Apple Announces Dual Quad Core 3Ghz

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: sdsdv10

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Phynaz
Link to benchmarks?

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2897&p=3

Are you sure about the Clovertown Xenons being slower? Here I looked at this link Clovertown article

It had quotes like:

If you are using the BEA JVM, the Xeon is a much better choice than the AMD Opteron.

This cannot be a coincidence anymore: a single Xeon E5345 leaves the dual Opteron 880 far behind, but a dual Xeon E5345 trails the quad Opteron.

Four 2.4GHz Opteron cores are a bit slower than four 2.33GHz Xeons, but when we look at the eight core scores the Opteron is a bit faster.

But when you look at the numbers in the table, the Octa core Opteron is 1720 and the Octa Core Xeon 5345 is 1686 see second table the difference is on ~2-3% which exactly the difference in clock speed 2.4GHz vs 2.33GHz.

And is this quote in the "Analysis" section they call the Clovertown "a winner" and a huge step foward.

Thanks to the very competitive price, the new quad core Xeon is in many applications a winner when it comes to price/performance: a dual socket server is a lot cheaper than a quad socket model and a 2.33GHz quad core Xeon costs the same as a dual core Xeon 5160. Despite the very aggressive price setting and the excellent per socket performance, the newest Xeon is not unbeatable, a result of mediocre scaling.

So yes, there are applications out there where a "Clovertown" Xeon is a huge step forward.

To me the results looked pretty mixed. Sometime the 8 core Intel system was faster, sometime the 8 core AMD system was faster. However, if we assume these results are correct for a AMD chip that is faster than the Intel chip, then if we didn't try to compare apples to apples the new 3.0GHz Clovertowns should beat the 2.4GHz 880's. If I am reading it incorrectly, could you please clarify?

What the articles are talking about is price/performance...that's quite different to pure performance (the Clovertown is the easy winner in price/performance, if for no other reason than many applications charge you per socket instead of per core).

Look at the benches very closely, and you will see that the only times the Clovertown wins are:

1. when the application itself doesn't scale...for instance MySQL provides almost no improvement as you add cores. In fact, even the single or dual cores win over the quads and octals.
2. some of the benches are measuring power/performance, and again (on the setups measured) the Clovertowns have the definate advantage.

Something else to note...those benches were done with a much older Opteron using PC2700 (DDR333) memory.

Edit: Let me add that at 4 cores each, I agree that the Opteron and Clovertown are about the same...but as I said, the Woodcrest is the clear winner.
At 8 cores each, the Opteron is the clear winner...

 

[imported_Questar]

Phynaz is correct, I don't see a Mac, nor a 3Ghz Cloverton in any of those articles.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Questar
Phynaz is correct, I don't see a Mac, nor a 3Ghz Cloverton in any of those articles.

Then how can he claim it's the fastest?

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Questar
Phynaz is correct, I don't see a Mac, nor a 3Ghz Cloverton in any of those articles.

Then how can he claim it's the fastest?

I never did, I asked if it was the fastest.

I'm still waiting for you to link to a faster AMD desktop system.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Questar
Phynaz is correct, I don't see a Mac, nor a 3Ghz Cloverton in any of those articles.

Then how can he claim it's the fastest?

I never did, I asked if it was the fastest.

I'm still waiting for you to link to a faster AMD desktop system.