With two Intel Quad-Core Clovertown processors and eight sticks of Kingston FB-DIMM DDR2 Phoronix set out to see the level of memory performance in an octal-core environment. Phoronix has tested the memory in single, dual, and quad memory channel configurations. Read the article to see how the Intel Xeon 5300 performs in various Fully Buffered Dual Inline Memory Module configurations.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
I have to agree about the FSB. IMHO this should be junked ASAP. The Memory to CPU bottlneck is Intel's biggest problem. The raw CPU is fine but they are going to get hammered in late 2007 by the superior data shifting ability of AMD with their Hypertransport.
In reality AMD CPUs with superior data shifting ability get hammered by QX6700 
http://www.hothardware.com/printarticle.aspx?articleid=911
Member since:2005-07-06
In reality AMD CPUs with superior data shifting ability get hammered by QX6700
http://www.hothardware.com/printarticle.aspx?articleid=911
Quite frankly, considering that the Core Duos are a whole revision further on than AMD in terms of their die size and on 65nm, and AMD have reached their absolute limit with 90nm, those results are nothing short of an embarrassment for Intel.
From a multi-threaded application point of view, which is very relevant to servers and to this article, the Intels were taken to the cleaners:
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?page=8&articleid=911
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?page=10&articleid=911
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?page=11&articleid=911
Basically, you have to buy a QX6700 to get anything that is significantly better than comparable AMDs, and you then have to ask yourself if it's actually worth the money to get it. I suppose that's the key question.
Additionally, Intel still don't have anything comparable to Hypertransport which works better as memory size grows which is important servers. That's why Intel have had to come up with FB-DIMMS, which AMD are somewhat less than keen on obviously. They also still don't have on-die memory controllers either.
As far as servers are concerned, AMD's architecture is just plain better. From a desktop and workstation (and servers - previous Xeons were terrible) point of view then Intel have improved significantly in performance from the rubbish they were producing before, but considering that Intel are still more expensive than AMD the question many people should ask is "Is it worth it?"
Member since:
2005-07-22
I have to agree about the FSB. IMHO this should be junked ASAP. The Memory to CPU bottlneck is Intel's biggest problem.
The raw CPU is fine but they are going to get hammered in late 2007 by the superior data shifting ability of AMD with their Hypertransport.
Server do a lot of bulk data shifting. At the present time, the biggest use of Quad Cores will be in the Server Market (Software Licenses permitting that is...) If you can't get the data in and out of the CPU quicker that your main competitor then you are going to have real problem.
It's ok for the likes of IBM & HP though as they have the resources to design good motherboards but for the rest of us, I see little or no gain over the current conroe CPU's.