Steve: go with win2K3 server..trouble free..:D
(Oh Jeez! I'm in the AMD section! I'll get lynched!:rofl:)
Printable View
Steve: go with win2K3 server..trouble free..:D
(Oh Jeez! I'm in the AMD section! I'll get lynched!:rofl:)
I forgot my password ;) ....e-mail me with the pertinent info, please? :toast:Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
I'm certainly no expert, but from my experience, the resources that Vista uses is very beneficial. Instead of that ram sitting empty and not being used, Vista loads it up and uses SuperFetch to really increase the performance. I find it much much snappier than XP, almost like the OS is running off of ram. One review i read shows that Vista really benefits from lots of ram. I think Vista would be an ideal candidate for your tests. :)
I understand what you're saying, but it's my understanding that Vista allocates its resources for a more "pleasurable" multi-media/user friendly experience. Now I'm all for that on my daily rig, but if I want to test true performance of a particular setup, I don't want the results to be skewed in any way due to any extra influences such as the OS. For example, I had Vista up and running on one of my rigs and I was shocked to see how much memory was being used by the OS while I was just sitting idle on my desktop. IIRC, it was something in the neighborhood of ~350-400MB :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
at the same time it isn't like you were going to use that ram for anything else :stick: and it is usually released once something more important is needs that space.Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
what ever happenned to an OS that did just what you wanted and not what it wanted? OOPS, that was win2000 SP4...or better: nn_steps XSOS:D
Yeah, plus, the one (and i think only) review i've seen using vista on a quadfx platform (i think it was an italian website, hardware.it maybe), shows a big increase in performance on vista. :) either way, i'm looking forward to your results whatever you decide. :)
How do you know that I wasn't going to need that ram :p: ? And yes, I know that it would release the space for a more prioritized process, but doing that in itself requires [some] processing power. I want to be able to compare my results from this platform to ones I have data for already and none of those priors ran on Vista......Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
thank you for the support :toast:Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
You know that I already tried ;) .....Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
yep and we are looking into that bug :toast:Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
it works fine under Vista Business 32 bit.
i've got 4 sticks of DDR2-800 ECC/unregistered memory running there right now.
dave
Yep, Vista's capable of seeing the correct amount of memory installed without enabling the memory hole option, but how is it in terms of stability/speed compared to, say, 32bit 2k3?Quote:
Originally Posted by dave_graham
1.) never would run 32 bit 2003 R2. only 64bit.
2.) 2003 is more "mature" and you can fix some of the minor annoyances in the registry, etc. with greater affect.
i've not even started perf testing yet...got my F3's, got the F2's currently loaded and plugging away (meaningless core stuff).... had too many other client ended things to do...
gotta get this all completed this week, however, since AMD wants the report back. :)
dave
32-bit 2k3 wasn't all that bad as a workstation platform, but 64-bit definitely should be the way to go....Quote:
Originally Posted by dave_graham
I guess my adventure in x64 land has been a little more bumpy than I expected - this 64-bit OS stuff better be worth it :p:
what isn't support for 128GB of Ram exciting enough? :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
Listen my friend: The reality is who the hell could afford even 1/2 that amount of ram? One of the guys in the DC teams has 16 gig and that surprised me.Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
I have 4 gig on 2 machines here and that was close to $1400.00 just for the ram.
Imagine getting the bill for 128 gig!:eek:
Well, it is for now....as long as I stay with my 32gb sticks...:p:Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
So was 3ghz the max? Did you get it up and rolling with the new board yet?
same thing could have been said about 1GB just 10 years ago ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
I'm sure 3g is absolutely NOT the max ;) ....I haven't really been able to run the system properly for the past few days since I'm having problems with the OS. Should be all sorted within the next couple of days though.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickster_64
I figured 0001 could do better ;-). Keep us updated.
depends on what you're doing with it. if all you're doing is benchmarking, have fun. if you want to actually do production, etc. on it, then it is one of the better things out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
dave
hey s7e9h3n are you able to do 300x10 with the ram at 600mhz?
Haven't yet tried...I've been trying to figure out 64-bit 2k3. But here's an interesting synthetic from Sandra's BW test. NUMA rocks :D :Quote:
Originally Posted by msimax
http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/8...ndra500py7.jpg