Is AMD better or Intel better for Linux?

Is AMD better or Intel better for Linux?

Post by G. Hugh Son » Wed, 18 Dec 2002 07:21:58



Hi,

I am going to build a linux system running FORTRAN programs compiled by
either ifc or lahey.  Also I do a lot*processing.
At the high-end, is Intel P4 better or AMD Athlon XP better?

At the moment, I am comparing Intel D850 EMVR (hyperthread) or similar
and ASUS A7N8X.
(dual bus or something).

According to the SPEC CPU2000 result from Windows XP, Intel is supposed
to be better.
However, almost all my experience has been the opposite.
What has been your experience?

Thanks

Regards,

Hugh

 
 
 

Is AMD better or Intel better for Linux?

Post by Allen Cride » Wed, 18 Dec 2002 00:50:36



> Hi,

> I am going to build a linux system running FORTRAN programs compiled by
> either ifc or lahey.  Also I do a lot*processing.
> At the high-end, is Intel P4 better or AMD Athlon XP better?

Fortran? AMD

Quote:

> At the moment, I am comparing Intel D850 EMVR (hyperthread) or similar
> and ASUS A7N8X.
> (dual bus or something).

Hyperthreading might be nice.

Quote:

> According to the SPEC CPU2000 result from Windows XP, Intel is supposed
> to be better.

Bigger cache means that particular bench runs faster.

Quote:> However, almost all my experience has been the opposite.
> What has been your experience?

Haven't had an Intel for 10 years.

When I upgrade CPUs, I get whatever costs around US$75. That means AMD. I
upgrade every year.

Quote:

> Thanks

> Regards,

> Hugh


 
 
 

Is AMD better or Intel better for Linux?

Post by John-Paul Stewar » Wed, 18 Dec 2002 08:28:04



> Hi,

> I am going to build a linux system running FORTRAN programs compiled by
> either ifc or lahey.  Also I do a lot*processing.
> At the high-end, is Intel P4 better or AMD Athlon XP better?

If you're going to use ifc, go with an Intel CPU.  ifc [the
Intel Fortran Compiler, for those unfamiliar with it] knows
nothing about optimizing for an Athlon and just about
everything there is to know about optimizing for a P4.  

I'm not familiar with lahey, so I can't comment on its
optimization abilities.

 
 
 

Is AMD better or Intel better for Linux?

Post by M?ns Rullg? » Wed, 18 Dec 2002 21:10:45



Quote:> I am going to build a linux system running FORTRAN programs compiled by
> either ifc or lahey.  Also I do a lot*processing.
> At the high-end, is Intel P4 better or AMD Athlon XP better?

Is intel high-end at all?  Get a SPARC or something else with a proper
floating-point unit.

--
M?ns Rullg?rd

 
 
 

Is AMD better or Intel better for Linux?

Post by Cyru » Wed, 18 Dec 2002 23:22:56



> At the moment, I am comparing Intel D850 EMVR (hyperthread) or similar
> and ASUS A7N8X.
> (dual bus or something).

Intel has been able to take the lead in performance over the last year,
but AMD still is the best value. If money is no object, then you may want
to go intel.

I am trying to decide what to buy for a new machine that will be only
running Linux. It seems that there are fewer linux tests on the web than
there used to be. I would like to go with the Nforce2 chipset (A7N8x)but
the support for Linux on this chipset is lagging because it is so new. The
only downside to the Intel 850 series (other than price) is the need for
rambus memory. Granted it is not as expensive as it once was.

Good Luck!

 
 
 

Is AMD better or Intel better for Linux?

Post by David Konerdin » Thu, 19 Dec 2002 02:20:02




>> I am going to build a linux system running FORTRAN programs compiled by
>> either ifc or lahey.  Also I do a lot*processing.
>> At the high-end, is Intel P4 better or AMD Athlon XP better?

For the original poster: hard to say whether the P4 or the AMD is "better".  In the value
space the Athlon looks a little better but the P4 definitely wins for higher performance
if you can leverage the chip features. Since you are using ifc, you should definitely be
able to leverage the features that gave them a good score on this test (IE, recognizing
opportunities to use the SSE2 instruction set).

Quote:> Is intel high-end at all?  Get a SPARC or something else with a proper
> floating-point unit.

Where have you been for the last 5 years?   Nearly all modern general
CPUs implement IEEE math to a degree that the results are just as "proper"
from an Intel.  But more importantly, I know of no published data that makes
the Sun appear a high end floating point unit:

SpecFP2000 single processor:
                                                      SPEC FP2000 REsult
hp server rx5670 (1000 MHz, Itanium 2)                1431
IBM eServer pSeries 650 Model 6M2 (1450 MHz, 1 CPU)   1295
Dell 3.06GHz Intel P4                                 1103
hp AlphaServer GS320 68/1224                          1014
AMD Athlon (TM) XP 2800+                               843
Sun Blade Model 2050                                   827

which places the Sun at the same spot as a Dell 2.0 GHz P4.  

Now of course, it's possible Sun will come out with some faster UltraSPARC
benchmark results and have them published by next round of Spec. But by then,
Intel will have cranked up their core another half gigahertz.  Or maybe they
haven't bothered to publish results based on their fastest CPUs (can't compete in
the HPC space).

The future of high performance computing will be dominated by IBM and Intel as they are the
only companies with the resources to design and build monsters that chew up electrons and
spit out floating point numbers.  

Dave

 
 
 

Is AMD better or Intel better for Linux?

Post by Steven Ros » Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:22:26


<snip>

Quote:>> I am going to build a linux system running FORTRAN programs compiled by
>> either ifc or lahey.  Also I do a lot*processing.
>> At the high-end, is Intel P4 better or AMD Athlon XP better?

> Fortran? AMD

Not in this case, he is going to use ifc, the Intel Fortran Compiler. It
knows nothing about optimizing for an AMD cpu, but it sure can optimize for
a Pentium 4. Thus, you are going to find the P4 a shoe-in for this scenario
as long as you have a large budget to spend.

Quote:>> At the moment, I am comparing Intel D850 EMVR (hyperthread) or similar
>> and ASUS A7N8X.
>> (dual bus or something).

> Hyperthreading might be nice.

Hyperthreading could be nice, I agree. (As long as you have the budget for
the newest Intel chip.)

<snip>

Quote:>> However, almost all my experience has been the opposite.
>> What has been your experience?

> Haven't had an Intel for 10 years.
> When I upgrade CPUs, I get whatever costs around US$75. That means AMD. I
> upgrade every year.

I've had both brands for the last 8 years, and I tend to upgrade every year
or so. They both have their pros and cons. I tend to like the stability of
my Intel setups -- I use the Intel chipsets. My only problem with the AMD
side is the IMO terrible VIA chipsets. I have had several boards with VIA
chipsets all the way from the MVP3 series through the KT133 series. I
disliked them all on stability. I do have a celeron 700 in the corner that
has a VIA chipset in it, though, and it has never given me a problem. (Then
again, it is just a file server, too :)

<snip>

~Steve

 
 
 

Is AMD better or Intel better for Linux?

Post by Allen Cride » Thu, 19 Dec 2002 20:35:59




> <snip>
>>> I am going to build a linux system running FORTRAN programs compiled by
>>> either ifc or lahey.  Also I do a lot*processing.
>>> At the high-end, is Intel P4 better or AMD Athlon XP better?

>> Fortran? AMD

> Not in this case, he is going to use ifc, the Intel Fortran Compiler. It
> knows nothing about optimizing for an AMD cpu, but it sure can optimize
> for a Pentium 4. Thus, you are going to find the P4 a shoe-in for this
> scenario as long as you have a large budget to spend.

And as long as you're working with integers as opposed to floats!
Quote:

>>> At the moment, I am comparing Intel D850 EMVR (hyperthread) or similar
>>> and ASUS A7N8X.
>>> (dual bus or something).

>> Hyperthreading might be nice.

> Hyperthreading could be nice, I agree. (As long as you have the budget for
> the newest Intel chip.)

> <snip>

>>> However, almost all my experience has been the opposite.
>>> What has been your experience?

>> Haven't had an Intel for 10 years.
>> When I upgrade CPUs, I get whatever costs around US$75. That means AMD. I
>> upgrade every year.

> I've had both brands for the last 8 years, and I tend to upgrade every
> year or so. They both have their pros and cons. I tend to like the
> stability of my Intel setups -- I use the Intel chipsets. My only problem
> with the AMD side is the IMO terrible VIA chipsets. I have had several
> boards with VIA chipsets all the way from the MVP3 series through the
> KT133 series. I disliked them all on stability. I do have a celeron 700 in
> the corner that has a VIA chipset in it, though, and it has never given me
> a problem. (Then again, it is just a file server, too :)

> <snip>

> ~Steve

 
 
 

1. Which is better AMD vs Intel

Linuxers,

I am in the process of upgrading my system hardware and OS (to hedhat5.0
from win95, another convert). Will AMD K6 (say a 200mhz w/ mmx) work
with redhat 5.0? Would an intel work better (any difference)?  My system
will run (redhat) linux only.

My understanding is that linux (redhat 5.0) has 2 video options (xfree86
and Metro-X).  Which is better and which graphics card is recommended?
Presently,I have a Diamond stealth64 4meg video vram. I can change if
necessary.

Thanks in advance for your time and consideration.

Bill Dale

2. Alpha Diamond Forums

3. Which is better: AMD Athlon XP 1800+ or Intel Pentium 2 GHz?

4. test only

5. typescript problem under 99.12

6. AMD Thunderbird vs AMD XP: what is better?

7. Linux & OnTrack Disk Manager

8. Red Hat Results - better and better

9. Is Windows NT a better VMS or a better Unix ?

10. better hw -> better sys

11. Linux scales better than Windows says Intel, zdNET.co.uk

12. Better Linux performance Intel or Cyrix ???