| Author |
Message |
Yousuf Khan
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sun Dec 05, 2004 11:02 am Post subject:
Pretty good explanation of x86-64 by HP |
|
|
I found this whitepaper from HP to be pretty good, it is surprisingly
candid, considering HP was the coinventor of the Itanium. It does a
pretty good job of explaining and summarizing the similarities and
differences between AMD64 and EM64T, and their comparison to the
Itanium's IA64 instruction set. AMD64 and EM64T are "broadly
compatible", but IA64 is a different animal altogether.
Yousuf Khan
http://h200001.www2.hp.com/bc/docs/support/SupportManual/c00238028/c00238028.pdf |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bill Bradley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 05, 2004 11:44 am Post subject:
Re: Pretty good explanation of x86-64 by HP |
|
|
Yousuf Khan wrote:
| Quote: | I found this whitepaper from HP to be pretty good, it is surprisingly
candid, considering HP was the coinventor of the Itanium. It does a
pretty good job of explaining and summarizing the similarities and
differences between AMD64 and EM64T, and their comparison to the
Itanium's IA64 instruction set. AMD64 and EM64T are "broadly
compatible", but IA64 is a different animal altogether.
Yousuf Khan
http://h200001.www2.hp.com/bc/docs/support/SupportManual/c00238028/c00238028.pdf
|
When did the non-Xeon Prescott P4s start offering EMT64 as listed in
the paper? News to me. Does HP know something the rest of the world
doesn't?
Bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George Macdonald
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 05, 2004 4:21 pm Post subject:
Re: Pretty good explanation of x86-64 by HP |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 01:02:11 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I found this whitepaper from HP to be pretty good, it is surprisingly
candid, considering HP was the coinventor of the Itanium. It does a
pretty good job of explaining and summarizing the similarities and
differences between AMD64 and EM64T, and their comparison to the
Itanium's IA64 instruction set. AMD64 and EM64T are "broadly
compatible", but IA64 is a different animal altogether.
Yousuf Khan
http://h200001.www2.hp.com/bc/docs/support/SupportManual/c00238028/c00238028.pdf
|
Hmm and the following quote: "However, the latency difference between local
and remote accesses is actually very small because the memory controller is
integrated into and operates at the core speed of the processor, and
because of the fast interconnect between processors." is relevant to
another discussion here. I wish we could get a firm answer on this one.
Rgds, George Macdonald
"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Dallman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 05, 2004 7:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Pretty good explanation of x86-64 by HP |
|
|
In article <j7ysd.1769$yr1.125@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
senator2@NOSPAMearthlink.net (Bill Bradley) wrote:
| Quote: | When did the non-Xeon Prescott P4s start offering EMT64 as listed in
the paper? News to me. Does HP know something the rest of the world
doesn't?
|
It was always intended to happen - there just wasn't much fuss made about
it. The price differential is pretty low too: in the UK, complete systems
from one brand-name manufacturer cost about an extra £80 (say US$155)
extra for 64-bit. Intel are probably also shipping the 32-bit Prescotts
with their version of the AMD NX bit (I think they call it "EDP") by now
too.
---
John Dallman jgd@cix.co.uk
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a
well-rigged demo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rob Stow
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 05, 2004 10:37 pm Post subject:
Re: Pretty good explanation of x86-64 by HP |
|
|
George Macdonald wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 01:02:11 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:
I found this whitepaper from HP to be pretty good, it is surprisingly
candid, considering HP was the coinventor of the Itanium. It does a
pretty good job of explaining and summarizing the similarities and
differences between AMD64 and EM64T, and their comparison to the
Itanium's IA64 instruction set. AMD64 and EM64T are "broadly
compatible", but IA64 is a different animal altogether.
Yousuf Khan
http://h200001.www2.hp.com/bc/docs/support/SupportManual/c00238028/c00238028.pdf
Hmm and the following quote: "However, the latency difference between local
and remote accesses is actually very small because the memory controller is
integrated into and operates at the core speed of the processor, and
because of the fast interconnect between processors." is relevant to
another discussion here. I wish we could get a firm answer on this one.
|
Not sure if this is exactly what you are looking for in the
way of a "firm answer", but the latencies in a Opteron system are:
0 hops 80 ns uniprocessor (Local access)
100 ns multiprocessor (Local access, with cache snooping on other processors)
1 hop 115 ns
2 hops 150 ns
3 hops 190 ns
I couldn't find my original source for those numbers, and
the two and three hop numbers above are a little higher
than I remembered them as being. This time around I got
them from this thread:
http://www.aceshardware.com/forum?read=80030960
That thread refers to this article:
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/amd-hammer-family/
which gives slightly different numbers for a 2 GHz Opteron
with DDR333:
Uni-processor system: 45 ns
Dual-processor system: 0-hop - 69 ns, 1-hop - 117 ns.
Four-processor system: 0-hop - 100 ns, 1-hop - 118 ns, 2-hop - 136 ns.
I don't know if any of the numbers above are for cache misses
or if they are averages that include both hits and misses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hamman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 05, 2004 11:16 pm Post subject:
Re: Pretty good explanation of x86-64 by HP |
|
|
"Bill Bradley" <senator2@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:j7ysd.1769$yr1.125@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
| Quote: | Yousuf Khan wrote:
I found this whitepaper from HP to be pretty good, it is surprisingly
candid, considering HP was the coinventor of the Itanium. It does a
pretty good job of explaining and summarizing the similarities and
differences between AMD64 and EM64T, and their comparison to the
Itanium's IA64 instruction set. AMD64 and EM64T are "broadly compatible",
but IA64 is a different animal altogether.
Yousuf Khan
http://h200001.www2.hp.com/bc/docs/support/SupportManual/c00238028/c00238028.pdf
When did the non-Xeon Prescott P4s start offering EMT64 as listed in the
paper? News to me. Does HP know something the rest of the world
doesn't?
Bill
|
www.overclockers.co.uk had some a few weeks back, and htey sold very quikly.
I think theres a few more in now.
hamman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Hill
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:42 am Post subject:
Re: Pretty good explanation of x86-64 by HP |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 06:44:31 GMT, Bill Bradley
<senator2@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Yousuf Khan wrote:
I found this whitepaper from HP to be pretty good, it is surprisingly
candid, considering HP was the coinventor of the Itanium. It does a
pretty good job of explaining and summarizing the similarities and
differences between AMD64 and EM64T, and their comparison to the
Itanium's IA64 instruction set. AMD64 and EM64T are "broadly
compatible", but IA64 is a different animal altogether.
Yousuf Khan
http://h200001.www2.hp.com/bc/docs/support/SupportManual/c00238028/c00238028.pdf
When did the non-Xeon Prescott P4s start offering EMT64 as listed in
the paper? News to me. Does HP know something the rest of the world
doesn't?
|
Not that they know something the rest of the world doesn't, just that
they have access to processors that most of us do not. IBM sells them
as well, but for the time being Intel will ONLY sell them for use in
servers. Why? I really don't know. Maybe it's just a bit too much
crow for them to eat after saying (only a bit over a year ago) that
64-bit wouldn't be useful for the desktop until the end of the year?
-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Schaaf
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:47 am Post subject:
Re: Pretty good explanation of x86-64 by HP |
|
|
Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> writes:
| Quote: | Not that they know something the rest of the world doesn't, just that
they have access to processors that most of us do not. IBM sells them
as well, but for the time being Intel will ONLY sell them for use in
servers. Why? I really don't know. Maybe it's just a bit too much
crow for them to eat after saying (only a bit over a year ago) that
64-bit wouldn't be useful for the desktop until the end of the year?
|
How much does Intel stockpile? Could it be that they have warehouses
full of already produced non-64-bit processors, and those want to be
sold at the projected prices, not thrown away?
best regards
Patrick |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grumble
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 06, 2004 1:01 am Post subject:
Re: Pretty good explanation of x86-64 by HP |
|
|
John Dallman wrote:
| Quote: | Intel are probably also shipping the 32-bit Prescotts with their
version of the AMD NX bit (I think they call it "EDP") by now too.
|
AFAICT, AMD calls it NX, Intel calls it XD, and MS calls DEP its
implementation based on the bit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yousuf Khan
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yousuf Khan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 06, 2004 2:30 am Post subject:
Re: Pretty good explanation of x86-64 by HP |
|
|
George Macdonald wrote:
| Quote: | Hmm and the following quote: "However, the latency difference between local
and remote accesses is actually very small because the memory controller is
integrated into and operates at the core speed of the processor, and
because of the fast interconnect between processors." is relevant to
another discussion here. I wish we could get a firm answer on this one.
|
Yeah, but that's why I think AMD insists on calling their multiprocessor
connection scheme as SUMO (Sufficiently Uniform Memory Organization),
rather than NUMA. It's not worth headaching over such small differences
in latency, is basically what they're saying.
Yousuf Khan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Niland
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:57 am Post subject:
Re: Pretty good explanation of x86-64 by HP |
|
|
| Quote: | Patrick Schaaf <mailer-daemon@bof.de> wrote:
How much does Intel stockpile?
|
Well, according to the Reg,
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/03/intel_eol_p2/>
they just finally announced EOL for the Pentium-II.
"The Register reveals that you'll be able to continue
ordering the part for a year, with the last trays
leaving the chip giant's Pentium II warehouse on
1 June 2006."
| Quote: | Could it be that they have warehouses full of already
produced non-64-bit processors, and those want to be
sold at the projected prices, not thrown away?
|
Whether there is any connection between your hypothesis
and the Reg news, is left as an exercise for the reader :-)
--
Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name@ispname.tld
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 06, 2004 5:30 am Post subject:
Re: Pretty good explanation of x86-64 by HP |
|
|
In comp.arch Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
| Quote: | Not that they know something the rest of the world doesn't, just that
they have access to processors that most of us do not. IBM sells them
as well, but for the time being Intel will ONLY sell them for use in
servers. Why? I really don't know.
|
FWIW, Dell are shipping EM64T-equipped non-Xeon P4 workstations (the
Precision 370).
-a |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Schwartz
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:38 am Post subject:
Re: Pretty good explanation of x86-64 by HP |
|
|
"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message
news:hmr5r05drs3hird56j69qs2nbu5mth1b95@4ax.com...
| Quote: | Hmm and the following quote: "However, the latency difference between
local
and remote accesses is actually very small because the memory controller
is
integrated into and operates at the core speed of the processor, and
because of the fast interconnect between processors." is relevant to
another discussion here. I wish we could get a firm answer on this one.
|
In typical Opteron setups (2-8 CPUs, using the Opteron's build in SMP
hardware), the latency difference between local and remote memory accesses
is so small that the benefits of treating it as NUMA are typically
outweighed by the costs. Generally, you just distribute the memory evenly
and interleaved on the nodes (if you can) to avoid overloading one memory
controller channel.
DS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:44 am Post subject:
Re: Pretty good explanation of x86-64 by HP |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 16:30:15 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote:
| Quote: | George Macdonald wrote:
Hmm and the following quote: "However, the latency difference between local
and remote accesses is actually very small because the memory controller is
integrated into and operates at the core speed of the processor, and
because of the fast interconnect between processors." is relevant to
another discussion here. I wish we could get a firm answer on this one.
Yeah, but that's why I think AMD insists on calling their multiprocessor
connection scheme as SUMO (Sufficiently Uniform Memory Organization),
rather than NUMA. It's not worth headaching over such small differences
in latency, is basically what they're saying.
|
I'd say that because in small systems (less than 8 CPUs), Opterons are
coherent in hardware thus sufficiently tightly coupled to be called UMA,
as far as the user is concerned.
--
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in