AMD and Intel (Both disappointing?)

[ChanceCoats123]

So what real world issues do you see because of memory errors? If ecc is so important, why doesn't everyone use it? I understand certain server related situations where data integrity is absolutely a real issue, but why would a desktop pc need to be running ecc?

Back on topic, as a benchmarker, I have followed the generations as they progressed, and in terms of single and multi threaded performance, processors have come a LONG way. I ran a 920 for benchmarking. Topped out around 5350mhz, and the speeds at which I could calculate benchmarks are equal now to roughly my 4770k at stock clocks, or with a very sight over clock. And that is just for 2d benchmarks. Looking at 3d benches, there is a reason that new world records are set every time Intel releases a cpu. And if you don't think that translates to better gaming performance and desktop productivity, you are lying to yourself.

 

[lopgok]

So what real world issues do you see because of memory errors? If ecc is so important, why doesn't everyone use it? I understand certain server related situations where data integrity is absolutely a real issue, but why would a desktop pc need to be running ecc?

Real world issues are programs crash and data gets corrupted.
I don't know why everyone doesn't use it.
You know all hard drives use quite a bit of ECC. It is needed because the raw data on hard drives isn't very reliable.

You know sometimes you are running a program and it crashes for no reason?
Or sometimes your computer crashes?
It can be caused by many things. One of those is a memory error.
I don't like my program or computer crashing. By using ECC memory, I don't have to worry that it crashed because of memory errors.

Yoi know there is a problem with silent disk corruption? If you have no way to check for errors, you likely won't see them. I have a program that generates a md5sum on all files in a directory tree. If something changes, I can detect it, though I can't fix it. Hopefully I can get a good copy from one of my 2 backup file servers.

 

[manu2b]

A few years ago a college bough about 500 apple 1U servers. They didn't have ECC memory. The college wrote code that would detect and correct memory errors in their calculations. The amount of memory errors was high enough that apple ended up replacing all of the servers with similar ones that had ECC memory.
[/url]

Apple servers are all sold with ECC memory. I know, I used to sell them!

 

[lopgok]

Apple servers are all sold with ECC memory. I know, I used to sell them!

When the xserver first came out, it didn't have ECC, and the college bought a whole buncha them. Since then, they all have ECC.

I found the college, it was virginia tech. See http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/36830/whats-the-big-deal-about-ecc-memory-in-the-g5-xserve

 

[EarthDog]

Real world issues are programs crash and data gets corrupted.
I don't know why everyone doesn't use it.
You know all hard drives use quite a bit of ECC. It is needed because the raw data on hard drives isn't very reliable.

You know sometimes you are running a program and it crashes for no reason?
Or sometimes your computer crashes?
It can be caused by many things. One of those is a memory error.
I don't like my program or computer crashing. By using ECC memory, I don't have to worry that it crashed because of memory errors.

Yoi know there is a problem with silent disk corruption? If you have no way to check for errors, you likely won't see them. I have a program that generates a md5sum on all files in a directory tree. If something changes, I can detect it, though I can't fix it. Hopefully I can get a good copy from one of my 2 backup file servers.

You you are willing to pay what I feel is an extreme premium for a system that supports that kind of ram to eliminate one potential problem with their system? Can't say I would do that, but to each their own. 99% of home users don't run ECC and with good reason.

Sure an enterprise environment or a server that requires more uptime one should use it, but for a home PC, most I'm sure would agree that its simply not worth the added cost to do so.

 

[manu2b]

When the xserver first came out, it didn't have ECC, and the college bought a whole buncha them. Since then, they all have ECC.

I found the college, it was virginia tech. See http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/36830/whats-the-big-deal-about-ecc-memory-in-the-g5-xserve

Are you sure V-Tech got the RAM from any of the Apple regular channels? I really can't recall any G5 with non ECC.

G4's, yes, but not G5's...

 

[xander89]

agreed, clock for clock the jump from newhelm to Sb and so forth in terms of gaming performance is not that amazing, but the thing that really changed were the OC ability of SB, hitting 4.5ghz on air is very possible if not pretty easy, whereas it seems you are lucky to get 4ghz with decent temps on say a 920 ( i used to have one)

If you take it from that perspective with the increase in performance on equal clocks being pretty minimal, but when you take OCing into account, you are looking 10%+ performance easy when OC'd, now compare that to SB VS IB and HW. Because of the Tim/ISH height issues, unless you delid, you aint getting your CPU past 4.8ghz. Maybe even lower, so the advantage clock for clock dwindles as you can't clock it higher than the SB CPU's opposed to Sb over Newhelm, which you could. I would say the best leap was from Newhelm to SB and the hop from Sb to IB adn then to HW has been incredibly underwhelming for OCing enthusiasts.

 

[lopgok]

Are you sure V-Tech got the RAM from any of the Apple regular channels? I really can't recall any G5 with non ECC.

G4's, yes, but not G5's...

They got the first shipments. They didn't have ECC. All of them were eventually swapped out when the ECC xservers became available.

 

[lopgok]

You you are willing to pay what I feel is an extreme premium for a system that supports that kind of ram to eliminate one potential problem with their system? Can't say I would do that, but to each their own. 99% of home users don't run ECC and with good reason.

If you consider buying AMD and an Asus motherboard and paying an extra 10-20% for ECC memory an 'extreme premium', then yes. It is true that the Intel processors are faster, but they are much more expensive. I have found AMD processors and Asus motherboards quite reasonably priced, compared to Intel parts.

And if you want a 2 socket system, you need to go to xeon, which almost always requires ECC. A decent 2 socket system will eat any single socket system for lunch on a threaded benchmark.

 

[EarthDog]

So all amd cpus and Asus amd boards support ecc? I did not know that!

That said a price difference is also found in the ecc ram versus regular, isn't it? On Newegg 2x4gn Ddr3 ecc vs non is 50% cost increase at the same speed, 1333.

But yeah, 10-20% for what it does for me (nothing really) and the majority of users, yeah...that is a premium for its usefulness for me. Paying anything more than I have to for hardware is too much, lol!

If the average consumer needed it, you could bet good money OEM builds would come with it standard. Ecc memory is needed even less than system encryption.

 

[lopgok]

So all amd cpus and Asus amd boards support ecc? I did not know that!

That said a price difference is also found in the ecc ram versus regular, isn't it? On Newegg 2x4gn Ddr3 ecc vs non is 50% cost increase at the same speed, 1333.

If the average consumer needed it, you could bet good money OEM builds would come with it standard. Ecc memory is needed even less than system encryption.

The A series AMD cpus (the ones with graphics integrated) don't support ECC. The next generation will have some with ECC.

There is a price difference. I bought two new 16gb sticks of ddr3 ecc for $80 each. It is hynix/supermicro memory.

The average consumer is taught that windows isn't reliable, and that programs crash or freeze. I write software for a living. My software is pretty reliable. I don't want it to crash because of a memory error. When was the last time a program crashed or froze on you? Are you sure it was a bug, or could it have been a memory error. How can you tell?

If you come from the unix/linux world, you keep machines up for weeks, months, or years. You can't do that with a windows machine, due to patch tuesday every month.

 

[glussier]

Are you trying to say that there is no patches in Linux? As far as I know there are as many patches in Linux as there are in Windows.

 

[lopgok]

Are you trying to say that there is no patches in Linux? As far as I know there are as many patches in Linux as there are in Windows.

You never have to reboot. If the kernel is updated, it is a good idea to reboot. With windows, you almost always have to reboot after running the patches. If you use fedora, which is the most bleeding edge distribution, there may be a kernel update every week or so, so should reboot then. I have a machine that is up 24x7. I only reboot for kernel updates. If you use a more stable distribution, it may be every few months. You really need to reboot if the kernel fixes some bug that you are vulnerable to. If it is a local exploit bug that is fixed, you may decide that it isn't worthwhile to reboot. In addition, there is a utility called 'ksplice' that is designed to live splice (patch) the kernel. It works well for machines that can't tolerate downtime.

There is a well used library called libc (the c library). Sometimes when it is updated, they recommend rebooting.

The other thing about patches, is that most distributions include a whole lot more software that comes with windows. There are a whole slew of compilers including c,c++, d, fortran, perl, python, and more. There are office type suites, multiple web servers, and a whole lot more. On windows I use secunia to let me know what needs to be patches. It shows windows patches, but also most applications that need to be patches.

Also there are several types of patches for linux. Some are security patches, but most are just program updates. You never need to do those, unless you need the features of the new version of the program.

It is a different world. Rebooting is far rarer that on windows.

 

[EarthDog]

My stuff doesn't crash a lot at all actually. Rarely I would say to be honest. Certainly its not perfect, but I wouldnt pay a premium for ram or my system for the features they provide. Basic stress testing of my system including the memory is plenty stable that paying extra money for it. Just my preference, and was curious to yours. I understand your uses for it. If my uses dictated a higher uptime/availability to support my business, it may be something i look into. But for a home PC, naa. Not worth it to me.

I do not come from the Linux world, I am a mainframer believe it or not and work in a Data Center with the Windows and RHEL servers we have. Those, of course, have, and 'need' ECC ram.

 

[NiTrOwow]

I am not very impressed with Intel or AMD. I have owned both. I happen to like ECC memory. So I had a pentium pro and then a pIII 933. Both were solid performers.

Then I got 2 generations of low power xeons (prestonia and nocona).

Then I switched to a phenom II 940 and a 3 core phenom II.

I wanted to buy a steamroller, but it isn't available yet. The newer intel processors are quite fast, but they are expensive. The xeons have ECC but they are very expensive.

I bought a used dual L5420 xeon system, which was reasonable fast, but the fbdimm memories were blazing hot. Despite my best efforts, they run at 80C.

I decided to build a newer system, using dual L5520 processors. The cpu and mb are used, but hopefully they will be reliable...

I would rather have newer xeons, but I don't want to spend $3k each.

Error correction is only needed when you are using it as a server for 24/7 usage and 99,9% correction of data.

So its useless for a desktop home pc, unless you were using it as a server.

 

[lopgok]

Error correction is only needed when you are using it as a server for 24/7 usage and 99,9% correction of data.

So its useless for a desktop home pc, unless you were using it as a server.

That is good to know, that desktop pc's are immune from memory errors.

I suppose you also think disks never corrupt data.

When I was using my intel pr-440fx (dual pentium pro), I would log a memory error about once a year. That was with 320mb of ram. Modern systems can easily have 100 times as much memory.

Assuming the error rate is independent of technology, that would mean an error about every 3 days.

 

[EarthDog]

We get it. You disagree with 99.99% of us. Being a smart *** about it though is not helpful in trying to get your point across.

Humor me...If it was really needed, don't you think there would be more than one person standing up on a soap box preaching its positive aspects (which we already know of anyway)? Do you think if a desktop environment/enthusiast needed it that OEM's would be putting it in their consumer level PCs?

I mean, you are right. Memory does have errors. But why would one pay the premium for this ram? Or why would one go to a slower CPU/platform in AMD just to have this when we are not having problems with memory in the first place? It just doesnt make senses at a consumer (non server) level to use this type of memory.

 

[manu2b]

And what about ECC abacus?

 

[glussier]

On my dual xeon cad/cam Workstation, the only reason I installed ECC ram, is that the motherboard doesn't accept non ECC ram.

I also develop programs for a living, and I do it on a regular Ivybridge processor without relying on ECC ram. In the past 35 years, I never seen a program bug caused by my use of non ECC ram.

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

Intel:
462
478
754
771
775
1366

AMD:
A
939
AM2
AM2+
AM3

462 was socket A.