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?
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?
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.