Intel Xeon's Question - Page 2

bigben2k · 12-13-2002, 04:56 PM

True, but an engine doesn't make a car.

This CPU will have to have the right support chips. There's a world of difference between a workstation chipset, and a server chipset.

Joe · 12-13-2002, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by airspirit
I can just look at the specs and see how this is going to rock. Final judgement will come when they come out, but it doesn't take driving a particular car to know how fast it'll be, if you know what's pushing it down the road.

The fear is that you will end up pushing it, if its made with the quality control VIA, and AMD have become known for.

phreenet · 12-13-2002, 05:35 PM

Just like the Itanium, I bet these chips won't be sub $1,000 a peice, and if they are it will be just barely. So like the Itanium, no one will even want to play with it because of the price except for maybe the rich kids. But then again, aren't they the ones who drive Porsche?

airspirit · 12-13-2002, 05:42 PM

We'll see what happens with price.

Joe · 12-13-2002, 07:09 PM

the workstation version will be cheap. the server version I think will be 400 - 500$ per CPU

airspirit · 12-14-2002, 02:51 PM

GERMAN TECH MAGAZINE c't has published a set of benchmarks in the latest paper edition of its magazine which some subscribers have received today.

The magazine, in an article by Georg Schnurer, compares a prototype 1.2GHz Athlon64, a 1.2GHz Athlon XP and a Pentium 4 running at 2.2GHz.

Of the benchmarks, the most important noted by our German readers are the Bapco Sysmark 2002, SPECfp base 2000, and SPECint base 2000.

The magazine also publishes a number of comparisons between these three different CPUs using different games.

The Athlon 64 (Clawhammer) is shown as having 1MB of cache L2 cache, the XP 256K, and the 2.2GHz Pentium 4 512K, with the different processors using PC2700, PC2700 and PC2100 memory types in order.

Here's a brief snap of what the paper magazine publishes:

Bapco Sysmark
Athlon 64 178, Athlon XP 145, Pentium 4 217

SPECfp base 2000
Athlon 64 674, Athlon XP 504, Pentium 4 677

SPECint base 2000
Athlon 64 739, Athlon XP 532, Pentium 4 774

airspirit · 12-14-2002, 02:55 PM

Now, with the P4s scaling like crap over 2.5 Ghz from what I hear, and the hammers *supposedly* scaling like champs and being introduced at 2 Ghz, it will be interesting to see what will happen with comparisons then, with the hammer running on a 64b optimized OS and running on a mature chipset.

It will be even more interesting to see what happens with the 2.4 and 2.8 Ghz models that are supposed to follow soon after the 2.0, and what happens when they're running at 200 FSB instead of 166.

I wish they would have run the P4 on something higher than PC2100 ... it invalidates the benchmarks completely, though it does give a small idea of what is happening with the hammers.

Also note: this is the 1MB L2, not the 256K model. I imagine that difference will make THE difference in speed with these CPUs.

bigben2k · 12-18-2002, 03:52 PM

Some progress/news:

AMD's Athlon MP 2100+ vs. Intel's Xeon 2.4GHz - Database Server Comparison

AMD Athlon MP 2200+ Server Roundup - September 2002

So... if Anandtech is running with dual AMDs, and AMDMB is doing the same... Why can't ProCooling do it too?

AMD's "Venus" SledgeHammer looms into view

AMD forecasts prices for Hammer (Opteron) servers

I hate to hear that my Barton won't be running at 3000+: I guess I'll have to give it a nudge in the right place

. On the plus side, now I can consider a couple of Bartons on a Tyan board

Joe · 12-18-2002, 05:01 PM

ProCooling.com is P4 powered on the server ( a P4 1.7Ghz)

my home machine is a Dual AMD.

If I had my way everything would be Dual Xeon

phreenet · 12-18-2002, 05:19 PM

One of the problems with those test is that a lot of database style work depends on the disk subsystems, different chipsets, different drives, different interfaces etc.. Furthermore, when you speak of web servers as well, networking speeds will play a role as well. All of which should be very obvious, CPU benchmarks should stick to just benches that fairly provide testing methods that do not rely on any other factors other than the CPU.

12-13-2002, 04:56 PM	#26
bigben2k Responsible for 2% of all the posts here. Join Date: May 2002 Location: Texas, U.S.A. Posts: 8,302	True, but an engine doesn't make a car. This CPU will have to have the right support chips. There's a world of difference between a workstation chipset, and a server chipset. __________________ WBTA (Water Block Testing Alliance) Nordic Hardware WC 101

12-13-2002, 05:35 PM	#28
phreenet Cooling Savant Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Gloucester, Virginia Posts: 356	Just like the Itanium, I bet these chips won't be sub $1,000 a peice, and if they are it will be just barely. So like the Itanium, no one will even want to play with it because of the price except for maybe the rich kids. But then again, aren't they the ones who drive Porsche? __________________ Dual Pentium!!! 933@1107 Liquid Cooled.

12-13-2002, 05:42 PM	#29
airspirit Been /.'d... have you? Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Moscow, ID Posts: 1,986	We'll see what happens with price. __________________ #!/bin/sh {who;} {last;} {pause;} {grep;} {touch;} {unzip;} mount /dev/girl -t {wet;} {fsck;} {fsck;} {fsck;} {fsck;} echo yes yes yes {yes;} umount {/dev/girl;zip;} rm -rf {wet.spot;} {sleep;} finger: permission denied

12-13-2002, 07:09 PM	#30
Joe The Pro/Life Support System Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 4,041	the workstation version will be cheap. the server version I think will be 400 - 500$ per CPU __________________ Joe - I only take this hat off for one thing... ProCooling archive curator and dusty skeleton.

12-14-2002, 02:51 PM	#31
airspirit Been /.'d... have you? Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Moscow, ID Posts: 1,986	GERMAN TECH MAGAZINE c't has published a set of benchmarks in the latest paper edition of its magazine which some subscribers have received today. The magazine, in an article by Georg Schnurer, compares a prototype 1.2GHz Athlon64, a 1.2GHz Athlon XP and a Pentium 4 running at 2.2GHz. Of the benchmarks, the most important noted by our German readers are the Bapco Sysmark 2002, SPECfp base 2000, and SPECint base 2000. The magazine also publishes a number of comparisons between these three different CPUs using different games. The Athlon 64 (Clawhammer) is shown as having 1MB of cache L2 cache, the XP 256K, and the 2.2GHz Pentium 4 512K, with the different processors using PC2700, PC2700 and PC2100 memory types in order. Here's a brief snap of what the paper magazine publishes: Bapco Sysmark Athlon 64 178, Athlon XP 145, Pentium 4 217 SPECfp base 2000 Athlon 64 674, Athlon XP 504, Pentium 4 677 SPECint base 2000 Athlon 64 739, Athlon XP 532, Pentium 4 774 __________________ #!/bin/sh {who;} {last;} {pause;} {grep;} {touch;} {unzip;} mount /dev/girl -t {wet;} {fsck;} {fsck;} {fsck;} {fsck;} echo yes yes yes {yes;} umount {/dev/girl;zip;} rm -rf {wet.spot;} {sleep;} finger: permission denied

12-14-2002, 02:55 PM	#32
airspirit Been /.'d... have you? Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Moscow, ID Posts: 1,986	Now, with the P4s scaling like crap over 2.5 Ghz from what I hear, and the hammers supposedly scaling like champs and being introduced at 2 Ghz, it will be interesting to see what will happen with comparisons then, with the hammer running on a 64b optimized OS and running on a mature chipset. It will be even more interesting to see what happens with the 2.4 and 2.8 Ghz models that are supposed to follow soon after the 2.0, and what happens when they're running at 200 FSB instead of 166. I wish they would have run the P4 on something higher than PC2100 ... it invalidates the benchmarks completely, though it does give a small idea of what is happening with the hammers. Also note: this is the 1MB L2, not the 256K model. I imagine that difference will make THE difference in speed with these CPUs. __________________ #!/bin/sh {who;} {last;} {pause;} {grep;} {touch;} {unzip;} mount /dev/girl -t {wet;} {fsck;} {fsck;} {fsck;} {fsck;} echo yes yes yes {yes;} umount {/dev/girl;zip;} rm -rf {wet.spot;} {sleep;} finger: permission denied

12-18-2002, 03:52 PM	#33
bigben2k Responsible for 2% of all the posts here. Join Date: May 2002 Location: Texas, U.S.A. Posts: 8,302	Some progress/news: AMD's Athlon MP 2100+ vs. Intel's Xeon 2.4GHz - Database Server Comparison AMD Athlon MP 2200+ Server Roundup - September 2002 So... if Anandtech is running with dual AMDs, and AMDMB is doing the same... Why can't ProCooling do it too? AMD's "Venus" SledgeHammer looms into view AMD forecasts prices for Hammer (Opteron) servers I hate to hear that my Barton won't be running at 3000+: I guess I'll have to give it a nudge in the right place . On the plus side, now I can consider a couple of Bartons on a Tyan board __________________ WBTA (Water Block Testing Alliance) Nordic Hardware WC 101

12-18-2002, 05:01 PM	#34
Joe The Pro/Life Support System Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 4,041	ProCooling.com is P4 powered on the server ( a P4 1.7Ghz) my home machine is a Dual AMD. If I had my way everything would be Dual Xeon __________________ Joe - I only take this hat off for one thing... ProCooling archive curator and dusty skeleton.

12-18-2002, 05:19 PM	#35
phreenet Cooling Savant Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Gloucester, Virginia Posts: 356	One of the problems with those test is that a lot of database style work depends on the disk subsystems, different chipsets, different drives, different interfaces etc.. Furthermore, when you speak of web servers as well, networking speeds will play a role as well. All of which should be very obvious, CPU benchmarks should stick to just benches that fairly provide testing methods that do not rely on any other factors other than the CPU. __________________ Dual Pentium!!! 933@1107 Liquid Cooled.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)