64bit howto [help needed]

dp · 2004-08-19 12:00:17

# THIS SHOUD BE THE 64bit INFORMATION/HOWTO COLLECTING THREAD
#############################################
i start thinking about buying a screenless computer as computing station

this is not an idea, it is a plan - something to be realized :-)

- it will be 64bit (the "future")
- it will run arch64 - it will be 100% "win-free"
- it must be low-cost (obviously, i'm a student)

now the questions:
---------------------
- what will be the 64bit standard of the future (for private persons, i dont mean alpha or sparc ways, because they are too expensive)

- what arches exist? what one leads to the best performance? (i'm confused) (also i'm a little bit affraid, that the G5 is much better than any AMD or intel 64bit in performance, because of the powerpc is rich of commands)

- how cheap can be a motherboard, a cpu and a good, not too small harddrive? (a nic is about 10CHF ~ 8US$ and powersupply was also cheap, when i looked last time)

any experts on hardare (not me) or people with 64bit systems + experience, please speak out, post links and help us 64bit-newbies understand the subject better

thanx in advance

sarah31 · 2004-08-19 15:35:41

here in my part of Canada it would be cheaper to buy a lowend G5 than make up a AMD64. The technology is too new and too expensive here so far.

The AMD64's interest me but I think I would prefer a G% as my next computer (with OSX 10.4 which will be optimized for the G5)

Dusty · 2004-08-19 16:00:49

sarah31 wrote:

here in my part of Canada it would be cheaper to buy a lowend G5 than make up a AMD64. The technology is too new and too expensive here so far.

You can by computers in Manitoba!? :shock: :shock: :shock:

Here in Saskatchwan they're just starting to sell colour televisions!!!

Dusty

dp · 2004-08-19 17:51:38

ha ha ... you can e.g. by a Dell (am i proposing this???) and get free shipping to more or less anywhere in the world (and a horrible system)

back to the subject (Dusty), i had read a lot but still far not enough to know enough to be sure what to buy

here, i e.g. read about the new socket(s)
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di … -3800.html
the site also offers some benchmarks against pentiums

the thing is: the Athlon 3200+ 64 (old socket) is about ~200CHF (1CHF~1,2US$), and the new 3400+ or even 3800+ ~500 resp. 1000CHF expensive -> if i want to be "future-save", it is going to be expensive, is this correct?

on the other hand: are there any alternatives? what is intel offering that is 64bit? (i mean for a student, and not a server-farm)

here:
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/amd … -s939.html
the author is explaining the pro/contras about a lot of sockets -> the memory for 939 is more expensive :-(
they also say: Athlon 64 3400+ has 105 million transistors and Athlon 64 3800+ has 68.5 million (why is it then about 2x more expensive??)

more infos:
http://www.bit-tech.net/review/291/

and after this article
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2003092 … 64-01.html
i have a headache

dp · 2004-08-19 17:55:14

a little more

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040601/index.html

why is nobody comparing intel+amd+mac?

where is g5 comparing to the most modern intel + amd ones?

dp · 2004-08-19 18:03:47

what i also wonder: all benchmarks are made under windowsXP (32bit) and in this point, AMD is handicaped not being able to run it's full potential

do anybody know a review or benchmark done on a 64bit OS with 64bit apps?

xerxes2 · 2004-08-19 19:39:47

amd 64 rocks!
I've seen benchmarks for suse there 64bit beat 32bit by 25-50%
Just wait until gcc is fully optimised.

a "real" package maintainer build his own box, so here is a little suggestion for you:
all prices in swiss' money.

Case(alu, fans, power), 240 chf
MB, 754pin(cheapest amd64), 144 chf
CPU xp 2800+ incl fan, 240 chf
Memory 512 mb, 144 chf
Graphics(you are mostly compiling stuff for us so no need for a good one), 80 chf
HDD, 200gb, 200 chf
Software 0 chf

Total cost: 1048 chf

Outside box stuff is another budget.

sarah31 · 2004-08-19 20:25:23

with respect to benchmarks .... I have never been a really big fan of them. Benchmarks are really important, I suppose, for high load users (businesses, etc). It is rare that benchmarks would make a difference to Joe User.

64 bit should out-perform 32bit that is a no brainer. 64 v.64 though it really depends. I personally would go G5 or 64AMD simply because both can properly handle 32 bit applications. However, until more software and OSes are 64 bit optimized I really don't see the need to go out and spend a couple of grand or more canadian on a new computer. I know I am already pretty productive on my measely little XP 1800+ plus. In fact I am very happy with it.

I think I said it before but I will be going G5 next. Not because of benchmarks or thinking it is better but because I like the Mac architecture and OS X. I don't know if I will bother going to a 64 bit PC.

dp · 2004-08-19 22:33:12

sarah31 wrote:

with respect to benchmarks .... I have never been a really big fan of them. Benchmarks are really important, I suppose, for high load users (businesses, etc). It is rare that benchmarks would make a difference to Joe User.

i hope not to be a "Joe User" - actually, i hate this editor :-) ... the thing is: i have a programm i wrote to compare big strings (~500MB each) - on the other hand, i have an old PPro 266MHz and an overloaded laptop not to be used for long overnight computings (a laptop is great for on the way or working in the train but it lacks hdd-space and expandability)

the main reason for looking for a 64bit system is to replace my old 266mhz tower to be a great sys for the next at least 5 years (the PPro is about 5y old and slowly starts to be outdated)

sarah31 wrote:

64 bit should out-perform 32bit that is a no brainer. 64 v.64 though it really depends. I personally would go G5 or 64AMD simply because both can properly handle 32 bit applications. However, until more software and OSes are 64 bit optimized I really don't see the need to go out and spend a couple of grand or more canadian on a new computer. I know I am already pretty productive on my measely little XP 1800+ plus. In fact I am very happy with it.

buying a XP 1800 or similar would be nice for about 2 years, but then, a replacement is needed again ... a 64bit system would be expandable and a better investment for the future

i dont know how amd64 <-> g5 compare (really hard to find out - nobody did a comparaison - i have to call some friends who may know)

sarah31 wrote:

I think I said it before but I will be going G5 next. Not because of benchmarks or thinking it is better but because I like the Mac architecture and OS X. I don't know if I will bother going to a 64 bit PC.

i don't care idiogically, what arch to go for - but it must be not too expensive, but an investion to the future (a g5 is still too expensive, and macs are not that flexible to expand as classical pc's)
but if a g5 would show itself 50% better than an amd64, it would be a reason not for going for amd64

dp · 2004-08-19 23:32:36

xerxes2 wrote:

amd 64 rocks!

a lot of people agree with you - and after reading about 20 websites, i tend to agree - at least for the 939 socket CPU's

xerxes2 wrote:

I've seen benchmarks for suse there 64bit beat 32bit by 25-50%

that's clear - it's simply "wider" :-)

sarah31 · 2004-08-19 23:55:12

i would think that there would not be significant differences between the abilities of a G5 and AMD ... other than maybe MHz which does not mean much.

I know why you want a 64 bit and have no argument with that. I just suggest that you do not really put that much stock in benchmarks. alot can be said for handling instructions more efficiently.

my understanding is that AMDs are more efficient than pentiums (and cheaper) and some of what I heard to be available on both chips (this going on old info) i would use a AMD before a Pentium.

When it comes to G5 and AMD I would choose G5 because the last time i looked they were fairly close in price (in my part of the world which is very different than yours) and just prefer OS X.

But like I say unless what I was running on it was optimized for a 64 bit arch i would not even bother too much with getting one. why spend the money on 64 bit technology now when very little is optimized for it?

I say wait until later this year early next. everything should be cheaper and more software will be optimized for 64 bit. 64 bit is the way to go but waiting will not hurt.

dp · 2004-08-20 00:29:31

sarah31 wrote:

i would think that there would not be significant differences between the abilities of a G5 and AMD ... other than maybe MHz which does not mean much.

also the frequency is very close together - both are around 2-2,5ghz

sarah31 wrote:

I know why you want a 64 bit and have no argument with that. I just suggest that you do not really put that much stock in benchmarks. alot can be said for handling instructions more efficiently.

exactly - actually, till now, i haven't seen any benchmark worth respecting (all are comparing stuff on 32bit OS's against 32bit cpu's)

sarah31 wrote:

my understanding is that AMDs are more efficient than pentiums (and cheaper) and some of what I heard to be available on both chips (this going on old info) i would use a AMD before a Pentium.
When it comes to G5 and AMD I would choose G5 because the last time i looked they were fairly close in price (in my part of the world which is very different than yours) and just prefer OS X.

oh ... ok - i comare selfmade amd's because a complete system using the stuff on my list costs also around 2500chf and is much closer to the g5 - however, then you get a totally displaced winXP and other hardware not needed --- and putting a system together is very simple, and saving ~1000chf is not bad :-)

sarah31 wrote:

But like I say unless what I was running on it was optimized for a 64 bit arch i would not even bother too much with getting one. why spend the money on 64 bit technology now when very little is optimized for it?

that's a very good question - i hope gcc will hurry up supporting amd better --- and when having this sys i'll definitely work on arch64, the archlinux 64bit part :-) (but also on the i686, because my laptop is P4M)

i dont plan to use windows in any case on this machine (ms intends to use 16bit code over a 16->32bit emulator and a 32->64bit emulator to run under XP64 - crazy people! - now definitely history for me)

sarah31 wrote:

I say wait until later this year early next. everything should be cheaper and more software will be optimized for 64 bit. 64 bit is the way to go but waiting will not hurt.

you are right - a little bit of waiting would definitely not hurt, but help my budget :-)

the next semester will be heavy (not a lot of time for private projects) and after it, i'll for sure need a already running high-end system ... that's feb05

now, i try to get into the subject and get to know the details (last time i did research, they started making pentium pro :-) result: i buyed one of the first ATX architectures that still works - because it was future-oriented put together)

i tried to put pieces together and made a new pricelist as a draft (everything in CHF):

AMD Athlon 64 (socket 939) AMD Athlon 64 3500+ (HT 800), Box (cheapest available 939-amd64)
510.00

Mainboard ATX socket 939 AMD Athlon 64 Asus A8V Deluxe/Wifi, Via K8T800 Pro,4xDDR 400 Dual, AGP8x, (cheapest 939 mb)
230.00

Case ATX Miditower ATX Thermaltake Xaser III Lanfire black, without p
130.00

Harddisk Serial ATA 200 GB, Maxtor DiamondMax Plus9, 9.1 ms, 8 MB cache, 7200 rp (MB/CHF optimized)
185.00

Graphic card AGP His ATI Radeon 9600, 256 MB DDR, DVI, TV out (i have no idea if it is a good one - but as i use the radeon kernel driver and this is also a radeon, it should be supported for sure, and i know somebody having it working ok)
165.00

Power supply 410W Power Supply ATX, Thermaltake Xaser Silent Purepower (cheapest >400W)
90.00
-------------

Total 1 310.00

(it this are prices from www.topd.ch )

any comments? ideas?

dp · 2004-08-20 00:34:12

BTX?
http://www.formfactors.org/ubb/ubb/Foru … 00018.html

does anybody think, this is worth waiting for?

cactus · 2004-08-20 06:55:41

comparing RISC and CISC processors is always tricky...
G5 = RISC
x86, x86-64 = CISC

your arguing different computing paradigms here...good luck.

dp · 2004-08-20 12:35:41

cactus wrote:

comparing RISC and CISC processors is always tricky...
G5 = RISC
x86, x86-64 = CISC
your arguing different computing paradigms here...good luck.

is x86-64=amd64?

i know, that g5 is totally different, but the idea would be to write a programm (as complex as possible, to use the whole lang of the cpus), compile it optimized for each processor and then run a test to see who's doing better

sarah31 · 2004-08-20 14:38:06

but then what do you consider significant results. most people use speed but speed means nothing really if the program is so consumptive that you can run little else.

one problem with OS X at first was just this sort of issue of efficiency. you could run several apps but the system was very slow. those issues are not as big an issue now. but panther is not optimized for G5's so I would imagine it woul dbe not really too god comparing right now. a better comparison would be waiting until 64 bit technology has improved a bit.

mind you it would still be interesting to see ...... as long as more than speed is considered. imo.

xerxes2 · 2004-08-20 14:38:10

I think that amd64 is way ahead of intel.
intel is trying to copy them.

And for 754pin vs 939pin, there is a huge price difference, I would get a 754pin if i were you. You get amd64 to almost as cheap as a 32bit.

G5 is not available in retail as far as I know so it's not really worth discussing it.

dp · 2004-08-20 14:50:10

xerxes2 wrote:

I think that amd64 is way ahead of intel.
intel is trying to copy them.

agree! intel can takt their cpus to >4ghz, but as long they are 32bit, it's nothing "new"

xerxes2 wrote:

And for 754pin vs 939pin, there is a huge price difference, I would get a 754pin if i were you. You get amd64 to almost as cheap as a 32bit.

yes, but they are not that expandable as 939 (i'm not yet sure, if 940(opteron) and 939 are the same) - and i found out, that i can buy an opteron for about 315chf over the university
( http://ssd.ethz.ch/?page=181 - note: all prices only for students of swiss unis!)

i'm looking for a 940 or 939 solution - and waiting for the prices to go down + i finally find out the truth about them :-)

investing 300chf more today but having a system, that works 2 years longer and is better upgradable is what i call optimizing ;-)

xerxes2 wrote:

G5 is not available in retail as far as I know so it's not really worth discussing it.

that's true - a mac you can buy only in one piece - for the full price :-(

sarah31 · 2004-08-20 15:30:29

xerxes2 wrote:

G5 is not available in retail as far as I know so it's not really worth discussing it.

it deopends on what region you are in for prices but the cost of putting together a 64amd is the same as buying a G5. So you can compare here at least. Apple has never sold parts OEM so that users can put their own Mac together but neither do alot of the PC companies such as HP or Dell. i priced out a 64amd (lowend) to a low end G5 and they were very similar in cost. once you add in firewire, super/combo drives, etc it adds up.

Another thing to consider is that if you go bare minimum it will only take you so far and it will also be obsolete faster than the higher-end system. that goes for both G5 and PC 64-bit. If you really want something to last make the effort to buy mid to high range as it will take you farther in the end. that is another reason for waiting until the last possible minute you increase your chances of getting an even better longer lasting system.

also consider that it is a young technology so your shelf life is likely shorter as it becomes more popular and the developers cost to develop go down. as prices drop innovations increase. 64--bit has a long way to go before they have to look farther ahead. they are only on the first floor so far.

xerxes2 · 2004-08-20 16:55:13

G5 is a very good cpu, but you still can't put together your own box.
You have to buy a mac or an ibm workstation.(Torvalds like them I read.)
amd64 seems to be the mainstream future.

dp · 2004-08-20 17:57:06

sarah31 wrote:

Another thing to consider is that if you go bare minimum it will only take you so far and it will also be obsolete faster than the higher-end system. that goes for both G5 and PC 64-bit. If you really want something to last make the effort to buy mid to high range as it will take you farther in the end. that is another reason for waiting until the last possible minute you increase your chances of getting an even better longer lasting system.

that's exactly, why i'm looking for a 939 and not 754 as basic - it's very simmilar to 1995 where you had to decide of i486 100MHz or i586 90MHz (for about 2x the money of the i486) --- if you go for i486, you are lost in a year - if you go for i586, you at least survive 3 years

sarah31 wrote:

also consider that it is a young technology so your shelf life is likely shorter as it becomes more popular and the developers cost to develop go down. as prices drop innovations increase. 64--bit has a long way to go before they have to look farther ahead. they are only on the first floor so far.

64bit is new for the publics, the "end-users", yes, but it is actually a old technology - the first 64bit alpha is not really from yesterday ;-)

the original ""unix"" works on 64bit! linux is a "port" of it for 32bit (i know that this sentence is not 100% correct, but you see the point) and now we are going back to 64bit ;-)

dp · 2004-08-20 17:58:42

article from 2002:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,10348,00.asp

dp · 2004-08-20 18:05:48

64-Bit versus 32-Bit CPUs in Scientific Computing [PDF]:
http://www.democritos.it/activities/IT- … mputer.pdf

dp · 2004-08-20 18:10:43

http://www.bcl.co.nz/info/64-bit_processors.html

dp · 2004-08-20 18:19:47

http://www.slcentral.com/articles/00/9/ia64/print.php

http://www.theochem.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/ … bench.html

http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004229.html

http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/jbayko/cpuAppendA.html

http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/2466/7267

Arch Linux

#1 2004-08-19 12:00:17

64bit howto [help needed]

#2 2004-08-19 15:35:41

Re: 64bit howto [help needed]

#3 2004-08-19 16:00:49

Re: 64bit howto [help needed]

#4 2004-08-19 17:51:38

Re: 64bit howto [help needed]

#5 2004-08-19 17:55:14

Re: 64bit howto [help needed]

#6 2004-08-19 18:03:47

Re: 64bit howto [help needed]

#7 2004-08-19 19:39:47

Re: 64bit howto [help needed]

#8 2004-08-19 20:25:23

Re: 64bit howto [help needed]

#9 2004-08-19 22:33:12

Re: 64bit howto [help needed]

#10 2004-08-19 23:32:36

Re: 64bit howto [help needed]

#11 2004-08-19 23:55:12

Re: 64bit howto [help needed]

#12 2004-08-20 00:29:31

Re: 64bit howto [help needed]

#13 2004-08-20 00:34:12

Re: 64bit howto [help needed]

#14 2004-08-20 06:55:41

Re: 64bit howto [help needed]

#15 2004-08-20 12:35:41

Re: 64bit howto [help needed]

#16 2004-08-20 14:38:06

Re: 64bit howto [help needed]

#17 2004-08-20 14:38:10

Re: 64bit howto [help needed]

#18 2004-08-20 14:50:10

Re: 64bit howto [help needed]

#19 2004-08-20 15:30:29

Re: 64bit howto [help needed]

#20 2004-08-20 16:55:13

Re: 64bit howto [help needed]

#21 2004-08-20 17:57:06

Re: 64bit howto [help needed]

#22 2004-08-20 17:58:42

Re: 64bit howto [help needed]

#23 2004-08-20 18:05:48

Re: 64bit howto [help needed]

#24 2004-08-20 18:10:43

Re: 64bit howto [help needed]

#25 2004-08-20 18:19:47

Re: 64bit howto [help needed]

Board footer