Page 3 of 6
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:49 pm
by CruzerMX
lol
one opteron beats any regular amd64 any day
unless its an expensive one
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:33 pm
by echelon
BigG wrote:Pffff *one* Opteron, you need at least four
u've got 4??? or is that just wishful thinking??
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:07 am
by CrAzYfOoL
lol !
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:10 am
by CruzerMX
haha. i dont think four is possible. two is with expensive server specific mobos...
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:14 am
by echelon
CruzerMX wrote:haha. i dont think four is possible. two is with expensive server specific mobos...
I'm sure someone has figured out how to get 4 working.. someone with too much money and too much time!!
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:53 am
by CrAzYfOoL
im sure panmaster could do it
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:25 am
by cocodude
echelon wrote:CruzerMX wrote:haha. i dont think four is possible. two is with expensive server specific mobos...
I'm sure someone has figured out how to get 4 working.. someone with too much money and too much time!!
You can get two Opterons on one card, which slots into a 4-slot server case (about 3U - a HP model). Thus, at least for a machine we have at work, you can have up to 8 Opterons. It's rather nice.
Cocodude
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:56 pm
by echelon
ahh nice 8... thats gotta be gratifying
panmaster are u getting that for x-mas????
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 5:26 pm
by PanMaster
Just to clarify, cruzerMX is referring the socket 939 opterons not 940 which have been clocking extremely well unsurprisingly because they have the same stepping as the FX-57 which costs 5 times as much. Unfortunately AMD is withdrawing them from consumer sale to system builders only as Athlon64 sales have suffered.
As for getting multi-CPU systems, it is pointless, as only a few games officially support two cores such as F.E.A.R, although there seems to be no performance difference. An 8-way opteron system or any socket 940 system has many drawbacks such as Windows only supporting 2 cores and the required use of expensive, slow registered RAM. I don't recommend upgading to dual-core until socket M2 is available.
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 5:30 pm
by echelon
PanMaster wrote:Just to clarify, cruzerMX is referring the socket 939 opterons not 940 which have been clocking extremely well unsurprisingly because they have the same stepping as the FX-57 which costs 5 times as much. Unfortunately AMD is withdrawing them from consumer sale to system builders only as Athlon64 sales have suffered.
As for getting multi-CPU systems, it is pointless, as only a few games officially support two cores such as F.E.A.R, although there seems to be no performance difference. An 8-way opteron system or any socket 940 system has many drawbacks such as Windows only supporting 2 cores and the required use of expensive, slow registered RAM. I don't recommend upgading to dual-core until socket M2 is available.
once again panmaster u're a duche!! multi-cores for GAMING!!! wat the hell r u thinking... of course that would be a waste.. but there is far more to computers than gaming... and also windows can max use 2 cores.. yes, but no-one ever talked bout using windows.. its kinda obvious that these would be linux servers!!! linux knows how to properly use power
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 5:31 pm
by BigG
a) Since when did we say we would be playing games on it and
b) Since when did we say we were going to install winblows on it...?
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:59 pm
by cocodude
Fucksmudge wrote:I don't recommend upgading to dual-core until socket M2 is available.
If you don't recommend it, then why do you have the X2 logo as your avatar? I think you should read the posts by echelon and BigG and understand that, thank heavens, you are not representive of every computer user in the world.
Cocodude
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:51 pm
by BigG
Just thought that I'd post this
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27991 link... note especially the bit about the processors and the OS that they are using
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:03 pm
by echelon
hehe nice..
Actually I remember reading that currently linux has by far the majority share of new servers being built today. It has completely conquered the server market and a lot of other servers (like Microsoft Server 2003 etc) are being slowly replaced by linux servers. The home-user and desktop/laptop environment conquest is going far slower. The main reason for this obviously is that most administrators know how to use linux and have it themselves so of course they also make sure the build linux systems for organisations they work for.
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:41 pm
by CruzerMX
and the fact that all software written for windows would have to be written for linux to break compatability barriers so that people actually had a choice instead of being forced to use windoze.