G5 xserve vs AMD Opteron server: affordable 64 Bit servers c...

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Jun 20, 2004.

  1. macrumors bot

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    #1
  2. mvc
    macrumors 6502a

    mvc

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    Outer-Roa
    #2
    Heavan forbid...

    .. a balanced assessment like that could severly undermine the job security of hundreds of supposed IT gurus. Where are the usual dismissive anti-mac rantings we have come to expect from the IT world? :rolleyes:
     
  3. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    #3

    I'm sure AMDZone will.

    They already question the 2.5 G5 is a 90nm processor.

    "John Liscomb sent in word of these diagrams of the Apple liquid cooling system of the PowerMac G5 2.5GHz. Like I said earlier there is a heatpipe. The diagrams clearly show the copper heatpipes, but ignore them completely. And if there was ever any doubt this is the 90nm version of the CPU."
    http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=743
     
  4. macrumors 68000

    Mav451

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Location:
    Maryland
    #4
    Well the conclusion says it all...G5 is good at floating point math (as anyone would know, with IBM chips), AMD is good at throughput (integrated memory controller + HT2.0); nothing new from what we already know.
     
  5. macrumors 68000

    pgwalsh

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    #5
    two things things.

    1. Apple needs to steop up and release a 64 bit version of OS X Server.

    2. Performance is good, but they don't mention how easy xserver and the tools are to administer. But that's for another article..
     
  6. macrumors 6502a

    thatwendigo

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Location:
    Sum, Ergo Sum.
    #6
    Actually, the article said something not quite the same as what you're saying. In a single paragraph of the article, it's stated that both systems are comparable on memory throughput, maxing out around 2GB/s on STREAM allocations with a single instance. Ramping up to eight instances reduced the Opteron 10 1.2GB/s and the G5 to 1.0GB/s, which is not a shabby result when one considers that the Opteron was not only running with on-die memory control, but also a fully 64-bit memory space and OS. However, the G5 is said to be strongly in the lead in I/O tasks, while the Opteron begins to bog down when either the processor or I/O systems are tasked. Also, the G5 Xserve "is more balanced with regard to computing and throughput power than Opteron, which is certain to remain the throughput champion in its price range for some time to come."

    As a final note, this ought to be hammered at the people who talk about incompatibility in Apple hardware:
    Both test systems booted and functioned perfectly right out of the box. We set about compiling a handful of open source tests and found, as we’d hoped, that every project we compiled for SuSE Linux on Opteron also compiled, unmodified, for OS X Server.​
     
  7. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    #7
    I am sure they will when G5s penetrate the market more. Alot of people use Mac OS X server and not all of them are on G5s. I'd say in a year or two Apple will have a 64-bit only Mac OS X Server.
     
  8. macrumors 68000

    Mav451

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Location:
    Maryland
    #8
    Something about that REALLY confuses me. Don't both the Opteron and G5 use the same HyperTransport for its I/O connections? Why would there be any difference? (unless the xServes are using the newer 2Ghz HT, compared to the 1.6Ghz HT that has been used since 2003).

    If they aren't, then there's your answer. However, if they are using the same HT technology, then the answer is in the software (OSX).
     
  9. Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #9
    It would be unlike InfoWorld's long-running history to be one-sided. They have been quite open to all systems, including Macs. The article had to be somewhat unbalanced simply because it was a look at hardware and 64-bit computing and Apple's solutions are always far more than just that.

    Everyone seems to be impressed with the drive throughput. It's exceptional work, especially since it uses UltraATA drives. They didn't mention that the 4th drive bay is gone now, though.
     
  10. macrumors 68000

    pgwalsh

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    #10
    The sooner the better IMO. Linux and Microsoft are pretty much there. However, I suppose it'll be a thorn in Apples side to support 32 and 64 bit with G4 and G5 xServe..
     
  11. macrumors G5

    nagromme

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    #11
    InfoWorld is a very long-standing and respected print publication and now a web source as well. And several of their highest people have recently become very pro-Mac. Some of the best Mac articles I've bookmarked are from InfoWorld.

    So much for Macs being wrong for IT!
     

Share This Page