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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Analysis of IBM's Hurricane x86 chipset"
There was a lot of interest about this in this newsgroup a while
ago, so here's a good read on the subject: http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cf...WT042405213553 (Found this at http://www.aceshardware.com/) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:51:45 GMT, Rob Stow wrote:
There was a lot of interest about this in this newsgroup a while ago, so here's a good read on the subject: http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cf...WT042405213553 (Found this at http://www.aceshardware.com/) If anyone is interested in some comparative benchmarks, there are SPEC CINT_rate numbers up now for both this IBM x366 system using this Hurricane chipset and Dell's Poweredge 6850 using Intel's new E8500 chipset. Here's a few 4-processor systems for SPEC CINT2000 Rate: Dell Poweredge 6850, 3.33GHz/8MB L3: 70.8 / 72.2 (base/peak) http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/...321-03933.html Dell Poweredge 6850, 3.66GHz/0MB L3: 53.4 / 56.4 http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/...321-03923.html IBM x366, 3.66GHz/0MB L3: 67.2 / 67.5 http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/...324-03943.html As you can see, using like CPUs results in the IBM chipset being MUCH faster than the Intel one, however IBM's claim that their chipset eliminates the need for large L3 caches on Xeons doesn't quite hold water here. Sure, they do get pretty close to the large L3 cache Dell systems, but don't quite match them despite having a clock speed advantage. Ohh, another quick (somewhat unrelated) benchmark for those that are more interested TPC stuff: http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc...p?id=105042002 First TPC-C benchmarks I've seen of a dual-core x86 processor, and they're fairly impressive, especially on the $/tpmC scale. It manages to top IBM's recent entry for their x366 server that was previously the fastest 4-Processor (and by "processor" I mean "socket" here) x86 system. In fact, only IBM's Power5-based p570 server is faster with 4 "processors" (here IBM and AMD are defining/pricing "processor" differently). I still haven't seen any 4P servers using Intel's new E8500 chipset on TPC, so we'll have to wait a bit longer to see how it compares to the X3 chipset on that one. ------------- Tony Hill hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:36:45 -0400, Tony Hill
wrote: As you can see, using like CPUs results in the IBM chipset being MUCH faster than the Intel one, however IBM's claim that their chipset eliminates the need for large L3 caches on Xeons doesn't quite hold water here. Sure, they do get pretty close to the large L3 cache Dell systems, but don't quite match them despite having a clock speed advantage. The magic I could identify, reading _very_ quickly through the extremetech article, was caching lines from another 4P node in memory local to a node. That is to say, multiple node systems use main memory to cache lines from other nodes. That's an advantage that would not show up, of course, in a single-node 4P system. RM |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
As you can see, using like CPUs results in the IBM chipset being
MUCH faster than the Intel one, however IBM's claim that their chipset eliminates the need for large L3 caches on Xeons doesn't quite hold water here. Sure, they do get pretty close to the large L3 cache Dell systems, but don't quite match them despite having a clock speed advantage. The magic I could identify, reading _very_ quickly through the extremetech article, was caching lines from another 4P node in memory local to a node. That is to say, multiple node systems use main memory to cache lines from other nodes. That's an advantage that would not show up, of course, in a single-node 4P system. That is right. The X3 has a virtual L4 which caches data from remote nodes (similar to HORUS' RDC, but using main memory). See my article at RWT for more details. Can I get a pointer to the Extreme tech article? David |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I'd happily supply a link to an extremetech article, if such a thing
existed. As it is there is only the realworldtech article, which I misidentified. That is purely a function of the workings of my gray matter. I can't even blame the failing on age, as I have been doing such things for as long as I can remember. Sorry. RM |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
wrote: I'd happily supply a link to an extremetech article, if such a thing existed. As it is there is only the realworldtech article, which I misidentified. That is purely a function of the workings of my gray matter. I can't even blame the failing on age, as I have been doing such things for as long as I can remember. Sorry. RM Ah, well then, it looks like I'm all clear. You always have to worry about those competitors : ) David |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Heat sink and chipset fans not spinning. | Edward Kelley | Gigabyte Motherboards | 1 | January 31st 05 05:26 AM |
Gigabyte brings ATI's First Discrete Chipset RX330 Motherboard | Gigabyte USA Marketing | Gigabyte Motherboards | 0 | October 28th 04 11:05 PM |
More details about 32-way Horus chipset for Opteron | Yousuf Khan | AMD x86-64 Processors | 11 | August 31st 04 08:30 PM |
More details about 32-way Horus chipset for Opteron | Yousuf Khan | General | 12 | August 31st 04 08:30 PM |
Help with 440BX chipset | Spajky | General | 1 | October 25th 03 05:26 PM |