You are wrong. A multi-core or multi-processor system needs ECC because they are sharing the same memory. If ECC memory is not used, crashing will always occur and data corruption is likely. If processor A writes data in 10 - 20 and processor B writes data in 18 - 30, the program that processor A is running will likely get mixed results and/or crash. When ECC memory is used, processor A's data can verified before reading or writing. Same goes for processor B's data. ECC memory makes sure that each proessor does not steps on each others toes. ECC memory actually saves time when programs crash or saves money if data is calculated incorrectly. ECC memory only costs around 10 to 20 US dollars. It is really not a waste compared to the problems that shows up when using non-ECC memory.


btw, dasy2k1, please run a spell checker before posting. Its "the" not teh. last_survivor, please type the full word instead of abbreviations from instant messaging.

also remember that the new Intel Core2Duos do not have a set amount of L2 cache per cpu, if core #1 needs the full 2MB (or 4MB), it will use the whole thing, not only be limited to half.
The ECC situation has not been a problem since the Pentium2 days so I am sorry but your argument has not been really necessary for some time now. Any motherboard I/O since the pentium3 days has learned to hold whatever portion needed until it has a chance to send it through the memory it can access. So CPU-A may have 10-20 and CPU-B may be trying to access 18-30, that 18-20 will be held back a moment until CPU-A releases it, even for a moment.
I work for an ISP that has around 100 servers and only the critical ones need the ECC, otherwise if all it does is process the spam filter before sending it onto the storage server, there is no real need for ECC when the error happens on the I/O side (due to incoming spam connection terminating before it actually sends any real data, typically just pinging to verify it is a good server), not memory side.

ECC nowadays at the current costs, ECC can many times cost 150-300% the cost of the non-ECC type.

I belive taht most motherboards for desktop use now come with dual channel ram that lets each core use totally seperate memory (though i think that it can overlap if one core needs it all)
or at lest that is what i think dual channel ram does,

a point to make here is that i am not running a server! i am only wanting a decent desktop Comp with a bit of bang for compiling programes taht i download as source, or for crunching the occasional seti unit....

Definitely go Core 2 Duo, especially if you want an upgrade path to quad core in January.

ECC memory only costs up to 10 US dollars more for me. Do not be confused with parity memory. Parity memory is different and costs at least double.

My mission critical is having a reliable and stable desktop computer system for day to day tasks. If spending a few dollars more for ECC memory helps, I buy it. I did buy it. Right now, no problems compared to the problems that I had with non-ECC memory.

All software are loaded in memory before executing. Most processors contain ECC cache. Hard drives and DVD uses ECC. Why make the phyiscal memory be the weakest link in the computer even though this is where programs and data are stored before executing.

You can go ahead on using non-ECC memory, but I prefer ECC memory.

AMD Athlon64 4x4 also has an upgrade path. The BIOS just needs to be updated. I am just stating the obvious. I suggest doing homework to find out if Intel Core 2 Duo (quad core) is supported with the selecting motherboard model.

dasy2k1, dual-channel memory is like RAID-0. It increases the bandwidth. Instead of 64-bits. It is 128-bits. With 128-bit bandwidth, the computer can achieve the same bandwidth of 64-bits at half the speed. Higher the speed, higher the power consumption, so 128-bit memory bandwidth will consume less energy than 64-bits. Though the processor have to handle the bandwidth that memory can spit out in order to take advantage of dual-channel memory. The Duo processor shares its bandwidth with data from peripherals. AMD uses seperate I/O for memory and data which makes it have much higher memory bandwidth and probably provide less latency with peripherals.

DAISY, you will be best off with a Core2Duo cpu E6300 to 6600 with 1 to 2GB of DDR2 667 to 800 on a basic P965 chipset motherboard. If it is not for serious gaming and just want a good budget system, the E6400, 1GB DDR2-667 and P965 based motherboard would be best for that situation.


Electro:
As a serious hardware enthusiast for the past 12+ years, let me get a few things straight.
Ok my question is this... millions upon millions of desktops with dualcore CPUs have been sold since AMDs release of the X2 and Intel with the jerry-rigged PentiumD and very few if any of those dual cores have or need ECC or parity memory. Yet these millions and millions are unstable?
They were made to run with standard off the shelf every day PC3200 or DDR2 memory. AMDs memory controller handles the I/O that would prevent the very instability you claim. Intel has been placing the same code/chip into their chipsets and now directly into the Conroes. Why do you think that when the first desktop Pentium dual cores were released there were stability issues (even if it was a very small number of reported instances)? Bios updates helped circumvent this until Intel actually fixed it.
Not trying to be mean or condescending but according to your reasoning, since million of desktop and other computers that have more than one core in them using non-ECC memory that each and every one of them is unstable and crash prone? (Aside from using a Microsoft product but that is another topic)
Your own words... So your problems happen to extend to everyone? I have NEVER heard of ANYONE (enthusiasts to pros) EVER using ECC memory unless it is mission critical dual/quad Socket 940 mobo that is handling 2 million emails per day for 10,000 customers (as an example).
For business or commercial or industrial use, yes ECC is needed. Otherwise there is absolutely NO NEED to waste money on ECC.

Opinions do not equal facts. Yours is an opinion simply because of your experiences as one person. Millions of stable desktops with dual core processors using non-ECC memory is a fact. So I guess you are one out of a million.

Remember you are unique, just like everyone else

I am trying to keep this as light and on subject as possible with specific points to show the serious flaws with suggesting something that should not be.

Also the bit about 64 versus 128 bit? have you been reading the National Enquirer for your information?? 128 bit uses less energy than 64bit? hmmm 2 sticks of PC3200 memory in single channel configuration using 2.6V each or same 2 sticks running in dual channel at 2.6V each.. hmm 2.6 + 2.6 comes out to 5.2V no matter which way you add it up.
Dual channel doubles the bandwidth while keeping the voltage and power draw the same. It allows memory to receive data at the top of one signal while send on the bottom of the ame versus waiting for the next top to send then wait for next top to receive again.
More info can be found here:
http://www.kingston.com/newtech/MKF_...whitepaper.pdf

Millions of Athlon64 X2 and Pentium D processors sold. Doubt it. The amount is about 25,000 to 100,000. Not a lot people like to record the status of their problems.

My 80386 computer uses parity memory. Its reliability and stability is a lot better than systems today that uses non-ECC and/or Parity (aka registered) memory. I already state my reason in previous posts.

The software that you said that AMD and Intel has implemented is a band-aid fix, but not a true fix. The reason why I said this is because software has no way of knowing if the data in phyiscal memory is correct. It just hopes that it is correct. A true fix is using ECC memory which really does not cost much these days. ECC memory will make sure the data is truly correct. It is better to pay a little more for ECC memory, than spending time and money in the future trying to figure out what is the problem. Usually, in the future, replacement parts costs double. You can go ahead and use non-ECC memory, but soon you will see BSOD, segmentation faults, crashes, memory error prompts, kernel dumps.

You are confused with DDR and dual-channel memory. DDR is double data rate. Your description of dual-channel memory is wrong. You describe what DDR does. Dual-channel is not a total of voltage. If you run 5.2 volts through the chips, it will completely fry them. DDR voltage is greater or equal to 2.5. Dual-channel memory can be done in two ways. One way is one memory port and re-routing address pins, so the data bit path can be doubled. Another way is using two memory ports. Each port is handling seperate memory banks.

If there are DDR-800, the voltage of it will be 4 volts to compensate for data degration. If the system uses two DDR-400 in dual-channel mode, it will be slightly less power hungry than the DDR-800 in theory. Also the heat will be more spread out with the two DDR-400 modules in dual-channel mode. With the DDR-800, the heat will be concentrated on one module.

At newegg.com
Kingston 512 MB DDR2-800 ECC costs $89.99
Kingston 512 MB DDR2-800 non-ECC costs $82.99
The difference is $7.

I am sorry but you see things as they were 30 years ago and not in modern technology terms.

Plain and simple: ECC IS NOT NEEDED, REQUIRED OR SUGGESTED FOR ANY NON-SERVER USE.

Your opinion and single personal experience is clouding and diluting your facts.

on tyeh quetsion of EEC memory i most lilky woint buy it as there are few stockists where i am and i cant afford it! anyway my stem is definatly not mission critical, its not a server, not being reliced on to make moeny or anyting elce where the occsional reeboot will hurt it,,,, infact its liklyu to be swiched off a large proportion of teh time if im not using it!

before this thread turns into a flame war i suggest dropingf teh arguement abouyt memory, each to his own!

AMD X2s all the way.

2 AMD64 single cores(754): 3400+, 3000+
1 AMD64 single core (939): 3200+
1 AMD64 dual core (939): X2 3800+, dual channel memory, WDRaptor HDD.

I like AMD better than intel, because their business practices are much cleaner....anybody know what tricks Intel is up to?

I am the owner of a X2 without ECC memory and never have had a crash. Runs about 30 days until I find some need to reboot. ;-)

I thought ECC memory was only for mission critical servers that could NEVER afford to crash(with high memory throughput), not on a simple mythtv recording station.

Moving away from memory and back to intel vs amd.... all personal opinion myself, here is my story:

I have an Intel P4 2.66 in my desktop (nearly 6 years old now) and it just keeps on going, yes i have a few glitches here and there, but the things never been cleaned up, still on the same install as factory, it's chockers full of stuff and the Intel CPU is the only thing that never complains or fails, solid stuff in my opinion.

I have an Intel Core Duo 2 2.00Ghx in my laptop, and I still get nearly three hours of battery from it (that is with a 17inch screen and an nvidia geforcego 7900gtx 512ram and 2gb main
ram and a sata drive), to get that amazing power 64 bit dual core in such an efficient package is certainly whooping AMD off the table it's a show of just what Intel can do, of course we all know AMD will comeo out with something nice soon, and intel thereafter, it's a cat and mouse game between intel and amd, just like nvidia and ati, and bmw and mercedes and cadburys and nestle, nokia vs sony-ericsson... personally, i'd always go for an intel, bmw, nvidia, nestle and nokia!

Ok i've not really tried an AMD, but why do I need to, Intel does it spot on for me. I feel Intel has more of a dominance in the commercial/industrial CPU market and AMD in the consumer market.

Go for Intel, you know you want to, you won't regret it.

An AMD X2 on an AM2 socket is the only way to go right now. AMD have been out running Intels for a while now in my opinion.

AFAIK The Intel Core 2 Duos give a lot of bang, but for a lot of bucks.

www.tomshardwareguide.com

for some good benchmarks (read through one a little while ago)

If price is your problem, then go with the AMD because if you're on a tight budget the extra performance isn't worth the pretty large increase in price.

I despise Intel with all the fibre of my being.

I would rather run a 1 GHz AMD Duron Morgan Core than a 64 bit quad pumped Intel Core Duo with all the bells and whistles.

That being said...

Unbiased testing conducted in industry has shown the following to be true (i apologize for not citing sources, so take it as you will):

1- Intel dual Xeon systems are roughly 30% slower than AMD Dual Opterons of similar specification / price range.

2- Intel Pentium 4's never once broke the stranglehold that the AMD Barton held upon them.

3- AMD processors tend to run 25 % cooler than Intel comparable Intel units --- less heat means greater efficiency. Greater efficiency means a lower electric bill (not by much, but hey - it counts!) Also - due to the inherant properties of silicon, the warmer it stays, the sooner it takes a shit. Even in ideal conditions, processors will take a dive after 20 to 30 years. The more non-ideal you make it --- the quicker the silicon goes to hell. It may only be the difference between a 15 year and a 10 year lifespan, but it counts.

4- Microsoft Windows (yes I know, we don't like them, but the statement still holds weight) currently develops all Windows varieties on AMD architecture. It is obviously tested on Intel gear, but development and the bulk of testing is on AMD gear.

Hi everybody

It seems that each of us has a different opinion, and this is probably because each of us refers to his own experiences. A year ago I had similar questions like dasy2k1. After a thorough search, I got the following:
- Mobo ASUS A8N5-X (socket 939, nForce4, no SLI but still a solid, quality board...)
- Athlon64 3700+
- 2x1Gb DDR400 Kingston DIMM's
- VGA is from Albatron (...vanilla flavor since I was interested in CPU power only) GeForce 6200LQ PCI-e with 128Mb (up to 256Mb using TurboCache...)
- HDD is an (IDE) WD Caviar SE 80Gb/8Mb cache mem that was lying around idle...
- ...adding to the above a 3.5" floppy, a TEAC x52 CD-RW and DVD-ROM, all neatly packaged in a solid case, using sensible thermal design and decent power supply. Screen is a 17" 1730PSUP LCD from LG...
My target distro was SuSE GM 10.1, x86-64 flavor. Last but not least, Internet connection is through a (wired) ADSL modem/router from Speedstream (I believe Internet through wired ethernet is probably the easiest to setup comparing with wireless or other types of modems...). I opted for XFS (being rather partial to the old beloved SGI's :-)...)

My final conclusions are the following:

1. Installation was UNBELIEVABLY fast and easy (faster than Windows). SuSE got along really well with all pieces of hardware. Only the VGA I had to setup manually in order to enable 3D support with the "nvidia" driver vs. the default "nv" driver. Even that was a piece of cake. All one needs is to follow the instructions from the SuSE wiki. Same applies for the setup of the SAMBA server to work with some other Windows rigs...

2. Performance is excellent with the machine being fast (...and I mean FAST) as well as rock-solid. Also boot-up time is good (I have heard some complaints from Linux users, but average time is in the order of a typical WinXP machine...there are various arguments relating to the various filesystems. In the battle between ReiserFS/future Reiser, ext2/ext3 and XFS we don't have a clear winner yet, just pros and cons).

3. Minor glitches had only to do with SuSE 10.1 initial "birth defects" (I installed just after the official GM 10.1 release...), like the broken ZMD/libzypp, some discrepancy with the installation of a KDE patch and the screensaver not working. All of them got fixed afterwards through issued patches. If you use the Remastered media of 10.1, issued two weeks ago, you will not have to worry about any of these...

4. If you don't necessarily need the new package versions of 10.2, it is a prudent choice to opt for the more mature 10.1, at least until the GM 10.2 is well under way with all respective "birth defects" properly patched

5. For more GPU power, my best bet for now, regarding bang/buck would be the GeForce 7600GT with 256Mb from a respectable maker. For even more you can go for a 7950 or even an SLI pair...It seems that nVidia is the better choice over rival ATI but that may change in the future if AMD/ATI deside to go for the more Linux-friendly approach. In any case you can try for ATI...

6. I suppose that a SATA/SATA2 HDD would be a logical choice and it may bring some boost in performance. I would be hesitant though, to opt for RAID at the moment (...especially software RAID). At least not until all the associated problems are properly solved.

7. I built the described rig in the pro-Conroe era, but I would definitely say that I have no regrets. Even at 15% higher CPU speed for the Conroe the difference is not as dramatic as it sounds. In modern systems the bottleneck is not the CPU but the HDD, or in better terms, how much HDD access a certain process needs or how fast and how often the machine needs to resort to HDD usage. A major factor in this is RAM, i.e. how much RAM is available. For equal memory type, I would be willing to bet that the debate AMD vs. Intel is quite useless if one compares a Conroe system with 1Gb RAM versus a Ath64X2 system with 2Gb of RAM. If you need speed your first concern is to get the maximum amount of RAM your wallet (and system) will allow. It may also be the case (for jobs that require really large amounts of RAM and have run-time in the order of hours to even days like e.g. complex science calculations...) that one would be far better off buying much more RAM of a slightly lower frequency rather getting fewer and expensive high-frequency DIMMs, for the same amount of money.

8. The speed discussion in general is slightly philosophical if we are talking about jobs that complete in a matter of seconds or minutes. In order to feel a real difference you need LOOOONG app runtimes. And this is rather unusual for ordinary everyday apps. I am sitting over my Pentium4 (s478) 2.4GHz (Northwood core) that I got 3.5 years ago and typing this. It comes with 2Gb of DDR333 RAM. It would seem REALLY FUNNY if someone described this as a "slow" system :-).

9. If one needs to squeeze the last drop of performance per money spent out of his CPU, it is possible that a Conroe would be a better choice, IF one trusts published CPU benchmarks (which unfortunately are mainly completed in 32-bit Windows...). The benchmark that I would like to see would be Conroe vs. Ath64X2 in similar configurations, running he same 64-bit Linux distro (preferably SuSE :-) ) and e.g. executing the same run cases of a parallelized CFD problem in a 64-bit app like OpenFOAM. Measure run-times and THEN judge WHO is faster and WHAT the margin is.
As long as I don't see any benchmarks of THIS sort, I am holding my hat on the speed debate...

10. Going for total bang/buck, one should be better off checking all the options and just calculate the money to be spent versus the apps he will be willing to use. Following this approach, one goes for the CHEAPEST (reliable) rig that will allow him to work comfortably.

11. On the AMD vs. Intel debate, I have used Intel for 18 years. They make decent processors. I can say clearly that I was really impressed with AMD. From a perspective p.o.v. it seems that the Athlon64 as a design concept was a sure winner. I don't know about all the claims that with Conroe, Intel will be able to deliver a blow to AMD. One sure thing though, is that when the time comes to get a new CPU, 4-core or 8-core or whatever, I hope to be able to have the competitive choice between rival products and not a monopoly.

12. ECC or non-ECC RAM? This question is similar to getting a heavy overcoat for the winter. Do you need a bullet-proof lining? If you definitely want to deal with the possibility of getting shot at and you can afford it, by all means, go for it! If all that is sufficient is to keep you warm, well the bullet-proof lining may be a nice extra but more or less unnecessary. The only thing to make sure is that your overcoat will not have any holes for the cold and rain to pass.
In other words, even non-ECC RAM is good enough. If it is from a respectable maker and you run a burn-in RAM test for 12-24 hours on your rig without any errors, you are still Ok. Only for critical systems is ECC a prerequisite...

13. It is a good idea if one builds a new machine from parts (especially if it is not known in advance if all subsystems are 100% Linux compatible w/o fiddling with the kernel and drivers), to test the hardware first in a 100% compatible OS. I know this sounds despicable (:-) from a Linux user's p.o.v. but yes, I mean Windoze. Test your rig thoroughly, run benchmarks and applications and if all is well, go ahead, format the disk and install your favorite distro...

14. (and last) On the pros over the wired ethernet connection to an ADSL router, get this: On two other machines, normally running Windows, I was fully able to boot into SuSE 10.0 using the 32-bit Live-DVD and by just a DHCP refresh to recognize the ethernet/Internet connection and run a normal Firefox session!!! If this is not "Safe Internet Use" then what is?!!?

Good Luck to dasy2k1
Regards to everybody
JR

PS: If you are wondering, the 3700+ is a bit faster than one of the cores of the 4400+.