I guess AMD is encouraging many sites to do this heads on comparison since Tech Report has one too with similar systems. They swapped in a pair of 2.67GHz X5355 Clovertons too which was interesting. It's good that you put in a pair of E5150s though since that's probably more comparable to the 2nd from the top 2.6GHz 2218s that AMD provided.

What I would love to see is data points for the top of the line 2.8GHz 2220SE, to see if the power numbers are actually that much worse, and a 2.4GHz 2216HE to see if the power numbers are that much better. I'd also be interested in seeing a pair of 2.33GHz 5148 Woodcrests reviewed since I haven't seen anyone look to see how much better the LV chips are compared to regular 65W and 80W Woodcrests.

It may not be that fair a comparison, but inclusion of the 2.67GHz X5355 Cloverton like Tech Report did would also be informative. Although, data for the 2.33Ghz E5345 Cloverton is probably more important since it still offers a 1333MHz FSB while keeping a 80W TDP of the lower parts, theoretically putting it in the sweet spot for performance/watt.

It should probably be pointed out too that Tech Report also tried a 4x2GB configuration for the FB-DIMMs and they found they saved 22W or something, compared to a 8x1GB configuration. That's something to note for system configurators and leaves more room for future expansion too.

Reply

quote:

---

Some might wonder if a different - read Intel - motherboard for the Woodcrest system could have significantly altered the outcome of these tests

---

After reading about FB-DIMMS, and the direct comparison to DDR2, I can not help but wonder, IF it were possible to use these Xeons with standard off the shelf DDR2, how well the Xeons would compare. Maybe this correlates with the quoted text above from your article, I do not know, as I don't know a lot about server grade equipment. Well, at least not "cutting edge" server equipment.

Reply

FB-DIMMs definitely use more power, and there's technically nothing to prevent someone from making a dual socket Xeon board that uses DDR2 or even DDR (or DDR3, etc.) instead of FB-DIMMs. However, for now Intel has decided that FB-DIMM DDR2 is the way they're going for workstation/server platforms, so all we can do is wonder "what if...?"

Reply

Huh? As I understand it there IS a difference. The FB memory controller is different and the pin configuration is significantly different, as half the pins connect to the memory controller, the other half connect to the next DIMM on the same channel. Then there's also the fact that having quad-channel DDR2 would require an insane amount of traces while quad-channel FB requires roughly the same amount of traces.

Reply

He didn't say there isn't a difference, did he?

Reply

What has the memory controller to do with the possibility of sticking 2 Woodcrests on DDR2 chipset ???
The only thing to play is the FSB compatibility.

BTW, NVIDIA is stepping in so such a platform is pretty much possible in 2007. SLI Quadro anyone...

Reply

Interesting, not what you mom said last night. Oh, who got pwned?

Reply

Speed / power difference, silly . . .

Reply

The conclusion of this article seems slanted - Did AMD suggest specifically that you look into "low end performance per watt"? Be honest, they planted the seed, right?

1) Please post a link to the last article where AT's conclusion was overall this favorable to the top end performance loser. Please, we're waiting...

2) Why should the Intel system not be quad-core? Just because AMD doesn't have it yet? They even work in the same socket!

3) How can you justify saying AMD did "very well", and there's no Intel upgrade benefit unless you "routinely run your servers near capacity", when Intel quad core would have completely invalidated the results for performance per watt at nearly all levels?

Full disclosure, no axe to grind: I have praised previous AT articles because they are usually great. I currently own AMD as my primary system.

This article just doesn't smell right - too much vendor influence.




Reply

I agree, to an extent. I just order some DL380G5's and they current fastest CPU point for quad core CPU's is 1.86GHz. Comparing 8 cores at 1.86 vs 4 cores at 3.0 starts to get difficult as it it really depends on the application in use on that system. Since this article seems to be more of a comparison of CPU architectures, the systems and CPU's used in the test seem appropriate. I think it's smart to wait until AMD has quad core out and compare apples to apples. The folks currently ordering quad core Intel systems (like me) would likely not be interested in a dual core Intel or AMD system as the task dictates the hardware, and with the systems I'm using quad cores in I simply don't need the speed, just more cores.

Reply