quote:As an example, a 2.66 GHz Clovertown (let alone a 3.0 GHz Xeon) as part of a 3D rendering farm is going to be a lot better than two 2.8 GHz (or 3.0 GHz...) Opteron parts. Two Xeon 5355 will also be better than four Opteron 8220 in that specific instance, I'm quite sure
quote:The point is I am sure there are benchmarks where the FSB bottleneck isn't as pronounced. Anything that can stay mostly within the CPU cache will be very happy with the current Xeon 53xx chips
quote:I doubt 1600 FSB is going to really help, hence the need for the new high speed link with Nehalem on the part of Intel
quote:for all we know, the current memory interface on AMD might not actually be able to manage feeding quad cores any better than Intel's FSB does
quote:I'm not sure why you guys don't think an increase in FSB and memory bandwidth (i.e. 1600) isn't going to help. It's seems beyond obvious it will. Will it help enough is the only question
quote:With regards to the 2+2 from Intel, why does anyone really care?
quote:if one set of the cores is not capable at a certain speed, you just match it with one that is fairly close to it and sell it like that
quote:Why would AMD not have problems with Quad-Cores similar to Intel? You still have four cores sucking data through one memory bus, right? Or am I missing something?
quote:It's not a coincidence Intel processor have more cache, it's because AMD uses so much room on the processor for the memory controller. Intel decided they'd rather use the transistors for other things
quote:Also remember that the Penryn will have larger caches, which helps mediate this problem since you will have less contention
quote:but multithreading is nothing new, and there are limitations to it that simply can't be overcome...For some applications, it works great, for others you can't use it. Multiple cores are fairly new mainly because AMD and Intel can't think of anything better to do with the transistors
quote:ILP applies to everything, TLP does not, and is essentially an admission from CPU makers that they are in a very, very diminishing returns situation with regards to transistors and performance
quote:With regards to the shared cache, you are also incorrect in saying it is why the Core 2 is so fast
quote:theory sounds great, but where the rubber meets the road, the Clovertown does really well, and the main limitations have nothing to do with the trivialities of having a 2+2. In apps that can use it, the quad core shows a dramatic improvement over the dual
quote:Your whole premise is illogical, you are saying that with the Nehalem all the sudden memory changes will happen slower
quote:Six years to design a processor is absurd, and you should know better...
quote:Look at AMD copying SSE, and Intel copying x86-64. Products now are derivative of earlier generations anyway, so you can't go six years back
quote:You are said that Intel's main reason for not putting a memory controller on the chip was because changes in memory happen too quickly
quote:First of all, you said six years, now you're down to five
quote:You also assume a completely new design, which isn't the case anymore. They are derivative from previous designs
quote:AMD was against using SSE and was touting 3D Now!
quote:To make the transistor designs, you need to know specifics about how things will act under every situation and the necessary behavior...You also need an actual processor to have so you can test
quote:with regards to Yamhill. The processors had this logic in them way before they were released, and the design was done well before that
quote:I could paste your stuff, but you have logical deficiencies
quote:I'm done arguing with you
quote:I'm not sure why you guys don't think an increase in FSB and memory bandwidth (i.e. 1600) isn't going to help. It's seems beyond obvious it will. Will it help enough is the only question.
quote:I'm not sure why you guys don't think an increase in FSB and memory bandwidth (i.e. 1600) isn't going to help.
quote:AMD CPUs are capable or more transactions per second ?
quote:according to those results two top of the line 2.66GHz Clowertowns would match performance of four 2.8GHz Opteron
quote:I'm not sure where you get that comparison
quote:Ah, right. I think that's part of what Ross was talking about when he discusses the difficulties in coming up with appropriates tests for these systems
quote:Don't forget that four Opteron 8220 chips cost substantially more than two Xeon 5355 chips. $1600 x 4 vs. $1200 x 2. Then again, price differences of a few thousand dollars aren't really a huge deal when we're talking about powerful servers. $25000 vs. $27000? Does it really matter if one is 20% faster?
quote:One final point is that I've heard Opteron does substantially better in virtualized environments. Running 32 virtual servers on an 8-way Opteron box will apparently easily outperform 8-way Xeon Clovertown. But that's just hearsay - I haven't seen any specific benches outside of some AMD slides.
quote:AMD basically gets more bandwidth for every socket (NUMA), so that's why it's not apples to apples