Slashdot Mirror
Intel Dual Core Xeon Benchmarked
An anonymous reader writes "A few weeks back, Intel launched a new dual core chip with little applause. It appears we know now why, as the chip has been benchmarked by the chaps at GamePC. In tests against the dual core AMD Opteron processor, Intel's new chip gets thoroughly thrashed, losing out in terms of raw performance while eating a lot more power. "
I had been considering an Intel dual core but it sounds like I need to aim for an AMD instead.
Agile Artisans
http://www.gamepc.com.nyud.net:8090/labs/view_cont ent.asp?id=paxville&page=1
Seems it's slashdotted already after 8 posts. Finally when will all slashdot-links be coralized automatically?
If you get an older version of Windows, that machine will count as having eight processors. With Windows XP, Microsoft has clarified their view, namely that they count sockets, not cores or virtual cores. So Intel isn't cheating on this, they are doing exactly what Microsoft wants.
Intel's sales will again beat AMD's by several fold. The reason seems to be that most PC and server purchases are not intended for games, beyond Solitare of course, and people prefer the reliability, power savings and lower temperatures of the Intel chips.
Did you miss the part where they said this chip consumes more power and runs hotter than Opterons?
This is just about Intel Dual Core in general.
Intel knows AMD Opteron Dual Cores are faster. That's why this generation dual cores (at least P4D's) from Intel are so cheap aside from the ridiculous "Extreme Editions".
I recently bought a Dell computer. I had a choice of getting a dual core for $50 more. Now I can rip a CD to MP3's using EAC/LAME in about 3 minutes when it used to take 15 on my old computer. I'm happy with my $50 doubling my performance for MP3's and xVID (DivX) creation.
I really wanted a higher-performance dual core AMD computer but when I was pricing those out, the price of the upgrade to a dual core AMD *ALONE* was around the price of my entire Dell computer.
Bad form replying to my own post [hence the AC]
... :-) There is a slight power consumption difference [one of them tops out at 110W the other 45W ... I'll let you do the math].
ops per second.
FWIW, the AMD64 is at 2.2Ghz, AMD32 [Athlon-XP-M] @1.8Ghz, P4 @3.2Ghz, Nocona @2.8Ghz.
So yes, a 3.2Ghz P4 Prescott gets roughly the same number of RSA/sec as a 1.8Ghz Athlon-XP
Tom
Extra set of registers, yes, but no context switching. CPUs have a few different operational units, one or two dedicated to integer math, a seperate one for floats, one for memory I\O and mabey a unit for vector operations (SSE). A proccess isn't going to be using every resource at once. The whole thing can sit idle if it has to wait on something to get pulled from memory. Hyperthreading takes advantage of this by using a fancy scheduler that can juggle the needs of two proccesses at once. Only needs but extra silicon for a second register set and the advanced scheduling unit, but you get a performance gain similar to adding an entire extra core.
Obligitory wikipedia link
#include <signature.h>
The reason that Intel's dual core processors can sell for less than AMD's is the same reason they get thrashed; Intel dual cores are simply a normal Intel dual proc setup in one package, while AMD's dual cores have a single die. The Intel offerings use the woefully slow FSB for intercore communication, whilst AMD uses a dedicated, full-speed bus.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
I'm sorry, but you aren't listening to AMD very well if you call BS...in their own lawsuit they said they were selling every processor they could make...and adding several hundred-thousand Dell systems would completely burst them, even with the new fab.
So, which current AMD vendor(s) would you like to sacrifice to all-mighty Dell, praytell?
"... but you can love completely without complete understanding." - Norman Maclean, "A River Runs Through It"
Only they're not quite double the performance, because they share the memory bus. Any memory intensive application will hit contention between the 2 cores...
AMD have a faster memory interface to begin with, and in a multiprocessor system each processor has it`s own connection to memory...
Although the 2 cores on a single AMD processor share their connection to memory, they dont share with other chips in the same machine and their connection to memory is still faster than intel`s. Also AMD have an internal connection between the 2 cores on a single chip whereas intel`s chips need to go via the processor bus.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Additionnally to what other have said, I may add :
- HyperThreading is Intel's name for Simultaneous Multithreading.
Basically, a CPU isn't always using 100% of all its function.
The CPU may be waiting for something in the cache.
Or the application is maybe using only a small portion of the CPU.
In other words, the CPU waste its time sitting and doing nothing.
If you manage to use those unused ressource, you can squeeze more performance out of your CPU.
Before Simultaneous Multithreading, the only way to do so is "Out-of-Order" execution.
- In plain english : maybe some of the next steps of the programm don't need to wait the curent stuff to finish, and we may already fill unused parts of the CPU with these instruction.
With Simultaneous Multithreading, this time, you're trying to find something for your CPU to do from *another program*. This program must wait for something from the cache ? Let's run another in the meantime.
----
Alternate explanation :
Multi tasking/ Multi Multithreading is when several program share the same CPU by quickly alternating between them.
Simultaneous Multithreading is when 2 program run at the same time so less parts of the CPU are just sitting unused.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Running a Xeon dual-core is like mounting a Chevy big-block engine under a VW carburetor. The memory access just isn't there. Most of my stuff (modeling the solar corona) is RAM-bound anyway, so there's no win to be had at all by running the dual Intel cores. The Opterons have better RAM latency, which is a win -- but, more importantly, the two cores communicate cache-to-cache at the CPU clock speed, so dual-threaded processes run amazingly fast. If they're sharing memory, you effectively double the L2 cache size of both cores, which is a big win all around.
So, er, Xeon is teh 5uk and Opteron Pwns.
Really, why would someone choose to use a chip that is less powerful, intrinsically costs more to operate, and costs more to cool?
/. who've asked for a shiny new Opteron server and been smacked back by either a company "Intel-only" policy, or their reseller's "Intel only" policy.
Regrettably, because it has the Intel logo on it. I'm lucky working in a company where if I say I want AMD, I get AMD. I'm sure there's plenty of hardware geeks on
FWIW, AMD recently launched the new single-core Opteron 254 and it utterly trounces the Intel competition. Even in benchmarks that have been traditional strongholds for the Netburst architecture.
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
I came to the same point a few years ago, then I bought a Mac. Fortunately for you, this was just announced today. They'll even assemble it for you.