1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Opteron vs. Nocona benchmarks

Discussion in 'Intel' started by Yousuf Khan, Jul 10, 2004.

  1. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Guest

    Yousuf Khan, Jul 10, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Yousuf Khan

    RusH Guest

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

    Pozdrawiam.
     
    RusH, Jul 10, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Guest

    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, Jul 10, 2004
    #3
  4. Yousuf Khan

    RusH Guest

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


    Pozdrawiam.
     
    RusH, Jul 10, 2004
    #4
  5. Yousuf Khan

    jack Guest

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

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

    J.
     
    jack, Jul 10, 2004
    #5
  6. 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??
     
    George Macdonald, Jul 10, 2004
    #6
  7. 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.
     
    Carlo Razzeto, Jul 10, 2004
    #7
  8. Yousuf Khan

    Paul Gunson Guest

    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, Jul 10, 2004
    #8
  9. Yousuf Khan

    Paul Gunson Guest

    Paul Gunson wrote:
    [snip]for my render farm now, when 64 bit maya
    heh oops, that should've read 'not for' when 64 bit maya arrives ;)
     
    Paul Gunson, Jul 10, 2004
    #9
  10. Yousuf Khan

    Judd Guest

    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?
     
    Judd, Jul 11, 2004
    #10
  11. Yousuf Khan

    Ed Guest

    what difference would it make? 3% tops?
     
    Ed, Jul 11, 2004
    #11
  12. Yousuf Khan

    RusH Guest

    because its not supported ?


    Pozdrawiam.
     
    RusH, Jul 11, 2004
    #12
  13. Yousuf Khan

    Tony Hill Guest

    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, Jul 11, 2004
    #13
  14. 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??
     
    George Macdonald, Jul 11, 2004
    #14
  15. 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??
     
    George Macdonald, Jul 11, 2004
    #15
  16. Yousuf Khan

    daytripper Guest

    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....)
     
    daytripper, Jul 11, 2004
    #16
  17. Yousuf Khan

    Judd Guest

    Is 3% a small difference? I'd certainly take it. I understand that it's
    not supported. I didn't realize that.
     
    Judd, Jul 11, 2004
    #17
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.