PDA

View Full Version : Newbie questions about 64-bit systems


Humga
August 1st 04, 11:58 PM
I'm a very experienced computer system builder :D But so far all systems
I've built are around the Athlon XP 32-bit ones. Never touched any 64-bit
stuff.

So could anyone (preferably those who has a 64-bit AMD and had used an AMD
32-bit CPU/mobo) point out the most important things I need to know before I
proceed onto built my friend's new 64-bit pc?

eg, Do existing PCI cards work with a 64-bit mobo?
eg, Do they still use FSBxMultiplier = speed?
eg, Will existing applications work? Will there be exceptions? How about
games (and 3D DX9.. ones)?
eg, Power supply standards?


Thak you very much :)

Ben Pope
August 2nd 04, 02:30 AM
Humga wrote:
> I'm a very experienced computer system builder :D But so far all systems
> I've built are around the Athlon XP 32-bit ones. Never touched any 64-bit
> stuff.
>
> So could anyone (preferably those who has a 64-bit AMD and had used an AMD
> 32-bit CPU/mobo) point out the most important things I need to know
> before I proceed onto built my friend's new 64-bit pc?

Not really.

> eg, Do existing PCI cards work with a 64-bit mobo?

Yeah.

> eg, Do they still use FSBxMultiplier = speed?

Yeah.

> eg, Will existing applications work? Will there be exceptions? How about
> games (and 3D DX9.. ones)?

Faster (for a given clock rate)

> eg, Power supply standards?

ATX.

> Thak you very much :)

No problem.

:-p

The hypertransport link is probably something worth looking at in more
detail.

Oh, they can be picky about lots of memory, best stick to 2 DIMMs or you may
end up at less than 200MHz.

Errr... Sockets
754: Cheap. Single Channel. Support for a year or so.
939: More cache, Dual Channel.
940: Opteron, Dual Channel but requires buffered DIMMs.

Chipsets:
nForce3 150: No.
nForce3 250: Yes, a very nice single chip solution with lots of trimmings.
VIA: Err... KT880 looks good.

Thats it, I think. They're lower power consumption than XPs, so cooling and
PSU is basically as you were...

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

Post Replies Here Please
August 2nd 04, 03:05 AM
>>>>> "Ben" == Ben Pope > writes:


Ben> 939: More cache, Dual Channel.

Nice summary but where is the more cache for the 939? I thought the
cache was on the chip, not the motherboard chipset.

Thanks for the information.

Yousuf Khan
August 2nd 04, 06:50 AM
Humga wrote:
> I'm a very experienced computer system builder :D But so far all
> systems I've built are around the Athlon XP 32-bit ones. Never
> touched any 64-bit stuff.
>
> So could anyone (preferably those who has a 64-bit AMD and had used
> an AMD 32-bit CPU/mobo) point out the most important things I need to
> know before I proceed onto built my friend's new 64-bit pc?
>
> eg, Do existing PCI cards work with a 64-bit mobo?

Should be no problem.

> eg, Do they still use FSBxMultiplier = speed?

Yeah, sort of. One thing you should note is that the FSB speed is no longer
quite as important to the processor or system performance that it once was.
For example, the FSB is no longer involved in setting the speed of the PCI
bus anymore. The PCI bus is now run off of the Hypertransport bus, and
Hypertransport is virtually a clock-less bus -- it adjusts to whatever the
lowest common frequency is of its devices. So overclocking the FSB no longer
results in overclocking the PCI performance. Which is actually a pretty good
feature, because now you can overclock the processor without having to worry
about overclocking the PCI bus -- you'd often find that a processor can be
overclocked greatly but the PCI bus may have been very finicky -- so this is
no longer a danger.

> eg, Will existing applications work? Will there be exceptions? How
> about games (and 3D DX9.. ones)?

Sure none of this will be any different, because you're using the exact same
32-bit operating systems that you're already using, such as Windows 2000 or
XP or 2003.

The 64-bit versions of these Windows systems hasn't been released yet, they
are still in beta testing right now. They aren't expected to be available
now, until early 2005. When they do come out, you're likely not going to
have any unusual problems with them other than the usual problems people
have when upgrading from one version of Windows to the next newer one (eg.
when people upgraded from Windows 98 to 2000, or from 2000 to XP): which is
basically trying to find new versions of device drivers, and applications
certified to run on the new OS. Sometimes you'll find that even applications
not certified to run on the OS will still run (basically the applications'
developers hadn't re-certified, but that doesn't mean it won't work).

> eg, Power supply standards?

Completely standard ATX power supplies. In fact, you'd be better off with
AMD because it can actually still live within the limits of an ATX system,
since it uses so little power compared to an Intel Pentium 4 Prescott
system. Intel is considering coming up with a completely new motherboard and
power supply system called BTX just to feed and cool the hungry Prescotts.
BTX was created to overcome the Intel processor's power overconsumption, by
allowing bigger cooling fans to be installed on the processors, and more
grounds coming from the power supply to let more electricity flow through;
this is not a problem with the AMD processors so they can continue to use
the already existent (and cheaply available!) ATX systems.

Yousuf Khan

David Efflandt
August 2nd 04, 07:06 AM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004, Post Replies Here Please > wrote:
>>>>>> "Ben" == Ben Pope > writes:
>
>
> Ben> 939: More cache, Dual Channel.
>
> Nice summary but where is the more cache for the 939? I thought the
> cache was on the chip, not the motherboard chipset.

It is on the chip, but type of chip may dictate how much cache it has.
But AMD's web site does not show 939 chips having any more cache. Spec's
can change at any time. For example, of current 754 chips, the 3200+ is
now 2.2 GHz w/512K L2, and my 3200+ is 2.0 GHz w/1M cache.

--
David Efflandt - All spam ignored http://www.de-srv.com/

Wes Newell
August 2nd 04, 08:42 AM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 23:58:53 +0100, Humga wrote:

> I'm a very experienced computer system builder :D But so far all systems
> I've built are around the Athlon XP 32-bit ones. Never touched any 64-bit
> stuff.
>
> So could anyone (preferably those who has a 64-bit AMD and had used an AMD
> 32-bit CPU/mobo) point out the most important things I need to know before I
> proceed onto built my friend's new 64-bit pc?
>
> eg, Do existing PCI cards work with a 64-bit mobo?

Yes.

> eg, Do they still use FSBxMultiplier = speed?

Always.

> eg, Will existing applications work? Will there be exceptions? How about

Yes. None that I know of. (as long as you run in 32bit mode).

> games (and 3D DX9.. ones)?

Great for games.

> eg, Power supply standards?
>
Had a 400W on my XP system that wouldn't run my A64 system. I 've used 3
cheap PSU's 500W and above with success. It needs the extra 12v Connector
probably. At least I think all A64 boards require it, but you never know.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

General Schvantzkoph
August 2nd 04, 01:32 PM
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 06:06:34 +0000, David Efflandt wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004, Post Replies Here Please > wrote:
>>>>>>> "Ben" == Ben Pope > writes:
>>
>>
>> Ben> 939: More cache, Dual Channel.
>>
>> Nice summary but where is the more cache for the 939? I thought the
>> cache was on the chip, not the motherboard chipset.
>
> It is on the chip, but type of chip may dictate how much cache it has.
> But AMD's web site does not show 939 chips having any more cache. Spec's
> can change at any time. For example, of current 754 chips, the 3200+ is
> now 2.2 GHz w/512K L2, and my 3200+ is 2.0 GHz w/1M cache.

Thge 939s have less not more cache. Opterons and 754s have 1M of cache,
the 939s have 1/2M. The 939s will go back to 1M of cache when the 90nm
versions are released.

Ben Pope
August 2nd 04, 06:24 PM
General Schvantzkoph wrote:
> Thge 939s have less not more cache. Opterons and 754s have 1M of cache,
> the 939s have 1/2M. The 939s will go back to 1M of cache when the 90nm
> versions are released.

Yeah, thats what I seem to remember, it was the general idea of the future
that I was trying to present, didn't point that out, assumed people would
see the spec of the chip they were purchasing.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

Post Replies Here Please
August 3rd 04, 05:45 AM
>>>>> "David" == David Efflandt > writes:

David> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004, Post Replies Here Please
David> > wrote:
>>>>>>> "Ben" == Ben Pope > writes:
>>
Ben> 939: More cache, Dual Channel.
>> Nice summary but where is the more cache for the 939? I thought
>> the cache was on the chip, not the motherboard chipset.

David> It is on the chip, but type of chip may dictate how much cache
David> it has. But AMD's web site does not show 939 chips having any
David> more cache. Spec's can change at any time. For example, of
David> current 754 chips, the 3200+ is now 2.2 GHz w/512K L2, and my
David> 3200+ is 2.0 GHz w/1M cache.

I have wondered which one is faster? More speed or more cache? Does
any have a site with some good benchmarks?

Thanks

Dylan
August 4th 04, 10:54 AM
I believe the s939 FX's still have 1M L2 cache as they are Sledgehammer
cores and not Newcastles (which have 512K)...
http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=65000304

Cheers

"Ben Pope" > wrote in message
...
> General Schvantzkoph wrote:
> > Thge 939s have less not more cache. Opterons and 754s have 1M of cache,
> > the 939s have 1/2M. The 939s will go back to 1M of cache when the 90nm
> > versions are released.
>
> Yeah, thats what I seem to remember, it was the general idea of the future
> that I was trying to present, didn't point that out, assumed people would
> see the spec of the chip they were purchasing.
>
> Ben
> --
> A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
> Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
> I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
>
>

General Schvantzkoph
August 4th 04, 01:19 PM
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 17:54:34 +0800, Dylan wrote:

> I believe the s939 FX's still have 1M L2 cache as they are Sledgehammer
> cores and not Newcastles (which have 512K)...
> http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=65000304
>
> Cheers
>
> "Ben Pope" > wrote in message
> ...
>> General Schvantzkoph wrote:
>> > Thge 939s have less not more cache. Opterons and 754s have 1M of cache,
>> > the 939s have 1/2M. The 939s will go back to 1M of cache when the 90nm
>> > versions are released.
>>
>> Yeah, thats what I seem to remember, it was the general idea of the future
>> that I was trying to present, didn't point that out, assumed people would
>> see the spec of the chip they were purchasing.
>>
>> Ben
>> --
>> A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
>> Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
>> I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
>>
>>

They are available with either 1/2 or 1M caches. The 1M parts are
astronomically expensive ($824 on pricewatch). It's not clear what AMD is
thinking with pricing like that given that you can buy two Opteron 246s or
four 242s for the same price.

Yousuf Khan
August 4th 04, 05:31 PM
Dylan wrote:
> I believe the s939 FX's still have 1M L2 cache as they are
> Sledgehammer cores and not Newcastles (which have 512K)...
> http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=65000304

My understanding is that Socket 939 processors will come in two varieties,
the 512K varieties will become the regular Athlon 64's, while the 1M variety
will be the Athlon 64FX's.

Yousuf Khan

General Schvantzkoph
August 4th 04, 06:17 PM
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 11:58:04 -0500, Ed wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 16:31:05 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" > wrote:
>
>>Dylan wrote:
>>> I believe the s939 FX's still have 1M L2 cache as they are
>>> Sledgehammer cores and not Newcastles (which have 512K)...
>>> http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=65000304
>>
>>My understanding is that Socket 939 processors will come in two varieties,
>>the 512K varieties will become the regular Athlon 64's, while the 1M variety
>>will be the Athlon 64FX's.
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>>
>
> What about larger cache chips like a 2M(L2) Opteron? Maybe on 65nm?
> Ed

AMD hasn't even shipped 90nm parts yet and your asking questions about the
65nm generation?

Yousuf Khan
August 4th 04, 08:34 PM
Ed wrote:
>> My understanding is that Socket 939 processors will come in two
>> varieties, the 512K varieties will become the regular Athlon 64's,
>> while the 1M variety will be the Athlon 64FX's.
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>>
>
> What about larger cache chips like a 2M(L2) Opteron? Maybe on 65nm?
> Ed

Well, Opterons won't be on Socket 939 at all, they'll only be on Socket 940
and whatever replaces that.

Yeah, likely 2M Opterons won't be available until after the next die shrink,
but I don't think we'll have to wait for 65nm, 90nm should be fine for it.
Likely the 2M Opterons won't be released unless there is a large demand for
them from customers. As it stands now 1M Opterons are doing just fine
against all competition, since they do have the onboard memory
controllers -- larger amounts of cache aren't absolutely necessary yet.

Yousuf Khan