AMD Opteron Processors? 9 replies

Please wait...

general_kerr

(Couldn't find a title)

50 XP

14th February 2007

0 Uploads

2,089 Posts

0 Threads

#1 8 years ago

Yes, I Do Know They Are meant for servers... but...

I want to know, is there anything about them that makes them unsuited for desktop applications?

I Imagine two of these

Newegg.com - AMD Opteron 6168 Magny-Cours 1.9GHz 12 x 512KB L2 Cache 12MB L3 Cache Socket G34 115W 12-Core Server Processor OS6168WKTCEGOWOF

would be better than one of these

Newegg.com - AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition Thuban 3.2GHz 6 x 512KB L2 Cache 6MB L3 Cache Socket AM3 125W Six-Core Desktop Processor HDT90ZFBGRBOX

For Rendering complex 3d scenes, or playing a multithreaded game that was insane enough to include 24 threads.

ok, bad comparison, price-wise...

Newegg.com - AMD Opteron 6128 Magny-Cours 2.0GHz 8 x 512KB L2 Cache 12MB L3 Cache Socket G34 115W 8-Core Server Processor OS6128WKT8EGOWOF

for the opteron side anyway...

opteron has a pipeline depth of 4 while from what i can find (not much) the AMD phenom has a depth of 12? "K10's pipeline is the same as K8's" on amd dev forum... and K8 has a pipeline of 12 so...

anyway...

8 2.0 GHZ cores at a pipeline depth of 4 (plus much higher cache), versus 6 3.2 GHZ cores with a depth of 12.

So my point is, there is the higher piepeline depth there in the phenom 2 X6 than the opteron X8, resulting in less efficiency and higher clock rates.

from what i understand anyway.

i wish i could find some bench comparisons that include the amd opteron and amd phenom 2 processors based on a commands per second per category basis. (Floating point/integer)

sort of like novabench lol

here is my novabench cpu score, but i have a bunch of stuff like gimp, 3ds max, 200~ firefox tabs ( i need to clear those out ,i have 4 years of a web comic all spread out in tabs somewhere in there lol...)

NovaBench Test ResultsAMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5400+ @ 2800 MHz NovaBench Test ResultsCPU Tests (Score: 86)

- Floating Point Operations/Second: 42418186 - Integer Operations/Second: 20010908 - MD5 Hashes Generated/Second: 63560

but anyway, is there anything about opteron architecture that makes it unssuited for desktop computing? (like instruction sets?) as another point.

/me actually goes to bed this time.




*The.Doctor

Trust me, I'm a Doctor

102,440 XP

25th November 2003

0 Uploads

9,964 Posts

0 Threads

#2 8 years ago

Problem is that the new Opterons use a different socket that the desktop CPUs. They used to make them for the same sockets (939, AM2, ect), but now you need a server board to run them. I don't know much about these new ones, but the older models were always pretty much the same as the desktop versions. These new ones though look to be made for hugely multithreaded work, were clock speed isn't as important.

For gaming at least, the 1090T would stomp all over that X8 or X12 opteron since most games don't even make full use of 4 threads yet, and it has a much higher clock speed.

My last two processors before i got my i7 were Intel Xeons made for socket 775. They were identical to the standard C2D/C2Q versions in nearly every way, except the were rated for slightly less voltage, and i got them cheaper. =p




general_kerr

(Couldn't find a title)

50 XP

14th February 2007

0 Uploads

2,089 Posts

0 Threads

#3 8 years ago

Are opterons for efficient per clock than Phenom 2's ?

pipeline depth of 4 VS pipeline depth of 12...




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#4 8 years ago

Doesn't really matter when the clock speed smokes the opteron. Going for a server cpu for a gaming rig, or even a desktop rig, probably isn't going to add up to much. In fact it might cost you more money, for less performance.




general_kerr

(Couldn't find a title)

50 XP

14th February 2007

0 Uploads

2,089 Posts

0 Threads

#5 8 years ago

Actually, it does matter.

If you got a Pentium 4 to run at 10 GHZ, I'd bet* you a hundred bucks that that AMD phenom 2 @ 3.5 or whatever smokes it in performance.

Even in the days of the Pentium 4, the athlons were better although having much less clock speed.

* not really, i dont make bets.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#6 8 years ago

This isn't about P4's it's about Opteron's "server" CPU vs AMD's "flagship" CPU's - the phenom's. The consensus is, there is no reason to do it, unless paying more, for less, is the objective.




general_kerr

(Couldn't find a title)

50 XP

14th February 2007

0 Uploads

2,089 Posts

0 Threads

#7 8 years ago

then why aren't servers running phenom 2 X6?




ConstanceJill

Huh yeah, whatever ^^

38,761 XP

6th December 2006

0 Uploads

3,246 Posts

1 Threads

#8 8 years ago

I'd suspect it would be precisely because most servers have to... serve ^^ ... multiple clients at a time, even if those many clients each use very little of its capabilities, and thus actually make a much better use of multithreading over raw processing power.




D3matt

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

19th November 2007

0 Uploads

2,552 Posts

0 Threads

#9 8 years ago

Plus a phenom 2 probably generates more heat, which you don't want in a server farm.

EDIT: I just reread the posts above... Nevermind *facepalm*




*The.Doctor

Trust me, I'm a Doctor

102,440 XP

25th November 2003

0 Uploads

9,964 Posts

0 Threads

#10 8 years ago
then why aren't servers running phenom 2 X6?

Most servers are running more than one physical CPU. Opertons are designed for multi processor use, desktop CPU's are not. The new series also now supports quad channel memory IIRC.

Put two Opteron 6168's in a dual CPU G34 board and your getting 24 cores of processing power. You would need 4x Phenom II X6s to match that.