AMD processors? Good...bad...??

vous · 08-22-2003, 05:27 PM

Hello all,

I am thinking about buying a server with AMD procesors...(I've used Intel and SPARC mostly...) Do any of you have had good/bad experiences installing and using Linux with these procesors?

cnjohnson · 08-22-2003, 08:15 PM

AFAIK, all the major distros support the AMD processors either alone or as a symetric pair. Any problems I have heard about are with motherboards. Buy the highest quality you can absolutely afford. That's no joke. It is a crime to waste a good processor (AMD or INTEL) on a motherboard with an unstable configuration or chip set.

Have a look here:

http://www.hardwareguys.com/picks/picks.html

Robert Bruce Thompson has done a fair amount of research on these issues (he is the author of O'Reilley's PC Hardware In A Nutshell). While you may not go with his suggestions, they are a reasonable place to start.

Cheers--
Charles

Cafrow · 08-23-2003, 05:23 AM

I have an AMD 2200XP with an MSI k7n2 motherboard, Liteon 24X burner, Pioneer 4X DVD Burner, Seagate 120GigHD, ATI Radeo 9000 pro, SB Live. Use a MS optical mouse and cheap Memorex Keyboard with a 17" micron monitor. Have not had any problem with the hardware.

slakmagik · 08-23-2003, 08:45 AM

After nothing but Intels, I've got a 1.1GHz Athlon XP. Slackware and Mandrake installed with no problems and Debian installed with no AMD-specific problems.

I haven't had any problems with it and it seems faster than my 1.2GHz Celeron, despite the numbers. Also, as I understand, they tend to have fewer of those subtle bugs that sometimes creep into Intel chips. Don't really know about all that, though - I just know I'm happy with it.

AMD processors? Good.

acid_kewpie · 08-23-2003, 11:13 AM

the processors aer great, the way it generally works is that Intel CPU's are higher speed, but AMD CPU's provide vastly better value , $/Hz etc.... they also run a little hotter, so sometimes benefit from slightly more cooling power, but i'd never buy an Intel CPU... the name is all you really pay for.

DrOzz · 08-23-2003, 11:32 AM

all i have to say is, amd beats intel hands down, and thats not only a personal opinion, thats a fact...
and this is all you need to see that plus owning one

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...6_8799,00.html
and seriously, i just want you to take note of the FSB, oh and i have to throw in this quote:

Quote:

ï¿½
The front side bus (interface to memory) of the AMD Opteronâ„¢ processor runs at the speed of the processor

now that is totally amazing

and yes i know i am showing stuff from the opteron, but i guaruntee you if you went and got a 3000+ or 3200+ barton processor that it would out perform intels latest hunk of sylicone (or however you spell that

)

Electro · 08-23-2003, 03:03 PM

It is a fact that AMD processors has a good Hz/price ratio than Intel. I have an AMD 80386DX-40 that out does an Intel 80486DX-33. The AMD system last me from 1992 to 1996. AMD processors are always fast for day to day business. If you are encoding multimedia files, Intel will be faster because of its faster memory bus. IMO, I still think hyperthreading in Intel processors is a gimmick.

vous, I suggest you wait until the Althon 64 FX comes out or get an Opteron 2 gigahertz with an nForce3 board. Nvidia is the only one that has AGP slots for the 64 bit procesor. The 64-bit processor will give you near SPARC performance.

Anandtech or Toms Hardware are more up to date than Hardware Guys. Though there are several more. Use google's related sites option to find more.

The heat problem is one disadvantages for AMD processors. They execute one more instruction than Pentium 4s, so it takes a little more to execute those instructions. How will it feel if you did four things at once? I bet you will be much hotter when doing four things than doing three things at once.

AMD processors doesn't have a Hz/temperature feature like Intel processors, so AMD processors are always on fully--like a Class-A amplifier.

Right now, I would not buy an AMD 32-bit processor because thier 64-bit processor for the desktop will be coming out soon. If you want a system right now I suggest buy Nvidia's nforce2 single memory channel version instead of the dual memory channel version. You will save a lot of money of buying one memory module instead of two. You can use that money for more memory.

tripolitan · 08-23-2003, 06:42 PM

I am running a dual-processor AMD workstation 2XAMD MP2000/ASUS A7M266-D mobo with 512 ECC registered RAM. This mobo is overkill for my hardware as I do not have any use for 64bit PCI expansion slots but the price was right. RH and Mandrake detected all hardware options included with the mobo.

Brian1 · 08-23-2003, 07:04 PM

I myself was always an Intel kind of guy. But found a great deal on the following. One workstation with 2 - 2200mp athlons & 1 gig ecc reg memory on a Tyan S2462UGN. Runs perfect.

Brian

joe_blow_22 · 08-24-2003, 04:14 AM

If ya got money to through away buy an intel(assuming everything else is good as it gets) if not buy the amd. The proc dont mean to much if you don't have the harware to use it. I had a 450mhz amd with a 7200rpm drive and swapped it with my 2000xp with a old 6 gig drive 5400rpm i think and the 450 beat it hands down, same goes if you deprive your machine of ram or have slower speed ram.

leonscape · 08-24-2003, 04:20 AM

The best price/performace Supercomputer has just been annouced with Athlon XP 2600+ Processors using a Linux beowulf cluster.

I think that says it all.

http://aggregate.org/KASY0/press.html

joel112 · 08-24-2003, 05:00 AM

i have 2 x 2800mp procs on an asus a7m266-d with tons of other hardware, and slackware loves it.... fast as owt, much nicer than intel options, and lighter on the wallet... when the opterons drop in price, they will wipe the floor with intel, espacally with the new 2.6.x kernal being 64bit capable

Electro · 08-24-2003, 03:02 PM

For those INTEL fans that think the new processor based on Prescott core will be fast. Read below

Quote:

Small quantities of the AMD Athlon 64 FX “San Diego” microprocessors made using 90nm fabrication technology in either AMD Fab30 in Dresden, Germany, or in IBM’s East Fishkill facility, will be available at the end of the first quarter next year, whereas massive quantities are expected to hit the market in the second quarter (Anton). Their core-clocks are very likely to be 2.60GHz or beyond to beat Intel’s Prescott processors at 3.60 – 3.80GHz that also have 1MB of L2 cache (Anton).
Shilov, Anton. "AMD Athlon 64 FX San Diego Exposed". X-bit Labs. August 22, 2003. http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...822080030.html

Quote:

The best price/performace Supercomputer has just been annouced with Athlon XP 2600+ Processors using a Linux beowulf cluster.

That is not the first time. I company that specialize in making cluster computers or know as Beowulf compared Intel Pentium III and AMD Athlon. AMD processors won the Hz/price and gigaflops even with fewer processors. Sorry, I lost the link since several formats ago.

I rather go with AMD processors. The history of INTEL processors had some bugs in the FPU. I haven't seen or read one bug in the x86 lines from AMD.

Guust · 08-24-2003, 03:39 PM

I have a AMD 700 mhz computer for about 3 years now, and no problems. This is just my personel experience, but my next PC will have an AMD processor. I'll keep the extra money for something else (bigger disks or more ram).

let yourself go and buy an Opteron :-)

Guust

DrOzz · 08-24-2003, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by joe_blow_22
If ya got money to through away buy an intel(assuming everything else is good as it gets) if not buy the amd.

thats the craziest thing i have ever heard....if you have money to throw away or not, do not blow it on a intel chip....dont' get caught up in the numbers....amd beats intel....and thats that...