Re: Opteron or Athlon 64 FX?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Opteron or Athlon 64 FX?
- From: Lennart Sorensen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 14:08:39 -0400
- Message-id: <20060907180839.GD13639@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
- In-reply-to: <20060907140326.GA4923@hooton>
- References: <email@example.com> <20060901221932.GB5246@hooton> <1157155091.5178.17.camel@localhost> <20060902004452.GA10009@hooton> <1157166712.5178.36.camel@localhost> <20060906235718.GA5659@hooton> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20060907140326.GA4923@hooton>
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 10:03:29AM -0400, email@example.com wrote:
> What about the merits of ECC memory? My previous computers have always
> had it and the hardware-HOWTO says to always use it. Now, it seems,
> that if one wants ECC they have to go Opteron. What has changed? Is
> generic memory so reliable that ECC is no longer necessary? How do the
> errors that ECC would normaly fix show themselves?
You have to use buffered memory with an opteron (well the socket 940
ones at least), and unbuffered with an athlon 64 (socket 754/939/AM2).
I believe you can use ECC memory on many boards, but it depends if the
board supports it I guess. I have never bothered with ECC memory, and
so far things have been stable enough that I have no idea if it would
have ever helped with any crash I have ever seen. Most have had
perfectly good explanations so far which did not have to do with RAM.