Re: [gentoo-amd64] Is there any difference with 4 core?

["P.V.Anthony" <pvantony@singnet.com.sg>]

On this day, 02-August-2007 10:27 PM,  Bob Sanders wrote:
> P.V.Anthony, mused, then expounded:
>> I must say that I love the intel drivers for the network and sata. If 
>> only amd has some chip sets for their own cpus and good open source 
>> drivers for their chip sets. Intel has that covered and I think the 
>> intel drivers are open source.
>>
> 
> It's more the chipset than the drivers.  The Intel GigE chip controller
> has a built-in tcp offload engine that removes cpu loading of network
> traffic, if enabled in the Linux kernel. 
> 
> Of the available chipsets for AMD support, only Nvidia has a proprietary
> driver, thus the need for the reverse engineered driver.  Most non-Nvidia
> chipset platform for AMD use either Broadcom or Intel GigE chips.  And the
> Broadcom drivers have been well tested over the years.  So, other than
> TCP offload, I wouldn't avoid evaluating a specific option due to a concern
> about drivers.
> 
> SATA - again with AMD you have some options - nVidia or Broadcom, either work fine,
> as does the Intel SATA controller.  That said, be cautious of using the Intel
> software raid from the bios.  I've not found it to be consistantly implemented,
> nor for it to always work well.  Generally, unless a real hardware raid is offered,
> such as a LSI 1064 or 1068 SAS/SATA chip, stay with kernel supported software raid.
> 
> And SATA in general, in rack mount enclosures, can suffer in performace, especially
> in 1U enclosures due to fan vibration.  Inspect the fan mounting and insure that
> the fans are isolated from the chassis with rubber mounting bushings or grommits.
> 
> And make sure the latest bios, bmc, and other firmware is installed and up to date!
> It's important.
> 
> Don't confuse yourself by thinking that because Intel makes it's own chipset, that
> it's a better platform than anything available for AMD.  Intel has two goals for
> making it's own chipset - vertical control of it's market, thus maximizing it's profit,
> and because OEMs don't want to have to think about having to do any real engingeering
> when putting their logo on a platform.  AMD's being forced into the platform direction
> because of OEMs.
> 
> ALso, consider that while Intel does have very good engineering, it's entire platform
> is proprietary.  Only recently did it open up it's socket to counter AMD with
> programmable, pluggable ASICs.
> 
> AMD on the other hand runs on an open bus architecture.  So anyone can add things to it,
> with minimal licensing - making something for HyperTransport requires joining the
> consortium (and it's not part of AMD).  So it open source is important, I'd think
> you'd want an open platform, where you get to choose the best infrastructure
> for your computing needs.
> 
> Tyan offers both platforms to best meet what you think you're needs are.  And you should
> look at those needs in that perspective.  From your mix of apps, I'm not so sure the
> Intel platform is going to be the best.  It really depends upon the overall mix.  If
> you have more active database access than network traffic, then something with a higher
> sustained memory bandwidth, along with higher i/o bandwidth is going to provide much
> better performance.  If the mix is mostly crunching on data retrieved, thus lots
> of FP or integer activity, than cpus with large caches and speed are more important.
> 
> Typically, when compute power is more important to the mix, the Intel Core2 platform
> will perform the best.  When memory and i/o bandwidth are important - database
> transactions, the AMD platform delivers a higher sustained bandwidth.  And if
> the job mix is very peaky - lots of variations with long periods of lull time, 
> the AMD platform will deliver overall power savings and require less cooling for
> a decrese in peak performance.
> 
> Bob
> -  

Thank you very much. Real cool advice. This information is really very 
useful.

P.V.Anthony

-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list