Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (
More info?)
In article <4d551e52.0408090114.72cd96c8@posting.google.com>,
wedge@bluemarble.net (Wedge) wrote:
> nospam@needed.com (Paul) wrote in message
news:<nospam-0808042323260001@192.168.1.177>...
> > In article <4d551e52.0408081813.7bc2b838@posting.google.com>,
> > wedge@bluemarble.net (Wedge) wrote:
> >
> > > I have a new PC-DL MB and I'm thinking of getting two Intel Xeon 2.8
> > > GHz 800MHz FSB, 1MB L2 Cache. Everybody calls out 512k cache.. Am I
> > > going to gain anything by getting the 1MB Cache or should I save my
> > > money? Also what are the experiences of people OC the xeon chips? I
> > > figure I could get 3.2GHZ without too much trouble.
> > >
> > > V/R Greg Wejrowski(AKA Wedge)
> >
> > The list of what Intel sells is here:
> > http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/
> >
> > The supported CPU list is here, but it is missing enough info to
> > identify exactly what processors are compatible:
> >
> >
http://www.asus.com.tw/support/cpusupport/cpusupport.aspx
> >
> > Notice how everything except the last three entries, has an FSB of
> > 400 or 533. There are no FSB800 processors listed.
> >
> > The last three entries in the Asus list for the PC-DL correlate
> > with the three most expensive MPGA2 packaged Xeon processors.
> > Those processors are all FSB533 0.13micron (Northwood era)
> > processors.
> >
> > There was a raging discussion, about whether the PC-DL could
> > be tricked into running two processors at FSB800, as the
> > hypothesis was that the 875 Northbridge could do FSB800 on
> > a P4C800, so why not on the PC-DL. The thing is, when two
> > processors are present, the extra electrical load and multidrop
> > bus, shoot the good electrical properties of the bus to hell.
> > So, while the FSB on the P4C800 can be pushed to FSB1000 or
> > even FSB1200 (300MHz CPU clock), you cannot expect miracles
> > from a dual processor configuration.
> >
> > This thread is extremely long now, and I don't plan on reading
> > it. Have a look and see if the participants made any progress
> > on coaxing FSB800 from the PC-DL. If anyone has managed to get
> > the new Xeons to work, then it might be worth a gamble. If
> > you advance to the last page of the thread, it looks like they
> > have discovered some mods to do to the board, to get more
> > from it:
> >
> >
http://forums.2cpu.com/showthread.php?threadid=40755
> >
> > Most people with a board with that much horsepower, usually
> > opt for a stable conservative configuration. Selecting two
> > FSB533 processors is the safe thing to do. If you have a lot
> > of money to spend, then maybe you can reproduce some of the
> > overclocks in the above thread.
> >
> > HTH,
> > Paul
>
> Paul thanks for the reply.
> But I dont plan on running FSB800, I was more interested in the larger
> cache size. Is the MB going to see and use this cache or should I just
> stick with 512k of cach.. I had planned on running the MB at FSB533..
>
> V/R Greg Wejrowski (Aka Wedge)
They used a 1MB cache 3.06GHz processor in this review, so I guess
it is OK.
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=1857&p=4
Due to the fact that the Xeons are sharing a bus, cache is more
important than on Opteron. Opteron boards have room for local
memory on each processor, and a cube shaped wiring for
interprocessor communications of up to eight processors - an
arrangement that reduces the need for cache.
Cache should help the Xeons, up to a point. At some point there
will be a diminishing return, and that is what you need to
research.
Here is a Xeon article DP versus MP. It uses server applications
for benchmarking and doesn't tell us much.
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=1747&p=2
This article has strange results, and compares 512KB versus
1MB cache. The benchmarks are of the desktop variety.
The processors in this test are:
133 MHz FSB (Dual DDR266) Xeon 3.06 GHz (3066 12-8/512 KB)
133 MHz FSB (Dual DDR266) Xeon 3.06 GHz (3066 12-8/512/1024 KB)
The second processor has 1MB of L3, and both processors have
512KB of L2. It would seem the L3 is more effective in a server
environment, as the desktop benchmarks sees anywhere from no
improvement, to a minor improvement.
http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20030827/asuspcdl-09.html
Really useful articles on Xeon are hard to find.
HTH,
Paul
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram