Intel Launches Eight Core, 16 Thread Nehalem-EX

[mlopinto2k1]

Tom's, why don't you benchmark Mac's vs. Pc's? Just curious.

 

[Tindytim]

[citation][nom]niteshadow53[/nom]@Tindytim: Yes it's only necessary for large servers... But why would you get that when AMD has a better price/performance?[/citation]
I haven't seen any benchmarks on Intel vs AMD's server platforms, but if it's anything like the Desktop segment, then Intel probably holds the higher x86 end without competition. So while AMD might get better price to performance, you probably can't get the higher end of performance necessary for certain applications without pay a premium on Intel's platform.

That's assuming you're correct. I haven't seen benchmarks or compared pricing so I can't comment further.

Tom's, why don't you benchmark Mac's vs. Pc's? Just curious.

A. That has nothing to do with said article
B. "PC's" and Macs run the same hardware, so it comes down to how the OS takes advantage of it.
C. Creating a testing suite would be difficult, and going back to the previous point, they run the same hardware, and that's what Tom's does HARDWARE (it's not Tom's Operating System).

 

[enzo matrix]

[citation][nom]shadow187[/nom]That's great and all, but come on guys. We're going to need more than cores. 100 cores at 2ghz each might be nice, but to be honest, I'd rather have 20 cores at 10ghz each.[/citation]
I think you had better look up the definition of "server processor" and the market they are aimed at.

 

[enzo matrix]

[citation][nom]Trueno07[/nom]They released the 6 core, and i was thinking "ok, cool. It's great to see CPU technology progressing"Now... Now i can't help but think "Why? Is this really necessary"[/citation]
Ummm yes? Considering some server applications require hundreds of computers working in parallel.

 

[micky_lund]

[citation][nom]ohim[/nom]Soon ppl will have to understand to let go to the GHz numbers or the number of cores when it comes to CPUs .. i mean look at video cards, nobody cares at what MHz does the radeon runs vs the geforce or how many cuda cores has the geforce compared to how many parallel processing cores has the radeon , it`s all about the performance of a certain CPU at a certain price range on certain applications. So stop the bullshit with AMD has 12 - 40 cores or Intel does better / clock speed, as long as 2 CPUS cost the same behave the same in an aplication nobody gives a shit how much GHz it has or how many cores it has, is the same crap at the same ammount of monney doing the same thing.[/citation]

yeah...hit it right on the head

 

[mlopinto2k1]

[citation][nom]Tindytim[/nom]A. That has nothing to do with said article
B. "PC's" and Macs run the same hardware, so it comes down to how the OS takes advantage of it.
C. Creating a testing suite would be difficult, and going back to the previous point, they run the same hardware, and that's what Tom's does HARDWARE (it's not Tom's Operating System).[/citation]
A. I don't give a rats ass what you think.
B. It's not Tom's Microsoft Windows Hardware
C. I wan't to see video conversions, photoshop times, and file compression.
D. Stop drinking caffeinated products.
E. For EDIT! They don't run the same hardware. LOL

 

[eddieroolz]

2,048 cores and 4,098 threads.

When it gets put like that, it just sounds silly xD

 

[mozartrules]

The tests that have come out indicates that a dual X5670 (12-core) is slightly faster than a dual Opteron 61xx (24-core). This is likely to be faster than that. When analyzing price performance you also need to remember that the CPUs are only a minor part of the cost of servers. My work application (Wall Street) runs on a 8-core X5570 and the RAM (18x4Gb) costs more than the two CPUs. And the SAN disks that holds the data is more expensive than those two combined.

I would love to get the four socket server (32 cores) for work since my app has almost perfect scaling across real cores (but HT doesn't do anything good), but I got the X5570 6 months ago so I won't be popular if I ask.

 

[husker]

[citation][nom]ohim[/nom]Soon ppl will have to understand to let go to the GHz numbers or the number of cores when it comes to CPUs .. i mean look at video cards, nobody cares at what MHz does the radeon runs vs the geforce or how many cuda cores has the geforce compared to how many parallel processing cores has the radeon , it`s all about the performance of a certain CPU at a certain price range on certain applications. So stop the bullshit with AMD has 12 - 40 cores or Intel does better / clock speed, as long as 2 CPUS cost the same behave the same in an aplication nobody gives a shit how much GHz it has or how many cores it has, is the same crap at the same ammount of monney doing the same thing.[/citation]
I think you are missing the point. This is targeted for servers that have hundreds or even thousands of users connecting to them simultaneously. Having multiple threads running simultaneously is very efficient and desirable in this type of computing, and multiple cores is a very efficient and cost effective strategy.

And if you are a gamer and think it has nothing to do with you then you are wrong. MMO games may be a big beneficiary of this technology. More efficient server farms can help keep response times and availability up while keeping costs down.

 

[Tindytim]

[citation][nom]mlopinto2k1[/nom]E. For EDIT! They don't run the same hardware. LOL[/citation]
Then how is it that the OSx86 project has a list of off the shelf hardware combinations that allow you to run OSX unmodified? They use the exact same parts, the difference being that they use EFI (which the motherboard I currently use supports, and plenty of other modern boards support) and ECC ram (which I could buy if I felt like wasting money). They use the same hardware, and the same benchmarks apply when it comes to it's performance.
[citation][nom]mlopinto2k1[/nom]C. I wan't to see video conversions, photoshop times, and file compression.[/citation]
That would be an OS competition, not a hardware competition, unless you decided to compete on price points, in which case it's highly unlikely any system running OSX would win.
[citation][nom]mlopinto2k1[/nom]B. It's not Tom's Microsoft Windows Hardware[/citation]
Where does it say it is? I have an LGA 1366 desktop a built a few years back, with hardware that was recommend on this site, and I run Linux on it. I've never gotten faster renders.

Think on that, because I'm probably not going to reply further.

 

[kingnoobe]

Um ohim, micky. WRONG! To the normal user ya you're right. Well hell only half ass right then. To the gamer ghz does matter more then cores, and to enthusiast it makes a big difference. To the average joe, sure if it gets the job done it gets it done.

As for more cores that does matter to servers, and certain applications. Sure your average user don't care, but then again their probably also not gonna spend 500+ on a cpu either. As it wouldn't make no sense, but to people that actually use these cpu and use them for what their made for it does make a big difference.

So just because you don't care, and don't think it makes a difference doesn't make it true for everybody. There is a reason they make these cpu's people buy them, and people buy them because they need them. With the exception of the rare people that would put them to use in a gaming machine. They don't buy them just to brag about it they buy them because it helps them at their job.

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

[citation][nom]lauxenburg[/nom]Too bad AMD has 12 cores and 16 cores by summer. ^ ^[/citation]
And?

Cores don't matter.. Performance does in this segment. The new AMD CPUs could have 600 cores.. yet if they don't beat Nehalem-EX they're playing second fiddle.

 

[techguy911]

48 core (12x4) AMD OPTERON 6174 systems can be bought now on ebay now, my parts supplier for my computer store has source listings as well.

http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-TYAN-AMD-OP...wItemQQptZCOMP_EN_Servers?hash=item3efcce19ac

That is top end asus has a dual board for $600 ,single socket for $320 and the 12 core OPTERON 6174 sell for $1230 each that is $102.50 per core.

 

[Guest]

RIP AMD.

 

[steveoh]

"Yes, it can play it."

Ha ha.

But can it play Metro 2033?

 

[thaisport]

[citation][nom]mlopinto2k1[/nom]
E. For EDIT! They don't run the same hardware. LOL[/citation]

Outside of the motherboard, I beg to differ. Look at the specs below directly from the apple site and you can find it for the PC. For the sake of space and time, I'll just do the Mac Pro.

http://store.apple.com/us_smb_78313/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro
http://support.apple.com/kb/SP506


Mac Pro:[/b]
8-core: Two 2.26GHz, 2.66GHz, or 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5500 series processors

Quad-core: One 2.66GHz, 2.93GHz, or 3.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 3500 series processor

Up to 16gb DDR3 of GB for the 8-core version

Either:
NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 with 512MB of GDDR3 memory, PCI Express 2.0, one Mini DisplayPort, and one dual-link DVI port

OR

ATI Radeon HD 4870 with 512MB of GDDR5 memory, PCI Express 2.0, one Mini DisplayPort, and one dual-link DVI port


So... hardware is the "same" as you find on the PC side of things however the Mac Pro uses server processors.

I agree with you on running benchmarking tests but if you want to compare it to a Mac Pro, you would need to build a PC with something like this to make it fair:

Intel S5520SCR Dual LGA1366 Xeon/ Intel 5520/ DDR3/ A&V&2GbE/ SSI EEB Server Motherboard $466
2 Processor: Quad-Core Intel Xeon Processor E5520 $750
6x1 GB DDR3 server memory $180
ATI 4870HD - $200
1TB HD 7200 rpm $80
DVDRW - $30

This is probably as close as you will get to the same specs at 1/2 the cost

 

[haplo602]

[citation][nom]husker[/nom]I think you are missing the point. This is targeted for servers that have hundreds or even thousands of users connecting to them simultaneously. Having multiple threads running simultaneously is very efficient and desirable in this type of computing, and multiple cores is a very efficient and cost effective strategy.And if you are a gamer and think it has nothing to do with you then you are wrong. MMO games may be a big beneficiary of this technology. More efficient server farms can help keep response times and availability up while keeping costs down.[/citation]

this is just for bragging ... you forget that HPC servers are only one part and a small part of the market. imagine you have a 64core server. one is 4x16 and one is 16x4. Now one core malfunctions on a socket. in the first scenario, after the system boots back up, you just lost 25% of your computing power since the whole CPU is disabled. in the second case, you just lost only 6.25% of your computing power. Which one do you prefer ? Also changing a 4 core CPU is less expensive than changing a 16 core CPU. it's all about a balanced architecture, not about the highest thread count.

 

[Ciuy]

"Systems can include up to 256 chips per server to combine for 2,048 cores and 4,098 threads. "

OMG now that can play anything on 50 screens at the same time

 

[ohim]

[citation][nom]husker[/nom]I think you are missing the point. This is targeted for servers that have hundreds or even thousands of users connecting to them simultaneously. Having multiple threads running simultaneously is very efficient and desirable in this type of computing, and multiple cores is a very efficient and cost effective strategy.And if you are a gamer and think it has nothing to do with you then you are wrong. MMO games may be a big beneficiary of this technology. More efficient server farms can help keep response times and availability up while keeping costs down.[/citation]
i`am aware of that, but i was speaking in general .. mostly here are Desktop CPUs verry rare you can see an article about the server side CPUs.

 

[danielmastia]

[citation][nom]shadow187[/nom]That's great and all, but come on guys. We're going to need more than cores. 100 cores at 2ghz each might be nice, but to be honest, I'd rather have 20 cores at 10ghz each.What I'm saying is, I'd rather we see improvements against the hertz barrier, not the core/threading. I mean, if we get an 8,000mhz processor, give each core 4 threads! (Though I do not know if this is possible (I don't know how hyperthreading works) ).[/citation]
Anytime i bring this up i'm thumbed down too.
I really dont understand why some people cant see that most of us dont need more than 4 threads (even 2) but a increase frequency (or transistors) in an individual thread would bring tremendous performance gains

 

[mlopinto2k1]

[citation][nom]Tindytim[/nom]Then how is it that the OSx86 project has a list of off the shelf hardware combinations that allow you to run OSX unmodified? They use the exact same parts, the difference being that they use EFI (which the motherboard I currently use supports, and plenty of other modern boards support) and ECC ram (which I could buy if I felt like wasting money). They use the same hardware, and the same benchmarks apply when it comes to it's performance.That would be an OS competition, not a hardware competition, unless you decided to compete on price points, in which case it's highly unlikely any system running OSX would win.Where does it say it is? I have an LGA 1366 desktop a built a few years back, with hardware that was recommend on this site, and I run Linux on it. I've never gotten faster renders.Think on that, because I'm probably not going to reply further.[/citation]Listen, not to let this get out of hand... Mac computers use their own motherboards. If you could purchase the IDENTICAL motherboard and parts it would be much more cost effective and NO ONE would buy a Mac. This is the reason for "HACKINTOSH's". When I say they don't use the same parts what I mean is that PC's are configurable in almost any way possible, switching parts as needed. There is no "special" board I need to run Microsoft Windows natively. I asked the owners of Tom's Hardware why they don't compare Macs and PC's, not you. The answers you provided are logical but not the one's I am looking for. Why does Tom's Hardware only use the Microsoft Operating System to run benchmarks? I have nothing against this, I use Windows myself! I just WANT TO KNOW WHY. If you think you can provide me with a DECENT explanation.. have at it. I would like to see TOMS benchmark Macs because I trust their DATA! I know that Macs use Intel chips! Is Microsoft utilizing Intel's technology to the best of their ability???

 

[mlopinto2k1]

[citation][nom]thaisport[/nom]Outside of the motherboard, I beg to differ. Look at the specs below directly from the apple site and you can find it for the PC. For the sake of space and time, I'll just do the Mac Pro.http://store.apple.com/us_smb_7831 [...] ly/mac_prohttp://support.apple.com/kb/SP506Mac Pro:[/b]8-core: Two 2.26GHz, 2.66GHz, or 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5500 series processors Quad-core: One 2.66GHz, 2.93GHz, or 3.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 3500 series processorUp to 16gb DDR3 of GB for the 8-core versionEither:NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 with 512MB of GDDR3 memory, PCI Express 2.0, one Mini DisplayPort, and one dual-link DVI portORATI Radeon HD 4870 with 512MB of GDDR5 memory, PCI Express 2.0, one Mini DisplayPort, and one dual-link DVI portSo... hardware is the "same" as you find on the PC side of things however the Mac Pro uses server processors. I agree with you on running benchmarking tests but if you want to compare it to a Mac Pro, you would need to build a PC with something like this to make it fair:Intel S5520SCR Dual LGA1366 Xeon/ Intel 5520/ DDR3/ A&V&2GbE/ SSI EEB Server Motherboard $4662 Processor: Quad-Core Intel Xeon Processor E5520 $7506x1 GB DDR3 server memory $180ATI 4870HD - $2001TB HD 7200 rpm $80DVDRW - $30This is probably as close as you will get to the same specs at 1/2 the cost[/citation]Thank you, Thank you, Thank you... I am %100 aware that the parts can be purchased for a PC but that MOTHERBOARD can't.. as you stated. They don't use the "same" hardware. (I'm not arguing with you). I think generalizations should be ignored here, on this forum. Right? Mac vs. Pc vs. Linux. File Compressions/Uncompression, GIMP/Photoshop tests, Video Conversions, etc... can all be done. The price point you mentioned is why Mac makes their own damn motherboard.

 

[kronos_cornelius]

[citation][nom]Tindytim[/nom]It's only necessary for large servers that are either:A. Doing scientific research (as the article states, bringing x86 to higher end supercomputer levels)B. Acting as the host OS for multiple virtual machine servers.[/citation]

But the bigger point is that the consumer audience is less and lees interested about upgrading to the latest hardware. This could be bad for science as Tidytim points out. The fact that the largest Floating point processor supplied to scientist is coming from Nvidia should tell us something about who has being unofficially financing computational science. It probably also could be used to criticize a society that is willing to spend hundreds of dollars in entertainment, but barely any money on securing the next generations future.

 

[Milleman]

What about Crysis then?

 

[Abrahm]

[citation][nom]mlopinto2k1[/nom]A. I don't give a rats ass what you think.B. It's not Tom's Microsoft Windows HardwareC. I wan't to see video conversions, photoshop times, and file compression. D. Stop drinking caffeinated products.E. For EDIT! They don't run the same hardware. LOL[/citation]

You are correct with E. Macs are a couple of generations behind PCs.