Opteron vs. Nocona benchmarks

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yousuf Khan
  • Start date Start date
Yousuf Khan said:
seems to be better at
workstation-style applications than at server-style applications.
Click to expand...

like every Xeon vs Opteron comparison. Why ? Windows XP Professional
Edition.
ROFL

Pozdrawiam.
 
RusH said:
like every Xeon vs Opteron comparison. Why ? Windows XP Professional
Edition.
ROFL
Click to expand...

Why should that make a difference?

Oh and BTW, it looks like these GamePC people have been able to get XP64
working on the Nocona. Either they have the latest public beta, or they have
a private beta.

Yousuf Khan
 
Yousuf Khan said:
Why should that make a difference?
Click to expand...

Becouse the title said : 64Bit Battle ? :/

"As for 64-bit performance, we can’t really tell anything at this time.
While we were able to load our latest build of Windows XP 64-bit
Edition on both systems and were able to run some quick 64-bit SiSoft
Sandra benchmarks, these items combined are not enough to get a good
picture of the 64-bit performance of these chips. We’re planning on re-
visiting these processors in a future lab report with 64-bit Windows
XP, Server 2003, and Linux, for a deeper look at performance and
compatibility between these two processors. Stay tuned."

jadajada, those sites are shameles, they are making fools of themselves
running '64bit' tests with XP, or comparing Xeon to Opteron. I'm really
SICK of those "desktop" tests made by gamers.
Oh and BTW, it looks like these GamePC people have been able to
get XP64 working on the Nocona. Either they have the latest public
beta, or they have a private beta.
Click to expand...

or they lie (no proof, no test results).


Pozdrawiam.
 
: First bunch of Nocona benchs have come out, this one from GamePC:

Nocona? Isn't that some sort of western-wear boot? Hmmmm.

J.
 
Why should that make a difference?

Oh and BTW, it looks like these GamePC people have been able to get XP64
working on the Nocona. Either they have the latest public beta, or they have
a private beta.
Click to expand...

Yeah but they didn't use it AFAICT. IOW they completely missed the point
of the whole exercise by running 32-bit software and not actually showing
their hand very clearly. D'oh - it's the 64-bit comaprison we want to see;
the 32-bit stuff has been run on previous Opteron/Xeon comparos months ago
- nobody cares now.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
Yousuf Khan said:
First bunch of Nocona benchs have come out, this one from GamePC:

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=noconaopteron&page=1&cookie_test=1

Looks like the Nocona isn't a bad performer, seems to be better at
workstation-style applications than at server-style applications.

Yousuf Khan
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in seeing real 64b benchmarks. I don't think there was
really anything new in the review we saw, other than the fact that both
CPU's are 64b capable now.
 
George said:
Yeah but they didn't use it AFAICT. IOW they completely missed the point
of the whole exercise by running 32-bit software and not actually showing
their hand very clearly. D'oh - it's the 64-bit comaprison we want to see;
the 32-bit stuff has been run on previous Opteron/Xeon comparos months ago
- nobody cares now.
Click to expand...

but they havn't run comparisons with 800Mhz FSB Xeons before have
they...? even thought it was 32 bit apps on XP32 (i think?) i still
found the benchmarks very useful - as a maya user looking to buy the
best performing hardware for my render farm now, when 64 bit maya
arrives a year [or 3] from now. 32 bit banchmarks are better than no
benchmarks.
 
Paul Gunson wrote:
[snip]for my render farm now, when 64 bit maya
arrives a year [or 3] from now. 32 bit banchmarks are better than no
benchmarks.
Click to expand...

heh oops, that should've read 'not for' when 64 bit maya arrives ;)
 
George Macdonald said:
Yeah but they didn't use it AFAICT. IOW they completely missed the point
of the whole exercise by running 32-bit software and not actually showing
their hand very clearly. D'oh - it's the 64-bit comaprison we want to see;
the 32-bit stuff has been run on previous Opteron/Xeon comparos months ago
- nobody cares now.
Click to expand...

Why did they cripple the Intel box with 400 MHz DDR2? DDR2 right now has a
higher latency than DDR and won't perform as well at an equal MHz. Why not
use the 533 since that's what many of the systems will ship with?
 
Why did they cripple the Intel box with 400 MHz DDR2? DDR2 right now has a
higher latency than DDR and won't perform as well at an equal MHz. Why not
use the 533 since that's what many of the systems will ship with?
Click to expand...

what difference would it make? 3% tops?
 
Judd said:
Why did they cripple the Intel box with 400 MHz DDR2? DDR2 right
now has a higher latency than DDR and won't perform as well at an
equal MHz. Why not use the 533 since that's what many of the
systems will ship with?
Click to expand...

because its not supported ?


Pozdrawiam.
 
Why did they cripple the Intel box with 400 MHz DDR2? DDR2 right now has a
higher latency than DDR and won't perform as well at an equal MHz. Why not
use the 533 since that's what many of the systems will ship with?
Click to expand...

Uhh, Intel's E7535 chipset doesn't support DDR2 533 memory, so that's
a pretty damn good reason why they wouldn't use it! These are
workstation/server chipsets, not the desktop i915/i925 chipsets where
talking about here, different requirements and different specs. Both
systems were equipped with the fastest available setups.

Besides, given the shared-bus nature of the Xeon chips, the difference
between DDR2 400 and DDR2 533 is likely to be rather minimal, probably
in the 1-2% range.
 
George said:
Yeah but they didn't use it AFAICT. IOW they completely missed the point
of the whole exercise by running 32-bit software and not actually showing
their hand very clearly. D'oh - it's the 64-bit comaprison we want to see;
the 32-bit stuff has been run on previous Opteron/Xeon comparos months ago
- nobody cares now.
Click to expand...

but they havn't run comparisons with 800Mhz FSB Xeons before have
they...? even thought it was 32 bit apps on XP32 (i think?) i still
found the benchmarks very useful - as a maya user looking to buy the
best performing hardware for my render farm now, when 64 bit maya
arrives a year [or 3] from now. 32 bit banchmarks are better than no
benchmarks.
Click to expand...

I haven't examined the Xeons in detail but has nobody ever overclocked one
to a 400MHz FSB? Even so, P4s have been there for a while so I don't see
anything particularly new here. If you're running dual Xeons at 266MHz FSB
I'd think you have a good idea how much you are losing on memory
performance vs. 400MHz. If "now" is annual splurge time, I see your point
though; OTOH if you keep systems for even 2 years, I think you should pay
close attention to the 64-bit comparisons... when they become available.

The fact is that the article *is* misleading with its "64-bit Battle" label
where there is not a single mention of a 64-bit benchmark amd 32-bit OS
*was* used. I don't think I'm alone in being intrigued by Intel's err,
coyness on 64-bit performance... and the resounding silence on the Web on
the subject. The few dribbles we've seen suggest a possible disaster for
Intel... and the mention in the article of "quick 64-bit SiSoft Sandra
benchmarks" with no actual numbers could be ominous.

BTW if Maya is looking at >=1year for 64-bitness I'd say it's time to ring
their bell.:-)

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
Why did they cripple the Intel box with 400 MHz DDR2? DDR2 right now has a
higher latency than DDR and won't perform as well at an equal MHz. Why not
use the 533 since that's what many of the systems will ship with?
Click to expand...

The Xeons and 7525 support 400MHz FSB & memory - I dunno if it's planned to
go to 533MHz.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
The Xeons and 7525 support 400MHz FSB & memory - I dunno if it's planned to
go to 533MHz.
Click to expand...

Nocona with any of the three Lindenhurst MCHs uses an
800mega-transfers-per-second fsb, and dual-channel
400mega-transfers-per-second memory interconnects.

Lindenhurst/Tumwater MCHs support slower memory operation - even "DDR1"
memory, if configured for such. Intel has roadmaps extending through DDR2-800
(though not for this particular chipset family), you can probably Google one
up...

/daytripper (Agent wants to change "Tumwater" to "Dumbwaiter". Hmmm....)
 
Back
Top