1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

X4100 ( 1 dual-core AMD CPU or 2 single-core CPUs )

Discussion in 'Sun Hardware' started by js, Sep 23, 2005.

  1. js

    js Guest

    I just asked for a quote from a Sun supplier ... it turns out that asking
    for a one dual-core AMD Model 720 CPU is more expensive than going for a 2x
    single-core AMD Model 248 CPU.

    Is the price difference worth it ?

    e.g.: Do you get better performance with one dual-core CPU vs. 2 x
    single-core CPU ? I am guessing that this is justified that the dual-core
    CPU has "much better access" ( something to do with AMD's HyperTransport
    Access?? ) to memory compared to 2 single-core CPUs.
    js, Sep 23, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. First of all, the 270 runs at 2.0GHz and the 248 runs at 2.2GHz, so a dual
    248 has slightly more raw processor grunt than a single 270.

    The choice of being worth it or not depends what you're looking for really.
    If you're sure that you're going to only need 2 processors, then a dual 248
    is almost certainly a better deal. You get more memory bandwidth (each
    processor has dual-channel PC3200, compared to the 270 only having single
    dual-channel PC3200), more raw computing power, more HT links, basically
    more of everything on the performance side{*}. The dual-core Opterons'
    strong points are mainly higher core density. You get more cores per watt
    and more cores for the same space. Additionally, the cost of a dual
    dual-core system is lower than that of a 4-CPU single-core system.

    So, if you were pretty sure you're only going to need two cores, a dual 248
    system makes more sense. If, on the other hand, you have a decent chance of
    doing an upgrade to four cores in the near future, it'd be a better move to
    get a single 270 system so that you can drop in a second CPU later when you
    need it. It's a somewhat risky thing to do due to the higher upfront cost,
    and only really worth it if you're planning to do the upgrade within a year
    or so.


    {*} The dual-core CPU does enjoy slightly lower cache-to-cache transfer
    times (the transactions go directly through the
    higher-bandwidth-lower-latency crossbar, as opposed to the hypertransport
    bus) but there are few applications that benefit much from this. The halving
    of the memory bandwidth on the dual-core system is far more likely to have
    an impact on performance in most cases.
    Michael Brown, Sep 23, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. js

    js Guest

    Sorry .. yes I was referring to 270 instead of 720
    Ok ... but a 248 is a single-core ..

    But I suppose what you are suggesting is to go with 2 x 248 ... "If you're
    sure that you're going to only need 2 processors" .. as u were earlier

    .... plus the higher memory bandwidth
    .... plus being cheaper than one dual-core 248

    Thanks for the suggestion.
    Anyone beg to differ / has another angle ?
    js, Sep 23, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.