Fedora Linux Support Community & Resources Center
  #1  
Old 7th July 2005, 04:00 PM
BMillikan Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Florida
Age: 44
Posts: 51
Arrow AMD vs. PPC vs. Intel Benchmarks?

Anyone know of any good benchmarking sites for FC4? I'm looking for the best "bang" for your buck. I'm aware of Apple's move to use x86 processors. However, I'm currently hosting an Apache web server, Apple Darwin Server, Samba File Server (for my network), and various other small servers on an AMD Athlon XP 2000+ system w/1GB of memory. Boot drive is a PIDE 133 MB/s drive. Main drive (where /home is) is on a 2x100 GB/s RAID 0 array (using LVM).

However, I found an Apple dual-G4 w/2GB of mem and all the other bells and whistles for around $500. That's a pretty good deal! I'm just wondering what other people's experiences are.

I'm planning on getting a dual-core AMD x2 soon as a Windows box (it's where I do all my DVD processing and other processor-intensive processing) which will move my current Windoze box (an AMD64 3000+) to become my Linux box.

So, the question is.... what is the right path? What I'm currently doing or getting a $500 dual-core powerpc?

Thanks,
Brian
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 7th July 2005, 04:25 PM
Firewing1 Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Age: 26
Posts: 9,223
Mac's are good, but not widely supported for Linux. Notice how all packages have .i386 on the end? That's cause they'll only work on x86 (Intel) or x86_64 (AMD) systems. For PPC, you'll have to find packages the long, hard way. I've had great experience with my Dell. Not many problems, easy, fast... Even better for you, the new ones come up to 3.06 GHz with HT extreme
Firewing1
__________________
[+] My open source software and blog
[+] Some of my howtos: (for full list, click here)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 8th July 2005, 03:35 AM
crackers Offline
Retired Community Manager
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Age: 60
Posts: 3,423
Benchmarks doing what, exactly? You will get more overall processing ability just because of the SMP kernel, but you'd probably only get (roughly) 1.5 times the "serving ability", just because each processor has it's own thread pool.
__________________
Linux User #28251 (April '93)
Professional Java Geek :cool:
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 8th July 2005, 03:48 AM
Optimal Aurora Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: somewhere between dimensions...
Posts: 261
the G5 64bit processors are just rock solid and graphics beast, even the athlon fx and athlon x2 64bit archs couldn't touch them. The Athlon fx is good for PC usage and gaming though... And the Athlon 64 and X2 are good for all around usage... The EM64T from Intel is for lack of a better word in my opinion a piece of crap. Why, because it doesn't and isn't optimize to boost performance anymore than you could get with a HT P4 running at 3.8GHz. It doesn't really have the advantages that IBM's Power Processors have for the desktop and server Mac platforms or the Athlon 64 and Opteron and the new Turion have for the PC platform.
__________________
Later...
Aurora...

Quote:
Knowledge is Power and Power you are going to need to be a computer programmer.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 8th July 2005, 04:16 AM
kona0197 Offline
The Wibble Rouser
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Age: 41
Posts: 4,276
AMD will always give you the most bang for your buck - and AMD will always outperform Intels processors.

BTW Firewing1 - x86 works on AMD 32 bit processors as well...
__________________
HP Notebook | Intel Pentium N3540 Quad-Core CPU - 2.16 GHz | 4 GB DDR3 RAM | 500 GB HDD | Intel HD Graphics | Windows 10

No fate but what we make...
My Blog: kona0197.wordpress.com
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 8th July 2005, 04:34 AM
justincataldo Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 130
At the moment I've got an AMD64 3000+ as my desktop machine and a PIII 800MHz as my file server. The purpose of my server is to store all my files, and also to run a few different services, including mysql, squid, samba, ssh, ftp, httpd, etc.

As well as the primary hard drives in each machine I also have a 320GB hard drive in each machine which I store all my data on. I use rsync to keep the disk in my AMD machine up to date with the disk in the PIII. That way, if either of them crash, I still have my data.

(I do a lot of audio and video editing, hence the need for large amounts of space).

I think this set up works well for me, because I have a fast machine to do all the CPU intensive tasks, and a slow machine for everything else which does not require a lot of processing power.

My advice would be to stick with the AMD 2000+ you currently have, because it suits your needs.

Having said that, if you were to buy the Apple you'd learn a lot about setting up an SMP kernel, etc.

I work in I.T. and I believe it is definately a neccessary evil to get as much hardware and software as possible and play with it all so that I have an extensive knowledge about everything. I bought an old Apple iBook from Ebay last year just so I could learn all about OSX and Apple hardware and software in general. (People tend to expect me to know stuff about things I didn't cover at uni... but I like exploring new things so that's ok). Funnily enough, I found that Yellow Dog Linux ran much better than OSX did, but that's to be expected since it was old hardware and didn't even meet the specs for OSX (it was a G3 333MHz with 128MB RAM).

But I think the idea of getting a dual core CPU and making the AMD64 your next server is a great idea. I plan to do the same.

I guess the bottom line with Linux, is that you are going to have more support and flexibility with older, more common hardware.

Good luck in whatever you decide.

Last edited by justincataldo; 8th July 2005 at 04:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 8th July 2005, 04:51 AM
aus_trade Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3
Cool AMD good but limited support

I have to say that .. I bought a new dream machine... an ASUS A8N-SLI mobo with a 3500+ processor....
the only problem is... that FC3 wouldnt install on it without me changing run levels and manually updating stuff. A bit of a steep learning curve.

NOW FC4 is out and thats great.. and it installs .. but there is limited and only dodgy support = at least as far as I have found - for AMD-64 buillds
I added in dags etc (not livna) and str8 away get an issue with an update.
A lot of the stuff I want isnst available for 64 bit - and Im gathering that you can still install the 386 builds for apps but IM not sure if there are issues, traps or risks with that...
So I would recommend installing only the 386 build.
Id have to think that the ppc support would be even more limited... unless maybe suse or something might support well ?>

as for Intel versus AMD 64 - well - all I can say Is Ive always preferred the AMD chips...

thats just based on a newbies experience and frustrations !
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 8th July 2005, 05:10 AM
kona0197 Offline
The Wibble Rouser
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Age: 41
Posts: 4,276
One of Intel's newest chips compared to AMD chips. Notice that Intel falls short?

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/200...iew_pentium_d/
__________________
HP Notebook | Intel Pentium N3540 Quad-Core CPU - 2.16 GHz | 4 GB DDR3 RAM | 500 GB HDD | Intel HD Graphics | Windows 10

No fate but what we make...
My Blog: kona0197.wordpress.com
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 8th July 2005, 10:11 AM
maclinux Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 47
As far as servers go, Opterons and Power5 are probably the best.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 8th July 2005, 12:55 PM
BMillikan Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Florida
Age: 44
Posts: 51
Server(s)

Quote:
Originally Posted by crackers
Benchmarks doing what, exactly?
Acting as a server. My linux box is mostly a server-only box. Actually there's a couple of servers running on it (Apache and Apple's Darwin... plus Samba for file transfers and such to the web page directory and home directories).

I think the previous reply makes a good point. The ppc kernel is not widely supported yet and most everything is for the x86 platform. So, I'll probably go with the AMD64 computer. I realize it won't give me the SMP performance, but I'm afraid some of the hardware won't be support on that dual-proc Apple.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 8th July 2005, 01:13 PM
BMillikan Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Florida
Age: 44
Posts: 51
Question Good Data

Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimal Aurora
the G5 64bit processors are just rock solid
I work with PowerPCs on a daily basis for embedded applications. I've worked multi-G3 custom boards for some very serious processing! We looked at replacing those with a single G4 (using AltiVec). I haven't looked much into the G5 processor, but I know the G4 had an internal 128-bit bus to the L1 cache and 64-bit external bus. That's pretty impressive. PowerPC was WAY ahead of Intel and/or AMD on the 64-bit thing. I remember that because when using the AltiVec instructions, the memory fetch took two "memory" cycles (I don't remember how many instruction cycles this was, it was generally pretty fast because these were custom boards with very low latency memory) instead of one. The up side (and possibly the down side also) is the memory-mapped architecture. In order to have peripherals, you have to give up memory space. Intel/AMD has a special I/O instruction ("in" and "out" instead of "mov") to talk to I/O devices.

I agree with you on Intel. They're making crap. I think their best engineers went to work for AMD! AMD has been "smoking" them on new designs!

I think you're probably right about the G5 vs AMD (even the proc dual-core) being better in performance because I knew what they could do 5 years ago! I've always preferred the PowerPC architecture to Intel (or Intel-like). But, I want to run Windows apps and never bought a Mac. When I retired my old Windoze computer, it became my Web server and I decided to use Linux (for performance and cost reasons). I guess my greatest concern is support of the ppc kernel since Apple is the only vendor for PowerPC architectures and they're moving to x86 architectures.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 8th July 2005, 03:16 PM
maclinux Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 47
The only good thing Intel made in the past few years was the Pentium M and Centrino platform. As far as battery life and performance they beat AMDs new Turion when running both under a 32 bit system.
PowerPC Linux support will still continue because Apple said they wernt going to stop using PowerPC right away, but over about 5 to 6 years. Also IBM will still make servers that use the PowerPC processor and will sell many with Linux. IBM alone could continue PowerPC Linux support. One more thing to remember is that IBM is the largest seller of servers in the world and they sell many servers with Linux.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 8th July 2005, 04:21 PM
sueltraz Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimal Aurora
the G5 64bit processors are just rock solid and graphics beast, even the athlon fx and athlon x2 64bit archs couldn't touch them.
That simply isn't true. And you'll forgive me if I have problems trusting Apple's benchmark after their so called "Fastest PC in the World" faux paux when the G5 first came out.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 8th July 2005, 04:33 PM
maclinux Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 47
Notice how its the fastest "PC" in the world not fastest workstation or fastest server. One thing to note when Apple said that it was before any athlon 64 bit processor was released. Also when the benchmarks were done the Intel and AMD systems were using Windows XP which is what most "PCs" use.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 8th July 2005, 05:31 PM
sueltraz Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 105
First of all, the use of semantics is tricky, underhanded marketing. Second, independed benchmarking (from several different sources) from the time proved that the G5 was no faster than the fastest AMD offerings at the time. Not to mention, the price of a G5 was indicative of a workstation. And the PowerPC architecture obviously doesn't have much to offer over competitors if Apple is switching to Intel processors.

And the whole defense of PC instead of workstation is one of the flimsiest defenses I have ever heard. Apple was caught with their pants down (especially when it was reveleaded that any performance enhancing features of either AMD or Intel chips was disabled, while the performance enhancing features of the PPC chip were enabled).

The fact of the matter is, you can never trust benchmarks from the company that produces the product. They will be biased...either intentionally, or unintentionally.

Last edited by sueltraz; 8th July 2005 at 05:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Intel xorg driver kills screen (black) and keyboard on Intel GMA X4500 CrysisGod Installation, Upgrades and Live Media 2 9th December 2009 11:32 PM
Ubuntu Wipes Windows 7 In Benchmarks leigh123linux Linux Chat 16 27th February 2009 05:28 PM
Any database / applications for benchmarks? Xinu Using Fedora 2 22nd May 2005 12:16 AM
Anandtech Benchmarks Fedora, Suse, and Windows XP Bana News 17 6th August 2004 09:47 AM


Current GMT-time: 14:41 (Thursday, 27-07-2017)

TopSubscribe to XML RSS for all Threads in all ForumsFedoraForumDotOrg Archive
logo

All trademarks, and forum posts in this site are property of their respective owner(s).
FedoraForum.org is privately owned and is not directly sponsored by the Fedora Project or Red Hat, Inc.

Privacy Policy | Term of Use | Posting Guidelines | Archive | Contact Us | Founding Members

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

FedoraForum is Powered by RedHat