that will actually use all of the cpus, both

of

them, that is much better then running a single cpu. i think you should totally go for a dual cpu Xeon like you said instead of say a P4/3ghz. you'll in my opinion notice a difference for sure.

i know nothing on 64bit other then no big deal for a few more years in my opinion. windows doesn't even use it yet and won't for a long time. if you get a dual opteron 64bit, the only way i would do that is if it was the

same

or cheaper then similar from Xeon etc. i even hear it can slow the system down in some cases. not sure why or remember where i heard it, but i think it was on the screen savers on techtv.

me personally i would get the dual Xeon 2.8ghz unless the cost was a lot more then the dual Xeon 2.6ghz. then just install windows xp pro as home won't see the second cpu.

"Don" wrote in
news::

There is no point in going with the 64-bit processors in the near future, as the appleication software can't take advantage of it, and only server versions of Windoze can use it. I don't know if WinXP would even boot on a 64-bit processor, but it certainly can't take advantage of it.

You don't have any idea what you are talking about. In addition to providing entry level 64-bit support for applications, the Opteron is also the fastest 32-bit CPU on the market. Read anandtech.com's articles where the dual opteron beats out a dual xeon by about 20% overall, and a quad opteron absolutely destroys a quad xeon by over 30% on average.

Before you comment on technology, at least understand it. The Opteron has 3 modes of operation:
Legacy mode - Acts just like a 32-bit processor, provides no 64-bit capabilities. Still gains advantages of HyperTransport and onboard memory controller.

64-bit Compatibility mode - Can run a mix of 64 and 32-bit programs. Requires a 64-bit OS.

64-bit Long mode - Provides access to ~128TB of address space, supports extended register set for 64-bit apps. Requires 64-bit OS and 64-bit apps.

--
website: http://www.demonlag.com
AIM: FrznFoodClerk

Mnay thanks to you all for the responses.

Toby
"DeMoN LaG" wrote in message

"Toby" wrote in
news:407f4afe$0$196$:

I had originally thought of going with dual Xeons, say around 2.6 or
2.8 GHz, but I would be able to put something together with dual
Opteron 64s for just around the same price. I haven't been able to find much on the net about dual Opterons, and I'm wondering about stability issues, etc. I'm not really interested in overclocking or anything extreme, and my needs apart from number crunching would be quite modest--I'm not a heavy gamer or anything.

Depending on what you are doing, two Opterons are between 20% and 80% faster than two Xeons. In some tests, two Opterons score higher than a quad Xeon system.

For that matter I wonder if the 64 bit processors will really offer any advantages in the next few years in general computer use.

Not really for general use. However, the Opteron isn't just 64-bit, it also has a highly efficient inter-CPU connection with no shared buses (unlike the Xeon which shares both a memory bus and a bus connecting the CPUs to the Northbridge). Not to mention the onboard memory controller on the Opteron provides low latency, high speed access to RAM. Each CPU can also (depending on your motherboard) have it's own banks of RAM to work

out

of, access those at 6.4GB/sec while simultaneously accessing the second processor's RAM at 6.4GB/sec.

Overall, the chip is a beast. Don't get a Xeon, more money for less performance.

--
website: http://www.demonlag.com
AIM: FrznFoodClerk

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:17:05 -0700, "Don" wrote:

There is no point in going with the 64-bit processors in the near future, as the appleication software can't take advantage of it, and only server versions of Windoze can use it. I don't know if WinXP would even boot on a 64-bit processor, but it certainly can't take advantage of it.

That'll be why, then, Intel have announced that their latest chips will be able to run 64 bit and 32 bit apps at the same time. And the function libraries they're using to this? Er, they've licensed the ones that AMD developed because they're so good.

Yes, that's right - Intel chips using AMD because Intel can't do it any better.

And just in case you didn't hear it the first time - right now. :)

--

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Gee, I didn't mean to gore your ox. Sorry. I'm aware that there are 64-bit chips out there - Intel has had a 64-bit server chip for about a year and a half, as well as AMD, et al. The problem is that there is no 64-bit Windoze to run on them (other than the server version), and Photoshop won't run on the other 64-bit operating systems that *are* available. So, you can buy the 64-bit hardware with an opeerating system that even the 32-bit Photoshop won't run on, or you can wait a while and get the Intel/Windoze combination, and still have to run the 32-bit Photoshop on it because there will likely not be a 64-bit Photoshop for some time.

Adobe doesn't announce their plans ahead of time, but their past performance shows they are very slow to encompass new paradigms. They still haven't fully implemented 16-bit color depth, althought they've been slowly chipping away at it through the last 2 version (7 & CS).

On the other hand, you *can* run 32-bit Photoshop on a dual Xeon with 32-bit Windoze right now. It ain't the greatest, but it's the fastest available current solution, by far.

Don

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:17:05 -0700, "Don" wrote:

There is no point in going with the 64-bit processors in the near future,

as

the appleication software can't take advantage of it, and only server versions of Windoze can use it. I don't know if WinXP would even boot on

a

64-bit processor, but it certainly can't take advantage of it.

That'll be why, then, Intel have announced that their latest chips will be able to run 64 bit and 32 bit apps at the same time. And the function libraries they're using to this? Er, they've licensed the ones that AMD developed because they're so good.

Yes, that's right - Intel chips using AMD because Intel can't do it any better.

And just in case you didn't hear it the first time - right now. :)
--

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:27:03 -0700, "Don" wrote:

On the other hand, you *can* run 32-bit Photoshop on a dual Xeon with 32-bit Windoze right now. It ain't the greatest, but it's the fastest available current solution, by far.

You still don't understand do you? The reason Intel are purchasing libraries from AMD is because the AMD 64 chips run 32 bit software far faster than Intel 32 bit chips. Intel 64 bit chips however, run 32 bit software slower than their 32 bit chips because they're not optimised. If you want speed, then the AMD 64 bit chips are the ones to go for - they are a minimum of 10% faster than *any* Intel chips at running 32 bit software, regardless of whether the OS is 64 bit or the software is 64 bit.

--

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

That's true, but they're not faster than two Xeon chips.

Don

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:27:03 -0700, "Don" wrote:

On the other hand, you *can* run 32-bit Photoshop on a dual Xeon with

32-bit

Windoze right now. It ain't the greatest, but it's the fastest available current solution, by far.

You still don't understand do you? The reason Intel are purchasing libraries from AMD is because the AMD 64 chips run 32 bit software far faster than Intel 32 bit chips. Intel 64 bit chips however, run 32 bit software slower than their 32 bit chips because they're not optimised. If you want speed, then the AMD 64 bit chips are the ones to go for - they are a minimum of 10% faster than *any* Intel chips at running 32 bit software, regardless of whether the OS is 64 bit or the software is 64 bit.

--

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Test after test has shown that dual Opterons are significantly faster than dual Xeons at running 32 bit software. 10-25% In fact, dual opterons have been outperforming quad Xeons.

Opterons are also cheaper and run cooler.

"Don" wrote in message

That's true, but they're not faster than two Xeon chips.
Don

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:27:03 -0700, "Don" wrote:

On the other hand, you *can* run 32-bit Photoshop on a dual Xeon with

32-bit

Windoze right now. It ain't the greatest, but it's the fastest

available

current solution, by far.

You still don't understand do you? The reason Intel are purchasing libraries from AMD is because the AMD 64 chips run 32 bit software far faster than Intel 32 bit chips. Intel 64 bit chips however, run 32 bit software slower than their 32 bit chips because they're not optimised. If you want speed, then the AMD 64 bit chips are the ones to go for - they are a minimum of 10% faster than *any* Intel chips at running 32 bit software, regardless of whether the OS is 64 bit or the software is 64 bit.

--

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

They are not faster than the AMD.

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982

"Don" wrote in message

That's true, but they're not faster than two Xeon chips.
Don

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:27:03 -0700, "Don" wrote:

On the other hand, you *can* run 32-bit Photoshop on a dual Xeon with

32-bit

Windoze right now. It ain't the greatest, but it's the fastest

available

current solution, by far.

You still don't understand do you? The reason Intel are purchasing libraries from AMD is because the AMD 64 chips run 32 bit software far faster than Intel 32 bit chips. Intel 64 bit chips however, run 32 bit software slower than their 32 bit chips because they're not optimised. If you want speed, then the AMD 64 bit chips are the ones to go for - they are a minimum of 10% faster than *any* Intel chips at running 32 bit software, regardless of whether the OS is 64 bit or the software is 64 bit.

--

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

"Don" wrote in
news::

On the other hand, you *can* run 32-bit Photoshop on a dual Xeon with 32-bit Windoze right now. It ain't the greatest, but it's the fastest available current solution, by far.

No, it isn't. You can run 32-bit photoshop on a dual 64-bit Opteron machine running 32-bit Windows right now. In fact, AMD has a marketing thing which is entirely true:
"The only 64-bit Windows compatible chip on the market", as any of AMD's chips will run a 32-bit OS perfectly fine, and thanks to having an onboard memory controller they will run things like Photoshop that require oodles of RAM bandwith faster than anything Intel can throw on the market.

--
website: http://www.demonlag.com
AIM: FrznFoodClerk

"Don" wrote in news::

That's true, but they're not faster than two Xeon chips.

Two Opteron 24x's are over 20% faster than two Xeon chips, and also cost about 20% less.

--
website: http://www.demonlag.com
AIM: FrznFoodClerk

Uni wrote in news:4082C5C2.50500
@no.email.invalid:

Without a doubt, you're absolutely correct!

Uni

Without a doubt, you have no clue what you are talking about.

--
website: http://www.demonlag.com
AIM: FrznFoodClerk

Don wrote:

Gee, I didn't mean to gore your ox. Sorry. I'm aware that there are 64-bit chips out there - Intel has had a 64-bit server chip for about a year and a half, as well as AMD, et al. The problem is that there is no 64-bit Windoze to run on them (other than the server version), and Photoshop won't run on the other 64-bit operating systems that *are* available. So, you can buy the 64-bit hardware with an opeerating system that even the 32-bit Photoshop won't run on, or you can wait a while and get the Intel/Windoze combination, and still have to run the 32-bit Photoshop on it because there will likely not be a 64-bit Photoshop for some time.

Adobe doesn't announce their plans ahead of time, but their past performance shows they are very slow to encompass new paradigms. They still haven't fully implemented 16-bit color depth, althought they've been slowly chipping away at it through the last 2 version (7 & CS).

On the other hand, you *can* run 32-bit Photoshop on a dual Xeon with 32-bit Windoze right now. It ain't the greatest, but it's the fastest available current solution, by far.

Without a doubt, you're absolutely correct!

Uni

Don

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:17:05 -0700, "Don" wrote:

There is no point in going with the 64-bit processors in the near future,

as

the appleication software can't take advantage of it, and only server versions of Windoze can use it. I don't know if WinXP would even boot on

a

64-bit processor, but it certainly can't take advantage of it.

That'll be why, then, Intel have announced that their latest chips will be able to run 64 bit and 32 bit apps at the same time. And the function libraries they're using to this? Er, they've licensed the ones that AMD developed because they're so good.

Yes, that's right - Intel chips using AMD because Intel can't do it any better.

And just in case you didn't hear it the first time - right now. :)
--

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Don wrote:

That's true, but they're not faster than two Xeon chips.

Personally, I wouldn't waste your time arguing about it, Don. Very few technically minded people in usenet.

Uni

Don

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:27:03 -0700, "Don" wrote:

On the other hand, you *can* run 32-bit Photoshop on a dual Xeon with

32-bit

Windoze right now. It ain't the greatest, but it's the fastest available current solution, by far.

You still don't understand do you? The reason Intel are purchasing libraries from AMD is because the AMD 64 chips run 32 bit software far faster than Intel 32 bit chips. Intel 64 bit chips however, run 32 bit software slower than their 32 bit chips because they're not optimised. If you want speed, then the AMD 64 bit chips are the ones to go for - they are a minimum of 10% faster than *any* Intel chips at running 32 bit software, regardless of whether the OS is 64 bit or the software is 64 bit.

--

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Uni wrote in news:4082D171.6070802
@no.email.invalid:

Personally, I wouldn't waste your time arguing about it, Don. Very few technically minded people in usenet.

^^^^
See above poster for example

--
website: http://www.demonlag.com
AIM: FrznFoodClerk

Michael-NC wrote:

They are not faster than the AMD.

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982

Oh, yeah, a promotional page for AMD. What else do you expect them to say?

Uni

"Don" wrote in message

That's true, but they're not faster than two Xeon chips.
Don

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:27:03 -0700, "Don" wrote:

On the other hand, you *can* run 32-bit Photoshop on a dual Xeon with

32-bit

Windoze right now. It ain't the greatest, but it's the fastest

available

current solution, by far.

You still don't understand do you? The reason Intel are purchasing libraries from AMD is because the AMD 64 chips run 32 bit software far faster than Intel 32 bit chips. Intel 64 bit chips however, run 32 bit software slower than their 32 bit chips because they're not optimised. If you want speed, then the AMD 64 bit chips are the ones to go for - they are a minimum of 10% faster than *any* Intel chips at running 32 bit software, regardless of whether the OS is 64 bit or the software is 64 bit.

--

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

They are not faster than the AMD.

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982

Oh, yeah, a promotional page for AMD. What else do you expect them to say?
Uni

You dumbass, Anandtech is one of the most respected hardware review sites on the net. You must be one of those artsy bastards on one of these graphics groups this thread is X-posted too. You have no clue junior, go draw a flower or something.

"DeMoN LaG" wrote in message

Uni wrote in news:4082C5C2.50500
@no.email.invalid:

Without a doubt, you're absolutely correct!

Uni

Without a doubt, you have no clue what you are talking about.
--
website: http://www.demonlag.com
AIM: FrznFoodClerk

Without a doubt, you're absolutely correct!

But...

Don't bother with him, he must be a "digital artist" from one the graphics groups that this is X-posted too. It would be preferable to argue with a jackass.

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

They are not faster than the AMD.

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982

Oh, yeah, a promotional page for AMD. What else do you expect them to say?
Uni

Since when is Anandtech a "promotional page for AMD"? They are, and have always been a respected, independent hardware review site. They aren't affiliated with AMD, or any other brand. If you are going to accuse them of being a shill for AMD, perhaps you should present some compelling evidence to support such a claim.

Michael-NC wrote:

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

They are not faster than the AMD.

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982

Oh, yeah, a promotional page for AMD. What else do you expect them to say?
Uni

You dumbass, Anandtech is one of the most respected hardware review sites on the net. You must be one of those artsy bastards on one of these graphics groups this thread is X-posted too. You have no clue junior, go draw a flower or something.

I have to assume you're a regular in alt.computer, since I don't see any posts from you in the Photoshop group. Personally, I have never heard of Anandtech. If you wish to believe everything you read, even by wanna be technical gurus, that's your prerogative. Most professionals I know, insist on Intel. AMD's hang/crash and overheat - that's what they're well known for. Non professional people will purchase a cheaper, lower grade CPU, then they have to fabricate stories how it's better than an Intel, when it's not.

Uni

Thor wrote:

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

They are not faster than the AMD.

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982

Oh, yeah, a promotional page for AMD. What else do you expect them to say?
Uni

Since when is Anandtech a "promotional page for AMD"? They are, and have always been a respected, independent hardware review site. They aren't affiliated with AMD, or any other brand. If you are going to accuse them of being a shill for AMD, perhaps you should present some compelling evidence to support such a claim.

I saw at LEAST three (3) links to purchase AMD products on that page. If that's not enough promotional evidence, I don't know what is. A decent technical site won't have tons of links on it to keep them in business.

Uni

Michael-NC wrote:

"DeMoN LaG" wrote in message

Uni wrote in news:4082C5C2.50500
@no.email.invalid:

Without a doubt, you're absolutely correct!

Uni

Without a doubt, you have no clue what you are talking about.
--
website: http://www.demonlag.com
AIM: FrznFoodClerk

Without a doubt, you're absolutely correct!

But...

Don't bother with him, he must be a "digital artist" from one the graphics groups that this is X-posted too. It would be preferable to argue with a jackass.

Yes, go play Pacman on your AMD. I'm sure that won't overload it.

Uni

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

They are not faster than the AMD.

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982

Oh, yeah, a promotional page for AMD. What else do you expect them to

say?

Uni

You dumbass, Anandtech is one of the most respected hardware review

sites on

the net. You must be one of those artsy bastards on one of these

graphics

groups this thread is X-posted too. You have no clue junior, go draw a flower or something.

I have to assume you're a regular in alt.computer, since I don't see any posts from you in the Photoshop group. Personally, I have never heard of Anandtech. If you wish to believe everything you read, even by wanna be technical gurus, that's your prerogative. Most professionals I know, insist on Intel. AMD's hang/crash and overheat - that's what they're well known for. Non professional people will purchase a cheaper, lower grade CPU, then they have to fabricate stories how it's better than an Intel, when it's not.

I'm afraid you are grossly misinfomed, Uni. AMD chips are every bit as good as Intel, and they do not hang/crash any more than Intel's do. Heat issues are dealt with by nature of the multitude of cooling solutions available for either brand, and there is no more of a problem cooling AMD chips than with Intel's. Furthermore, Anandtech is a very well-known independent review site in PC enthusiast circles. Your willingness to accuse them of being a shill for AMD, when you admittedly know absolutely nothing about them, their history, or their well-earned reputation for professionalism and objectivity, speaks volumes about your inability to articulate an effective argument to counter their test results. Something tells me that you didn't even bother reading the review or the test results to judge it on the merits. You'd rather sit there on your pseudo-high-horse and assume that just because a few people you refer to as "professionals" are evidently as equally ill-informed as you are, that you can confidently assume the review is a fabrication in AMD's favor. Let me tell you without a doubt, you have been listening to people who frankly, should not be dealing advice about CPU choices, because they clearly aren't informed in that regard. Even the slightest amount of research from the multitudes of independent review sites will tell you that AMD chips are outstanding, reliable, stable performers and are quality products, and every bit as good as Intel chips. Yes, I'm a regular in alt.computer. But that's about the only correct assumption you have made. I would suggest that you delve into the CPU field *yourself* instead of listening to these "professionals" you referred to. I think you will find that their "profession" is clearly not rooted in knowledge of CPUs, Intel, AMD or otherwise. In my 11 year career involving PCs, I've been in PC mass production, repairs, quality assurance, as well as configuration, sales and service, in my own business for 8 years of that. I have personally used, and professionally sold a multitude of both AMD, and Intel-based systems. From my own personal and professional experience, both are excellent products. Both are reliable to a fault, and neither are difficult to cool. Get informed, Uni. Or simply continue to wallow in your ignorance, and continue to make a fool of yourself in a public forum.

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

"DeMoN LaG" wrote in message

Uni wrote in news:4082C5C2.50500
@no.email.invalid:

Without a doubt, you're absolutely correct!

Uni

Without a doubt, you have no clue what you are talking about.
--
website: http://www.demonlag.com
AIM: FrznFoodClerk

Without a doubt, you're absolutely correct!

But...

Don't bother with him, he must be a "digital artist" from one the

graphics

groups that this is X-posted too. It would be preferable to argue with a jackass.

Yes, go play Pacman on your AMD. I'm sure that won't overload it.
Uni

LOL! You must be a troll or just a stupid bastard! This AMD VS Intel thing went on about _five_ years ago. Since then, it's been common wisdom that AMD is every bit the equal and many times, better choice than Intel. Ahhh, the nostalgia...

Thanks for the memories jackass!

"Uni" wrote in message

Thor wrote:

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

They are not faster than the AMD.

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982

Oh, yeah, a promotional page for AMD. What else do you expect them to

say?

Uni

Since when is Anandtech a "promotional page for AMD"? They are, and have always been a respected, independent hardware review site. They aren't affiliated with AMD, or any other brand. If you are going to accuse them

of

being a shill for AMD, perhaps you should present some compelling

evidence

to support such a claim.

I saw at LEAST three (3) links to purchase AMD products on that page. If that's not enough promotional evidence, I don't know what is. A decent technical site won't have tons of links on it to keep them in business.

There are also several links to Intel products. Many of the ad banners are rotating, so they change every so often. I've seen some that have nothing but Intel-based products across the top on several occasions, and there are Intel-related banners throughout the site. I guess I should complain that they are biased in favor of Intel. You evidently only see only what you want to see. Furthermore, exactly how do you expect a site with as much traffic as Anandtech to run without advertising dollars? Bandwidth costs money. In case you didn't know that.

"Thor" wrote in message

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

They are not faster than the AMD.

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982

Oh, yeah, a promotional page for AMD. What else do you expect them to

say?

Uni

You dumbass, Anandtech is one of the most respected hardware review

sites on

the net. You must be one of those artsy bastards on one of these

graphics

groups this thread is X-posted too. You have no clue junior, go draw a flower or something.

I have to assume you're a regular in alt.computer, since I don't see any posts from you in the Photoshop group. Personally, I have never heard of Anandtech. If you wish to believe everything you read, even by wanna be technical gurus, that's your prerogative. Most professionals I know, insist on Intel. AMD's hang/crash and overheat - that's what they're well known for. Non professional people will purchase a cheaper, lower grade CPU, then they have to fabricate stories how it's better than an Intel, when it's not.

I'm afraid you are grossly misinfomed, Uni. AMD chips are every bit as

good

as Intel, and they do not hang/crash any more than Intel's do. Heat issues are dealt with by nature of the multitude of cooling solutions available

for

either brand, and there is no more of a problem cooling AMD chips than

with

Intel's. Furthermore, Anandtech is a very well-known independent review

site

in PC enthusiast circles. Your willingness to accuse them of being a shill for AMD, when you admittedly know absolutely nothing about them, their history, or their well-earned reputation for professionalism and objectivity, speaks volumes about your inability to articulate an

effective

argument to counter their test results. Something tells me that you didn't even bother reading the review or the test results to judge it on the merits. You'd rather sit there on your pseudo-high-horse and assume that just because a few people you refer to as "professionals" are evidently as equally ill-informed as you are, that you can confidently assume the

review

is a fabrication in AMD's favor. Let me tell you without a doubt, you have been listening to people who frankly, should not be dealing advice about

CPU

choices, because they clearly aren't informed in that regard. Even the slightest amount of research from the multitudes of independent review

sites

will tell you that AMD chips are outstanding, reliable, stable performers and are quality products, and every bit as good as Intel chips. Yes, I'm a regular in alt.computer. But that's about the only correct assumption you have made. I would suggest that you delve into the CPU field *yourself* instead of listening to these "professionals" you referred to. I think you will find that their "profession" is clearly not rooted in knowledge of CPUs, Intel, AMD or otherwise. In my 11 year career involving PCs, I've

been

in PC mass production, repairs, quality assurance, as well as

configuration,

sales and service, in my own business for 8 years of that. I have

personally

used, and professionally sold a multitude of both AMD, and Intel-based systems. From my own personal and professional experience, both are excellent products. Both are reliable to a fault, and neither are

difficult

to cool. Get informed, Uni. Or simply continue to wallow in your

ignorance,

and continue to make a fool of yourself in a public forum.

Well said Thor. This is an example of an opinion trapped in a 5 year old time capsule... Or, perhaps stuck in a mind with a super-inflated ego, spawned by the notion that since it thinks it knows how to use Photoshop, it thinks it knows what Photoshop should be run on.

How amusing!

"Michael-NC" wrote in
news:CqDgc.41025$:

Well said Thor. This is an example of an opinion trapped in a 5 year old time capsule... Or, perhaps stuck in a mind with a super-inflated ego, spawned by the notion that since it thinks it knows how to use Photoshop, it thinks it knows what Photoshop should be run on.

Also, AMD chips with heat problems? Perhaps with the K6 line, but lets see, the Prescott normally runs around 73C vs my XP3200+ running at 50C on a hot day...

--
website: http://www.demonlag.com
AIM: FrznFoodClerk

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:45:04 GMT, "Michael-NC" scribbled:

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

They are not faster than the AMD.

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982

Oh, yeah, a promotional page for AMD. What else do you expect them to say?
Uni

You dumbass, Anandtech is one of the most respected hardware review sites on the net. You must be one of those artsy bastards on one of these graphics groups this thread is X-posted too. You have no clue junior, go draw a flower or something.

Uni's just a troll. In other groups he pretends to be a professional engineer and a graphics god. Just ignore him and he won't go away...

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:32:37 GMT, "Michael-NC" writ:

LOL! You must be a troll or just a stupid bastard!

The former rather than the latter.

Michael-NC wrote:

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

"DeMoN LaG" wrote in message

Uni wrote in news:4082C5C2.50500
@no.email.invalid:

Without a doubt, you're absolutely correct!

Uni

Without a doubt, you have no clue what you are talking about.
--
website: http://www.demonlag.com
AIM: FrznFoodClerk

Without a doubt, you're absolutely correct!

But...

Don't bother with him, he must be a "digital artist" from one the

graphics

groups that this is X-posted too. It would be preferable to argue with a jackass.

Yes, go play Pacman on your AMD. I'm sure that won't overload it.
Uni

LOL! You must be a troll or just a stupid bastard! This AMD VS Intel thing went on about _five_ years ago. Since then, it's been common wisdom that AMD is every bit the equal and many times, better choice than Intel. Ahhh, the nostalgia...

Thanks for the memories jackass!

I enjoy you KIDS who hang out in the alt.computer. About all you know is how to buy a computer and plug in. Most AMD cheerleaders use their computer for entertainment, nothing serious, nothing more.

Uni

Thor wrote:

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

They are not faster than the AMD.

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982

Oh, yeah, a promotional page for AMD. What else do you expect them to

say?

Uni

You dumbass, Anandtech is one of the most respected hardware review

sites on

the net. You must be one of those artsy bastards on one of these

graphics

groups this thread is X-posted too. You have no clue junior, go draw a flower or something.

I have to assume you're a regular in alt.computer, since I don't see any posts from you in the Photoshop group. Personally, I have never heard of Anandtech. If you wish to believe everything you read, even by wanna be technical gurus, that's your prerogative. Most professionals I know, insist on Intel. AMD's hang/crash and overheat - that's what they're well known for. Non professional people will purchase a cheaper, lower grade CPU, then they have to fabricate stories how it's better than an Intel, when it's not.

I'm afraid you are grossly misinfomed, Uni. AMD chips are every bit as good as Intel, and they do not hang/crash any more than Intel's do. Heat issues are dealt with by nature of the multitude of cooling solutions available for either brand, and there is no more of a problem cooling AMD chips than with Intel's. Furthermore, Anandtech is a very well-known independent review site in PC enthusiast circles. Your willingness to accuse them of being a shill for AMD, when you admittedly know absolutely nothing about them, their history, or their well-earned reputation for professionalism and objectivity, speaks volumes about your inability to articulate an effective argument to counter their test results. Something tells me that you didn't even bother reading the review or the test results to judge it on the merits. You'd rather sit there on your pseudo-high-horse and assume that just because a few people you refer to as "professionals" are evidently as equally ill-informed as you are, that you can confidently assume the review is a fabrication in AMD's favor. Let me tell you without a doubt, you have been listening to people who frankly, should not be dealing advice about CPU choices, because they clearly aren't informed in that regard. Even the slightest amount of research from the multitudes of independent review sites will tell you that AMD chips are outstanding, reliable, stable performers and are quality products, and every bit as good as Intel chips. Yes, I'm a regular in alt.computer. But that's about the only correct assumption you have made. I would suggest that you delve into the CPU field *yourself* instead of listening to these "professionals" you referred to. I think you will find that their "profession" is clearly not rooted in knowledge of CPUs, Intel, AMD or otherwise. In my 11 year career involving PCs, I've been in PC mass production, repairs, quality assurance, as well as configuration, sales and service, in my own business for 8 years of that. I have personally used, and professionally sold a multitude of both AMD, and Intel-based systems. From my own personal and professional experience, both are excellent products. Both are reliable to a fault, and neither are difficult to cool. Get informed, Uni. Or simply continue to wallow in your ignorance, and continue to make a fool of yourself in a public forum.

Thor, you apparently bought the AMD, not I. Who exactly is the "fool"? You AMD Lovers have nothing better to do but argue until you're blue in the face, believing you're going to convince someone that AMD is superior to Intel. Well, let me give you a little word of advice, don't waste your time.

And, yes, I've run across many like you, that have X number of years of computer experience under your belt. However, I'm never impressed with a single one of them.

Good day.

Uni
p.s. Put a dog collar on your Michael-NC. Thanks.

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

"DeMoN LaG" wrote in message

Uni wrote in news:4082C5C2.50500
@no.email.invalid:

Without a doubt, you're absolutely correct!

Uni

Without a doubt, you have no clue what you are talking about.
--
website: http://www.demonlag.com
AIM: FrznFoodClerk

Without a doubt, you're absolutely correct!

But...

Don't bother with him, he must be a "digital artist" from one the

graphics

groups that this is X-posted too. It would be preferable to argue with

a

jackass.

Yes, go play Pacman on your AMD. I'm sure that won't overload it.
Uni

LOL! You must be a troll or just a stupid bastard! This AMD VS Intel

thing

went on about _five_ years ago. Since then, it's been common wisdom that

AMD

is every bit the equal and many times, better choice than Intel. Ahhh,

the

nostalgia...

Thanks for the memories jackass!

I enjoy you KIDS who hang out in the alt.computer. About all you know is how to buy a computer and plug in. Most AMD cheerleaders use their computer for entertainment, nothing serious, nothing more.
Uni

Hey uni, thanks for confirming you're a stupid bastard! I was wondering!

Apparently other people in your group feel the same way about you!

As you saw in another response, I told him he's either a troll or a stupid bastard but I may have been wrong...

I think he fits both descriptions. Thanks for the confirmation!

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:45:04 GMT, "Michael-NC" scribbled:

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

They are not faster than the AMD.

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982

Oh, yeah, a promotional page for AMD. What else do you expect them to

say?

Uni

You dumbass, Anandtech is one of the most respected hardware review sites

on

the net. You must be one of those artsy bastards on one of these graphics groups this thread is X-posted too. You have no clue junior, go draw a flower or something.

Uni's just a troll. In other groups he pretends to be a professional engineer and a graphics god. Just ignore him and he won't go away...

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:32:37 GMT, "Michael-NC" writ:

LOL! You must be a troll or just a stupid bastard!

The former rather than the latter.

That's a big 10-4

Lol!

Michael-NC wrote:

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

"DeMoN LaG" wrote in message

Uni wrote in news:4082C5C2.50500
@no.email.invalid:

Without a doubt, you're absolutely correct!

Uni

Without a doubt, you have no clue what you are talking about.
--
website: http://www.demonlag.com
AIM: FrznFoodClerk

Without a doubt, you're absolutely correct!

But...

Don't bother with him, he must be a "digital artist" from one the

graphics

groups that this is X-posted too. It would be preferable to argue with

a

jackass.

Yes, go play Pacman on your AMD. I'm sure that won't overload it.
Uni

LOL! You must be a troll or just a stupid bastard! This AMD VS Intel

thing

went on about _five_ years ago. Since then, it's been common wisdom that

AMD

is every bit the equal and many times, better choice than Intel. Ahhh,

the

nostalgia...

Thanks for the memories jackass!

I enjoy you KIDS who hang out in the alt.computer. About all you know is how to buy a computer and plug in. Most AMD cheerleaders use their computer for entertainment, nothing serious, nothing more.
Uni

Hey uni, thanks for confirming you're a stupid bastard! I was wondering!
Apparently other people in your group feel the same way about you!

I don't care what anyone thinks of me in usenet. Usenet is full of unintelligent people, just like you. Go play a game on your AMD, or watch TV. Thanks.

Uni

in article l%Egc.41083$, Michael-NC at
wrote on 04/18/2004 5:24 PM:

Apparently other people in your group feel the same way about you!

Herd mentality has never impressed me.

in article E1Fgc.41085$, Michael-NC at
wrote on 04/18/2004 5:27 PM:

That's a big 10-4

Go play on your CB radio.

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

"DeMoN LaG" wrote in message

Uni wrote in news:4082C5C2.50500
@no.email.invalid:

Without a doubt, you're absolutely correct!

Uni

Without a doubt, you have no clue what you are talking about.
--
website: http://www.demonlag.com
AIM: FrznFoodClerk

Without a doubt, you're absolutely correct!

But...

Don't bother with him, he must be a "digital artist" from one the

graphics

groups that this is X-posted too. It would be preferable to argue

with

a

jackass.

Yes, go play Pacman on your AMD. I'm sure that won't overload it.
Uni

LOL! You must be a troll or just a stupid bastard! This AMD VS Intel

thing

went on about _five_ years ago. Since then, it's been common wisdom

that

AMD

is every bit the equal and many times, better choice than Intel. Ahhh,

the

nostalgia...

Thanks for the memories jackass!

I enjoy you KIDS who hang out in the alt.computer. About all you know is how to buy a computer and plug in. Most AMD cheerleaders use their computer for entertainment, nothing serious, nothing more.
Uni

Hey uni, thanks for confirming you're a stupid bastard! I was wondering!
Apparently other people in your group feel the same way about you!

I don't care what anyone thinks of me in usenet.

Guess what, that transfers to real life too! The more time you spend in Usenet, you'll find out it's true too.

Usenet is full of
unintelligent people, just like you.

Lol! That's a load of shit and you know it. Nowhere did I say that AMD was a better platform than Intel, you just assumed the AMD fanboy thing. You're just a closed minded, pompous ass who prefers to believe what you _want_ to believe and everyone else is "unintelligent," quite a pitiful attitude you have there jerky.

Go play a game on your AMD, or
watch TV. Thanks.

Uni

Thanks I think I will. Daimler Chrysler on the other hand, will be implementing their Opteron systems in mission critical applications.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_10 4_543~81724,00.html

Get a clue art-boy, the war's over and there's a new Sheriff in town. Now go draw me a fucking flower.

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:32:37 GMT, "Michael-NC" wrote:

LOL! You must be a troll or just a stupid bastard! This AMD VS Intel thing went on about _five_ years ago. Since then, it's been common wisdom that AMD is every bit the equal and many times, better choice than Intel. Ahhh, the nostalgia...

In fact, as I pointed out above, better. Intel are having to license the AMD libraries so their 64 bit chips will run 32 bit apps.

--

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Uni wrote in news:4083144D.4020209
@no.email.invalid:

I enjoy you KIDS who hang out in the alt.computer. About all you know is how to buy a computer and plug in. Most AMD cheerleaders use their computer for entertainment, nothing serious, nothing more.

Yes, which is why Cray (the supercomputer company) chose the AMD Opteron over the Intel Itanium.

--
website: http://www.demonlag.com
AIM: FrznFoodClerk

Michael-NC wrote:

Get a clue art-boy, the war's over and there's a new Sheriff in town. Now go draw me a fucking flower.

I don't know if there's a new sheriff but I'd have to agree that AMD did get their act together after the dismal overheating problems with their earlier chips. I was an Intel only kinda guy (after I had to give up my beloved Amiga [sob]) due to all the AMD horror stories from friends and people in a couple of user-groups I frequented. But, my last upgrade was to an Athalon on a fairly inexpensive (MSI) motherboard and it's run flawlessly for over a year. (Not to mention the money I saved over the price of a comparable Pentium chip.)

I think this debate can be delegated to the same bit-bucket as the old Mac vs. PC crap.

dvus

Wow, there's a *lot* of bad information in this thread.

First of all, there is nothing *wrong* with AMD processors. They do not "crash and overheat," as has been mentioned by some know-nothings. Arguing between Intel and AMD is like arguing between Chevy and Ford. They are practically exactly the same, but everyone has their own preferences, based on personal anecdotes, and what-not. Do not let quality become an issue in your decision, as there is no difference between the two. Also, the Opterons function perfectly well as 32-bit processors, which is all you should really be concerned about, as a 64-bit Windows OS as well as 64-bit versions of your software are still in the future and you seem to be in need a hardware today. So while the Opteron's 64-bit abilities are certainly not disadvantages, do not factor on them too much as an advantage, either. Make your decisions on the 32-bit performance of all your options.

Anandtech is widely regarded as a reputable and honest hardware reviewer. They have some well-executed set of benchmarks pitting dual and quad Opterons against dual and quad P4s.

Web-serving: http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1935 Database: http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982

Neither of these benchmarks fully addresses content-creation performance, but other single-CPU benchmarks have. You should be able to find a plethora of these reviews/benchmarks from Anandtech as well as several other review sites. You should always gather as much information as you can from a wide-variety of sources, before making any purchasing decision.

Now, for my *personal* opinions on the matter. *I* would probably go with the Dual Opterons (244 : 1.8GHz : ~420USD/each) over the Xeon
3.0GHz. They are equivalent in price, with the Opterons offering
slightly better performance, due to it advanced memory architecture, which would probably play a large role in your applications. And you still get a *small* bit of future proofing with the Opterons, due to their 64-bit abilities. You can pretty much bet that you won't get any additional performance out of Xeons simply with software upgrades, but 64-bit editions of Windows and PS/UF could theoretically give you a boost, as they would "unlock" some of the Opteron's features, such as additions registers, etc.

Good luck.

Toby wrote:

Hi folks,

I am finally getting near buying a new PC to replace my ancient one, and I have some decisions to make.

My main use for it will be graphics, and both of the main programs I use (Photoshop and Ultra Fractal) can take advantage of dual processors. UF in particular depends primarily on pure number crunching, so CPU speed is the major determinant of speed. Its architecture is such that dual processors provide nearly twice the rendering speed of a single CPU.
I had originally thought of going with dual Xeons, say around 2.6 or 2.8 GHz, but I would be able to put something together with dual Opteron 64s for just around the same price. I haven't been able to find much on the net about dual Opterons, and I'm wondering about stability issues, etc. I'm not really interested in overclocking or anything extreme, and my needs apart from number crunching would be quite modest--I'm not a heavy gamer or anything.

For that matter I wonder if the 64 bit processors will really offer any advantages in the next few years in general computer use.
Another option would be to forget about dual CPUs completely and go with a moderately high end P4 or Athlon.

I'm wondering if anybody has any experience with any of this that they'd like to share, or links where I could find info on dual Opterons.
Thanks in advance,
Toby

"Aratzio" wrote in message

in article E1Fgc.41085$, Michael-NC at
wrote on 04/18/2004 5:27 PM:

That's a big 10-4

Go play on your CB radio.

That's a big 10-4 to _you_

Good buddy...

"Aratzio" wrote in message

in article l%Egc.41083$, Michael-NC at
wrote on 04/18/2004 5:24 PM:

Apparently other people in your group feel the same way about you!

Herd mentality has never impressed me.

Well I heard mentality isn't all it's cracked up to be...

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:32:37 GMT, "Michael-NC" wrote:

LOL! You must be a troll or just a stupid bastard! This AMD VS Intel

thing

went on about _five_ years ago. Since then, it's been common wisdom that

AMD

is every bit the equal and many times, better choice than Intel. Ahhh,

the

nostalgia...

In fact, as I pointed out above, better. Intel are having to license the AMD libraries so their 64 bit chips will run 32 bit apps.

Really? I thought Intel wrote their own 64Bit extensions and they were identical to AMD, save one instruction. It's widely assumed that 100% compatibility will eventually ensue. Something happen just recently?

"Michael-NC" wrote in news:Vn_gc.43530$yv.886996 @twister.southeast.rr.com:

Really? I thought Intel wrote their own 64Bit extensions and they were identical to AMD, save one instruction. It's widely assumed that 100% compatibility will eventually ensue. Something happen just recently?

They didn't write their own, they just copied the standard x86-64 instruction set, and omitted that instruction.

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 00:44:37 GMT, "Michael-NC" wrote:

In fact, as I pointed out above, better. Intel are having to license the AMD libraries so their 64 bit chips will run 32 bit apps.

Really? I thought Intel wrote their own 64Bit extensions and they were identical to AMD, save one instruction. It's widely assumed that 100% compatibility will eventually ensue. Something happen just recently?

Yes. Last month Intel announced that their 64 bit chips would now include libraries optimised to run 32 bit apps. When pressed by the er, press, they admitted that these libraries were the AMD libraries that AMD are using in their Athlon 64s.

--

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Hecate wrote in
news::

Yes. Last month Intel announced that their 64 bit chips would now include libraries optimised to run 32 bit apps. When pressed by the er, press, they admitted that these libraries were the AMD libraries that AMD are using in their Athlon 64s.

Can you link to this please? Intel's 64-bit chips are either the Xeon with 64-bit support (which has nothing to do with libraries), which is x86- 64/AMD64 compatible, or the Itanium, which runs 32bit code through the use of emulation layer software.

Libraries are software concepts, and other than being platform dependant, don't really care whether the CPU is made by Intel or AMD. An example is when you compile a program and include a library that uses SSE. The program doesn't care whether the CPU is AMD, Intel, Via, or whoever, as long as it can run SSE code.

Also, unless you are refering to the Itanium (which is going to include optimised libraries on Linux to run it's 32bit emulation code, nothing to do with AMD), Intel licensed nothing. There is no license required to create an x86-64 complient processor as I understand the licensing requirements. Intel basically just reverse engineered an AMD model and copied it. The different is Intel's AMD64 chips do not feature the NX bit. With an AMD chip, a programmer can designate a segment of memory as data only, not to be executed. What that means is a buffer overrun vulnerability is not possible anymore, as even if a hacker can overrun the buffer, the CPU will not execute the code in that buffer anyway.

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:37:22 GMT, "Michael-NC" wrote:

"Thor" wrote in message

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

They are not faster than the AMD.

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982

Oh, yeah, a promotional page for AMD. What else do you expect them to

say?

Uni

The Uni ist the resident troll of comp.graphics.apps.paint-shop-pro.

It sometimes strolls into other groups like c.g.a.photoshop to get some slaps for being a nitwit, then leave those groups to return home instead of burning its PC and leaving forever.

Ignore it.

Michael

Xalinai wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:37:22 GMT, "Michael-NC" wrote:

"Thor" wrote in message

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

They are not faster than the AMD.

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982

Oh, yeah, a promotional page for AMD. What else do you expect them to

say?

Uni

The Uni isnt the resident troll of comp.graphics.apps.paint-shop-pro.

Thanks.

By the way, Xalinai, I posted, to your attention, a confirmation that a computer will not burn up, as you claimed, but will run cooler without a case side panel. I posted it in the Paint Shop Pro (your favorite software) *hehehe* group. PSP is a good mate for an AMD - if one doesn't crash, the other will.

:-)

Enjoy.

:-)

Uni

On 20 Apr 2004 05:23:18 GMT, DeMoN LaG wrote:

Hecate wrote in
news::

Yes. Last month Intel announced that their 64 bit chips would now include libraries optimised to run 32 bit apps. When pressed by the er, press, they admitted that these libraries were the AMD libraries that AMD are using in their Athlon 64s.

Can you link to this please? Intel's 64-bit chips are either the Xeon with 64-bit support (which has nothing to do with libraries), which is x86- 64/AMD64 compatible, or the Itanium, which runs 32bit code through the use of emulation layer software.

Paper link I'm afraid. PC Pro (UK Magazine) Page 32 (news section) May 2004.

And, having reread it, you're right. Intel say they are introducing instructions compatible with AMD's 64 bit Athlon and Opteron processors. They also said they were introducing 64 bit extensions to their 32 bit [processors and then said that. of course, this didn't mean the end of Itanium. Yeah, right :)

It seems they were rather embarrassed to be having to follow AMD's lead instead of the other way around :)

--

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

"Xalinai" wrote in message

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:37:22 GMT, "Michael-NC" wrote:

"Thor" wrote in message

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

They are not faster than the AMD.

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982

Oh, yeah, a promotional page for AMD. What else do you expect them

to

say?

Uni

The Uni ist the resident troll of comp.graphics.apps.paint-shop-pro.
It sometimes strolls into other groups like c.g.a.photoshop to get some slaps for being a nitwit, then leave those groups to return home instead of burning its PC and leaving forever.

Ignore it.

Michael

Yeah, I had him pegged as a troll in his first few posts. Actually, I had him pegged as a pitiful, attention craving, damaged individual in his first few posts. My sympathies that this asswipe infects your NG.

"DeMoN LaG" wrote in message

"Michael-NC" wrote in news:Vn_gc.43530$yv.886996 @twister.southeast.rr.com:

Really? I thought Intel wrote their own 64Bit extensions and they were identical to AMD, save one instruction. It's widely assumed that 100% compatibility will eventually ensue. Something happen just recently?

They didn't write their own, they just copied the standard x86-64 instruction set, and omitted that instruction.

I don't believe they omitted any particular instruction, just wrote their own and therefore claimed that 64 bit compatibility between AMD and Intel was not a given. It is assumed that Intel will just buckle under and adopt AMD instructions 100%. I going from memory here, on a article in Maximum PC.

"Michael-NC" wrote in
news:C4khc.44673$:

I don't believe they omitted any particular instruction, just wrote their own and therefore claimed that 64 bit compatibility between AMD and Intel was not a given. It is assumed that Intel will just buckle under and adopt AMD instructions 100%. I going from memory here, on a article in Maximum PC.

They left out AMD's NX bit and the instructions to turn it on and off. NX stands for No Execute, and lets someone tag an area of memory as non executable, which completely and totally eliminates any buffer overrun vulnerability.

--
website: http://www.demonlag.com
AIM: FrznFoodClerk

Michael-NC wrote:

"Xalinai" wrote in message

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:37:22 GMT, "Michael-NC" wrote:

"Thor" wrote in message

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

They are not faster than the AMD.

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982

Oh, yeah, a promotional page for AMD. What else do you expect them

to

say?

Uni

The Uni ist the resident troll of comp.graphics.apps.paint-shop-pro.
It sometimes strolls into other groups like c.g.a.photoshop to get some slaps for being a nitwit, then leave those groups to return home instead of burning its PC and leaving forever.

Ignore it.

Michael

Yeah, I had him pegged as a troll in his first few posts. Actually, I had him pegged as a pitiful, attention craving, damaged individual in his first few posts. My sympathies that this asswipe infects your NG.

Looks like you're doing rather fine.

:-)

Curious, what low level technical stuff do you techies chat about in your computer group? How to change Windows wallpaper?

:-)

Uni

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

"Xalinai" wrote in message

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:37:22 GMT, "Michael-NC" wrote:

"Thor" wrote in message

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

"Uni" wrote in message

Michael-NC wrote:

They are not faster than the AMD.

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982

Oh, yeah, a promotional page for AMD. What else do you expect them

to

say?

Uni

The Uni ist the resident troll of comp.graphics.apps.paint-shop-pro.
It sometimes strolls into other groups like c.g.a.photoshop to get some slaps for being a nitwit, then leave those groups to return home instead of burning its PC and leaving forever.

Ignore it.

Michael

Yeah, I had him pegged as a troll in his first few posts. Actually, I

had

him pegged as a pitiful, attention craving, damaged individual in his

first

few posts. My sympathies that this asswipe infects your NG.

Looks like you're doing rather fine.

:-)

Curious, what low level technical stuff do you techies chat about in your computer group? How to change Windows wallpaper?

:-)

Uni

We talk about Michael Jackson a lot and how OJ thinks Robert Blake killed his wife...