FMS performance on AMD Opteron vs Intel Xeon

Hi All.
We are facing some perfomance issues in several FMS4 running on AMD Opteron. This servers uses a lot more CPU than the ones that we own that run on a similar Intel Xeon with the same load.
Does FMS run better on Intel Xeon? Is there any studies about it?
Regards

I am not processor expert , but what we recommend to our customers is Intel Xeon or faster processor. Most of our testing is done on Intel Xeon. I am not sure whether we have done any comparative study between processors.

Similar Messages

To determine the processor type (like Xeon, AMD opteron etc).

Hi,
I have remote root access to the solaris x86 (Intel & AMD) server's in our lab.
I have to determine the processor type of all these servers.
I can get the information using the following command on solaris 10.
psrinfo -pv
But on solaris 9 I get the following error:
# more /etc/release
Solaris 9 12/03 s9x_u5wos_08b x86
Copyright 2003 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Use is subject to license terms.
Assembled 21 November 2003
# psrinfo -pv
psrinfo: Physical processor view not supported#
Please suggest / help.
Thanks & Regards,
-GnanaShekar-

I've inferred from the original poster's comments that they hope to have a single,
monolithic command (with a few command switches, here and there),
that will be able to immediately report ...
SPARC or SPARCv9 or SPARCv10
or ...
Intel, Xeon or not Xeon, or
AMD 64bit versus "64bit-capable in 32bit mode" versus 32bit-only.
and so on and so on ...
It's not going to happen.
As Martin knows very well
(as I've seen from reading his great contributions to all these various forums),
uname can tell you x86 versus SPARC and not much more than that.
For most of us, that is all we might care about. That answer is good enough.
GnanaShekar:
You may need to get familiar with all the various outputs from many commands,
then use some of them as favorite commands and others as less-favored.
... go ahead and run
# uname -a
then
# isainfo -vk
then
# prtconf -v | more
and examine it very slowly line by line.
then run
# prtconf -v | grep Intel
then run
# prtconf -v | grep AMD

Oracle installation on Windows 64 bit with Intel Xeon

Hi!
we have Windows Enterprise Server SP2 64 bit with Intel Xeon processor and would like to install the SOLMAN with Oracle.
According to the original Oracle-DVD from SAP there are only three possible choise entries:
a) AMD64
b) IA64
c) I386
But I have the feeeling it should be one choice like "x86" is not?
Which one should we apply?
The I386 can be installed indeed, but we are getting the error during the SAPINST-Installation "Oracle software not installed". I thought this entry was only for 32 bit?
The IA63 Bit can not be installed.
Only the AMD64 we could install. But the question is, whether AMD is the same to Intel Xeon?
Thank you very much for any useful help/comments...
regards

> Hi!
>
> we have Windows Enterprise Server SP2 64 bit
> with Intel Xeon processor and would like to
> install the SOLMAN with Oracle.
>
> According to the original Oracle-DVD from SAP there
> are only three possible choise entries:
> a) AMD64
> b) IA64
> c) I386
AMD64 is the correct one.
IA64 is "Intel Itanium-2"
I386 is generic "Intel Pentium (32bit)"
AMD64 is the generic term for processors supporting EM64T (Intel) or AMD Opteron
Markus

How to install Oracle 9i (9.2.0.2) in Windows Server 2003 x64 - Intel Xeon

I have tried to install Oracle 9i (9.2.0.2) in Windows Server 2003 x64 Enterprise Edition with Intel Xeon (EM64T) processors.
When I run setup.exe I get an error: "The image file C:\Documents and settings\administrator.SERVERNAME\my documents\92021 win64_disk1\setup.exe is valid, but is for a machine type other than the current machine".
I have to install Oracle 9i in that server but I can't run the installation. Is there a way to solve this problem, is there a patch that can solve this? Anyone know something about this problem?
Thanks a lot!!!
I'm desperated!!

Hi,
reply to my own question:
In the docs provided with the downloads for Oracle Database Server 9i x64, I found that this version requires either
- Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition for 64-Bit Itanium 2 Systems
or
- Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition for 64-Bit Itanium 2 Systems
So I guess, the only X64 platform being supported under Windows Server 2003 (both Datacenter / Enterprise Editions) is Itanium CPUs ...
... though this is not (!!!) clearly stated in the download link (other/newer versions are listed more precisely - I guess it's a matter of an old link: no Intel Xeon / AMD Opterons were available (???) when Oracle 9i database server was published).
So I'll give it a try with 10g database server ;-)))
Regards,
Thomas Heß

Can I add a second 6-Core: 3.33GHz Intel Xeon "Westmere" processor later?

Can I add a second 6-Core: 3.33GHz Intel Xeon “Westmere” processor later if I purchase a MacPro 2010 with a single Can I add a second 6-Core: 3.33GHz Intel Xeon “Westmere” processor?
Why is the build to order 12 core processor limited to 2.66 GHz Intel Xeon "Westmere" processor?

if you look at apples online store; you'll see there is no options to buy / upgrade the CPU at a later date. The online store dose offer: RAM, Graphic Cards, Hard Drives, Raid Cards, Fiber Cards.
The 12 core machine is two 6-Core "Westmere" processors
The 8 core machine is two 4-core "Westmere" processors
The 4 core machine is one 4-core "Nehalem"
The Westmere is a improved variation of the nehalem. With great price performance ratio.
Westmare allow for 12 cores. The Westmere has 3 times faster AES, pages up to 1GB, and improved VMX. (better encryption and virtualization)
With two more cores, there is one third more heat. To compensate for more heat the processor runs at a slightly slower speed. You still get better performance; because you have more cores. When not all cores are in use, the other cores can actually run faster then the chip is rated.
Message was edited by: TeenTitan

2 Dual core intel xeon vs quad core. Whats the difference??

I came across someone who's selling his mac pro 1.1 (aprox 2-3 years old machine) which hosts 2 dual core intel xeon processors 2.66 Ghz (4 total cores) with an L2 cache of 4 MB per processor and 3 gb of RAM. He is asking for 1200.00
I wonder:
1. is there a significant difference between the machine described above and the new 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 3500 series processor machines Apple offers?
2. Is 1200 a good deal considering its a 2-3 year old machine? how much would it cost me brand new?
3. I am planning to purchase the machine to use Logic Pro 8 (considering to upgrade to 9) which I currently run on my mac book intel core duo 1.8 GHZ. Which of the two machines will be optimal for it?
Thanks in advance for your time!

Using the scores on the GeekBench site, I show that a Mac Pro 1,1 2.66GHz gets a score of 4544.
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/218641
The Mac Pro 4,1 Quad Core 2.66GHz with all its Nehalem glory gets a score of 9256.
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/229504
Benchmark tests versus real-world performance, along with your mileage, may vary. But that should give you an idea of what kind of what you're getting.

Mac Pro Quad core Intel Xeon upgrade advice please!

Hi all, i have a Mac Pro Quad core 2 x 2.8ghz Intel Xeon (2008 model) with 4gb RAM.
I am planning on giving it some upgrades and a fresh OS install as it is slowly grinding to a halt (particualrly noisey hard drives)
Can anyone recommend best/fastest/silent! S-ATA hard drive to upgrade to?
Can anyone recommend a good replacement ATAPI DL DVD-RW Drive as mine is also on its way out.
Ram upgrade. Lots of space for RAM so what would you all recommend?
Ultimately i am finding myself working with alot of large PS file and so would welcome any suggestions to improve/soup-up the processor/performance.
Thanks for any advice in advance...

24GB RAM gets cost ly when you look at 800MHz FBDIMMs in 2x4GB
You shoudl have added more as 4GB is vary basic and miinimal
Any SATA drive device is fine. WD Black 1-2-4TB / WD 10K VRs are fast but not as quiet though I do hear those WD Blacks.
A single SSD for a system is nice.
10.6.8 works best in that system.
Your GPU most probably is in need of an upgrade.
You should never need to do a reinstall of the OS. Clone. Yes. And start wit h a new OS by not upgrade in place over the old OS but that is when to clean install, clone and use Set up Assis tant.

Mac Pro 3.2 GHZ Quad-Core Intel Xeon Running Slow

Hi everyone!
I'm a professional photographer and could use some advise, and thanks for your help in advance!
I have a Mac Pro 3.2 GHZ Quad-Core Intel Xeon with 8 gigs of 1066 MHz DDR3 of memory, running on OS 10.9.5, and my main drive for applications is 1TB and has about 420 GB free. I have various other hard drives for storage.
I use Chrome, Lightroom 4, Photoshop CC2014, Blogstomp, Spotify or iTunes, and I have Backblaze Backup running continuously.
When I first got my computer I didn't have any problems, but over the past few months it's been running super slow. I know that LR4 has issues, but I want to make sure that there isn't anything else I need to look into before getting more memory. I mean even Chrome opening up has the beachball.
Thanks!
-Deirdre

etresoft EtreCheck
The output from that, post it, can be useful.
More details on the hardware from it too: amount of memory (24-48GB RAM), any changes or upgrades.
Good tips and advice can be found here, also pro graphics
Macintosh Performance Guide Articles & Reviews
My guess is this is a 5,1 2010-2012. You could use a GTX 680 or later, it has good PCIe (the 2009 is somewhat weaker and crippled by sharing slots 3&4)
A Samsung XP941 512 $525 delivers 1100MB/sec reads and 900MB/sec writes to supercharge your system - one of the best and few such, similar to the same SSD blade used in the nMP 6,1. Lightroom and CS love to be able to load and write scratch, graphic libraries. Bootable. You could use a smaller 256GB $275 for system in slot #3 and one for data and scratch in slot #4 if you wanted to go full out.
You said it was fine originally so maybe something you installed, or an upgrade to the OS or something else that Etrecheck should help show.

Intel Xeon Windows 64 Bit : Which Oracle software Version?

Hi!
we have Windows Enterprise Server SP2 64 bit with Intel Xeon processor and would like to install the SOLMAN with Oracle.
According to the original Oracle-DVD from SAP there are only three possible choise entries:
a) AMD64
b) IA64
c) I386
But I have the feeeling it should be one choice like "x86" is not?
Which one should we apply?
The I386 can be installed indeed, but we are getting the error during the SAPINST-Installation "Oracle software not installed". I thought this entry was only for 32 bit?
The IA63 Bit can not be installed.
Only the AMD64 we could install. But the question is, whether AMD is the same to Intel Xeon?
Thank you very much for any useful help/comments...
regards

Hi,
You have still a "32-bit" platform ONLY.
1. Intel 64 is not AMD64, they are different. AMD64 implementation is only meant for AMD processors although the family is 64T support, full implementation is NOT done.
2. Your assumption of x86 is correct. You MUST go for I386 option ONLY !!!
3. Error of "Oracle software not installed" is different and you should not relate it to hardware. It is only for the environment variables and registry.. This will happen even in normal case..
Once again, you should NOT use AMD64 and IA64.. Try only with I386 option..
BTW, firstly, whats the reason for you to choose a 64-bit o/s that are meant for 64 - bit Itanium systems... CHoose a operating system that fits and will work with SAP optimally!
You should only choose a 32 Bit Enterprise edition of operating system. Windows Server 2003 R2 well works in your case and should be your choice !!
Finally your combination should be -
1. Windows 32 Bit Enterprise Edition R2 ---> O/s
2. i386 DVD -
> SAP/ Oracle DB
Hope this helps, revert for queries
Cheers,
Senthil

64 bit vs 32 bit Labview on an AMD Opteron 6380

When running my code on an AMD Opteron 6380 processor, Labview 2014 64bit runs 4 times slower than when running with Labview 2014 32bit. However the same code running on and INTEL Core i7 ran twice as fast with Labview 64bit vs 32bit. Does anyone know why? Note that the code is math intensive running a parallel loop that does not cummunicate with the outside world, i.e. no file access, property nodes, etc.Thank you.

Yes the 6380 FPU is shared between two cores. I just ran a diagnostic I made up that generates an array of 1 million random numbers, takes the average of those, and then excutes that repeatedly in a parallel loop. The 6380 showed a 20% to 30% improvement in speed between LV64 & LV32 bit depending on how many cores I told it to use. So that seems to make more sense. The other code that I was running that ran 4 times slower has a complicated clusters within a cluster structure including a large look up table array that is being passed around amoung several vi's. If it is moving that large amount of data around in memory, instead of just the pointer, that might explain it. But why then would the AMD run slower with 64 bit (by a factor of 4) when compared with the Core i7 which ran twice as fast, which kind of makes sense to me if it is moving that data around with twice the bandwidth?

Intel Xeon Processor E5-1680 v2 (25M Cache, 3.00 GHz)

Intel® Xeon® Processor E5-1680 v2 (25M Cache, 3.00 GHz)
the maximum turbo frequency performance of this chip (as use in the new Mac Pro 8 core version i think) is 3.9GHz. How is this achieved through operating the system? i.e is it done through Mavericks?
thanks

Thanks for the link.. Made an interesting read. However I am purchasing a MacPro for only 1 main reason:FCPX. FCPX seems to be one of the very few apps that can take advantage of the multiple primary processing cores as well the new GPU configuration. Having an 8 core (despite the 'only slightly' slower clock speeds), must surely be more advantageous than having 2 less processing core's processing multiple threads.
With the current lack of support for the nMP hardware, (and that's hardly surprising considering it's only just coming out), things can only get better for the nMP. Adobe (so I've heard) are already earmarking multiple GPU support etc.
What interest me from the article is that all the E5 processors have the same thermal design point rating - does this mean they all use the same amount of power under the same processing load? Or have I misunderstood this?
Thanks.

Cisco UC on Intel Xeon E7340 2.40GHz

Guys,
As per following link, Intel Xeon E7340 2.40GHz, Xeon x5550 2.67GHz is not supported spec to install Cisco UC on VMware. Can some confirm this?
Is it only CPU models like Intel Xeon E7-2800, E7-4800 or E7-8800 etc.. in in the following URL are supported?
http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/UC_Virtualization_Supported_Hardware#Processors_.2F_CPUs

What is mentioned in the link, is what is supported, nothing else.
If it shows, it's supported (with any caveats like restricted performance)
If it doesn't show, we won't support it.

Intel Xeon Processor

I have an Intel Xeon Processor. Is it not possible then to run CS6 Design Standard on my computer. All other requirements seem to be fine. If CS6 will not run on an Intel Xeon Processor, is there a previous version that will?
And I have WIN 7 64 bit with sp1 which I feel could rais a problem with older versions?

Photoshop CS 6 has a requirement of
Windows
Intel® Pentium® 4 or AMD Athlon® 64 processor
Microsoft® Windows® XP* with Service Pack 3 or Windows 7 with Service Pack 1
1GB of RAM
1GB of available hard-disk space for installation; additional free space required during installation (cannot install on removable flash storage devices)
1024x768 display (1280x800 recommended) with 16-bit color and 512MB of VRAM
OpenGL 2.0–capable system
DVD-ROM drive
This software will not operate without activation. Broadband Internet connection and registration are required for software activation, validation of subscriptions, and access to online services.† Phone activation is not available.
Almost no one has a Pentium 4 chip. I would expect your computer to run CS 6 handily. The way to be sure is to download the trial software. If it installs you should be good to go. To the best of my knowledge the software will not install on computers that do not meet the minimum requirements.

My 2 x 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon turns itself off and on by itself

my 2 x 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon turns itself off and on by itself

Always makes it easier and shorter thread life to start wtih a basic list of parts: RAM, GPU which can vary a lot and be important, other upgrades or changes or such.
Whether you have done SMC Reset, Safe Boot, Clean install. Even disconnecting external devices.
And whether you have 10.6.8 or not, likely not.
3rd party tasks
Best is to start wtih a base clean system and only install the minimum necessary latest versions and test as you go.
Setup an emergency boot drive in addition to the OS Recovery partition to perform repairs and more. Especially if you are now using an SSD.
When it started. What you did or what happened before and how long it has been this way.
Not a cure but having a UPS helps and helps to avoid sudden power loss or changes or from storms.
2008's ahve become notorious for these kinds of issues. They shipped with wake from sleep restart bug that was addressed with a pair of firmware updates to EFI and SMC but have not I would venture to say been 100% successful.

Installing Windows 7 (64 bit) in MacPro 2.6Ghz Intel Xeon - Impossible?

There is a list of machines on which Bootcamp apparently does not suport Windows 7 - and lucky me, having purchased my copy of 'ultimate' it looks as if mine is one of them.
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3986
According to the list "*Mac Pro (Mid 2006, Intel Xeon Dual-core 2.66GHz or 3GHz)* " is not supported - now mine is mid 2007, not 2006, but it isn't clear whatis meant there - but I'm thinking it probably means from mid 2006 until the end of production of the 2.66Ghz Intel Xeon Dual-core model. Correct?
But, has anyone managed to get Windows 7 onto one of these, with or without BootCamp - if so, how?
When I use bootcamp, put the 64 bit disc in the drive, it then gets as far as trying to boot from the DVD, and gives a message:
1
2
*Select CD-ROM Boot Type:_*
at this point the keyboard (as supplied with the Mac Pro, apparently important) does not work, nor does a PC format keyboard, so there is apparently no way to select an option, and I wouldn't know which of 1 or 2 was the correct boot type anyhow. The disk sticks and can only be ejected by pulling it out of the casework and pressing the usually concealed button on the drive.
Any pearls of wisdom gratefully received - or do I need a newer Mac Pro for W7?
Thanks. Stephen.

I'm experiencing exactly the same. Found some articles about re-burning the DVD but it hasn't helped.
My suspicion is that the BIOS (or mac equivalent) does not support booting 64bit OS. I remember trying to force OSX Leopard to boot 64bit and it wouldn't work. I can't recall the exact issue, but I suspect its similar.
I am installing Windows 7 Ultimate x64 in a Fusion VM - but not bootcamp - just a regular old VM. So far that is fine. Its not done yet but it is loading.
It may be as simple as a BIOS update - but as far as I know - there are none for my Xeon 3GhZ based system.
oh well.

FMS performance on AMD Opteron vs Intel Xeon

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for