If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Judd" wrote :
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? because its not supported ? Pozdrawiam. -- RusH // http://pulse.pdi.net/~rush/qv30/ Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery. You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 19:21:07 -0600, "Judd"
wrote: 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? 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. ------------- Tony Hill hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 10:12:41 +1200, Paul Gunson
wrote: George Macdonald wrote: 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. 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. 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?? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 19:21:07 -0600, "Judd" wrote:
"George Macdonald" wrote in message news On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 04:36:10 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" wrote: RusH wrote: "Yousuf Khan" wrote : seems to be better at workstation-style applications than at server-style applications. like every Xeon vs Opteron comparison. Why ? Windows XP Professional Edition. ROFL 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. 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. 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? 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?? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 02:26:38 -0400, George Macdonald
wrote: The Xeons and 7525 support 400MHz FSB & memory - I dunno if it's planned to go to 533MHz. 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....) |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 19:21:07 -0600, "Judd" wrote: 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? what difference would it make? 3% tops? Is 3% a small difference? I'd certainly take it. I understand that it's not supported. I didn't realize that. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Opteron vs. Nocona benchmarks | Yousuf Khan | General | 15 | July 11th 04 05:28 PM |
More Opteron 64-bit vs. 32-bit benchmarks | Tony Hill | General | 0 | November 4th 03 06:11 AM |
NEW Opteron Vs Intel benchmarks | Paul Gunson | General | 6 | July 31st 03 02:38 AM |
Chess software benchmarks for Itanium and Opteron? | totojepast | Overclocking AMD Processors | 0 | June 23rd 03 08:39 PM |
Chess software benchmarks for Itanium and Opteron? | totojepast | General | 0 | June 23rd 03 08:39 PM |