AMD’s Opteron struck a chord by offering 64-bit, x86-compatible processing at 32-bit prices. Now Intel has jumped into the same game with the 64-bit “Nocona,” a new Xeon that smokes previous models. Here’s how one of the first Nocona servers performed under a full barrage of benchmarks at InfoWorld.
Meet the 64-bit Xeon
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
The link for “that smokes” points to Intel’s roadmap of it’s dual core proc (Smithfield).
For people that like numbers, here is a chart
http://www.infoworld.com/infoworld/img/31FEnocona_ch1.gif
Keep in mind this is a 3.6GHz Nacona against a 3.2GHz Xeon, it also lacks an Opteron to compare against.
Poor benchmarks like this are the reason I usually just ignore the first early reports and wait for Anandtech to publish benchmarks.
“I benchmarked the Nocona chip in 32-bit mode only…”
Well, that was a waste of time then – the main feature of the chip is that it’s the first ever 64-bit x86-64 chip from Intel and they don’t bother doing any 64-bit benchmarking? As the earlier poster said, surely it’s Nocona vs. Opteron in 64-bit mode is what we’re all keen to know (plus maybe both in 32-bit mode for running legacy programs, but we must at least have the 64-bit figures).
Too bad that the Intel chips will not be competitively priced with their pure 32 bit ones, and to top it off, these x86-64 clones still have no NX bit.
Once again, AMD is going to be getting my money, and not Intel (unless I win a small lotery and buy a computer based on one of their excelent Itanium 2s (which do have NX)).
> Too bad that the Intel chips will not be competitively priced with their pure 32 bit ones, and to top it off, these x86-64 clones still have no NX bit.
Not for long. The NX bit has been incorporated into the new E0 stepping, and will be available around Sept 24th, though only in LGA775 socket based Prescott P4s.
Not for long. The NX bit has been incorporated into the new E0 stepping, and will be available around Sept 24th, though only in LGA775 socket based Prescott P4s.
All Athlon 64s and Opterons have it now, have had it since their inception, and it’s a feature that’s been supported in compatible motherboards since the beginning. Intel is still behind here in what should have been a basic feautre two years ago.
0. alpha had this quite a while ago.
1. alpha cpu designers goto AMD.
2. NX bit gets used at AMD, and ships it.
3. Intel copies this functionality but has not shipped it.
Whats that offer me?
Whats that offer me?
Protection against quite a number of worms for starters.
> All Athlon 64s and Opterons have it now, have had it since their inception, and it’s a feature that’s been supported in compatible motherboards since the beginning. Intel is still behind here in what should have been a basic feautre two years ago.
Not to be negative or anything, but the most widely used OS (and arguably the one with the most number of buffer overflow vulnerabilities discovered to date), which stands to gain the most from this still does not officially support it. Sure, Service pack 2 brings this functionality to Windows, but then again, it is still in beta, and until it becomes widely deployed in a stable form, simply having a processors that implement NX doesn’t do much. So whether AMD implemented it first & Intel followed suit is completely irrelevant, since the software to take advantage of it is simply not in place on the platform that needs it the most.
linux already supports NX, right?
ahh windows dosent support the nx bit until now and why should
it when no x86 chips supports it until now.
is it not likley that windows would have supported the nx bit much earlier if the chips implemented it earlier?
the chicken and the egg problem
NX bit is not a major concern at all at the moment, for most needs.
There is hunderds of more important factors.
NX bit is not a major concern at all at the moment, for most needs.
That’s right. Because we all know that worms and trojans that exploit buffer overflows aren’t a threat to people at all >:-(
There is hunderds of more important factors.
Once again, you’re “opening your mouth” when you ought not to, as pure garbage has once again spilled out.
Seriously, go away. Some people here are actually concerned about security, and want it to be available to everyone, even if you could care less.
Some people here are actually concerned about security, and want it to be available to everyone, even if you could care less.
Sometimes I wonder how Windows got and can hold it’s market share if people really are concerned about security…
(the same story with user-friedliness and the laughable Win3/95/.. , the strength of Windows as Server OS, etc.)
It’s like having to light a football field but limit yourself to a single candle…
Sometimes I wonder how Windows got and can hold it’s market share if people really are concerned about security…
Those who are concerned about security does something about it regardless of what system we use. If Windows, close unneeded services installed and started as default, Setup a firewall and possibly antivirus (often not needed as we don’t run insecure stuff). Do things like that and you are much safer than a user who couldn’t care less about security is on, say, just about any given Linux distro.
Sure Windows defaults are poor. I’ve seen Linux distros with poor defaults too (Lindo…Linspire).
(the same story with user-friedliness and the laughable Win3/95/.. , the strength of Windows as Server OS, etc.)
Well Windows <3.x is not to bad given the time it played in. Sure Mac OS was way better at that point but the Unix desktops sure was not better at that point when usability was concerned (with the possible exception of NextStep, but hey, how many people ran that on those pesky Gotta-Love-Proprietary-Hardware-Steve-Jobs boxes).
Win 95 was a significant change of both the GUI and the rest of the system. Sure, it lacked in some areas (networking) but was over all better in all areas for end users, except stability, than Unix desktops. OS/2 was way more stable and had a better core system but the UI was completely unusable. Extremely unintuitive and awkward, IBM had a possible winner here and forgot to put some usability people on the OS/2 payroll.
The strength of Windows as Server OS, well, what can I say. Remember the time when IIS had loads of security holes? Those days are all gone. When was the last time a security hole was found in IIS on Windows 2003 (which had a complete rewrite and lowering of system priviligies). I’m not saying IIS is excellent to use (I don’t use it myself, tho my previous work did) but is sure doesn’t suck anymore.
I believe in using the system that is best for any given task and that often means using different systems. Don’t be so closeminded and let the different systems flourish together.
It’s like having to light a football field but limit yourself to a single candle…
What is like that? You didn’t specify an impossible task to compare with. Please enlighten the rest of us.
Those who are concerned about security does something about it regardless of what system we use.
ACK. But I was asking a question: How many holes are needed before people – especially those who are concerned about security – start using something more secure (that’s what I would do if I was concerned about security)?
If you have the choice buying a leaky boat (where the appearence of further leaks must be assumed) and the a boat in good order, would you choose the leaky boat for a transatlantic cruise?
I believe in using the system that is best for any given task
Really? Because..
Sure Windows defaults are poor..
Sure Mac OS was way better at that point..
Remember the time when IIS had loads of security holes?..
I was asking why those who are concerned about security (some of them calling themselves even “experts”) limit their choice to an OS with obvious shortcomings in exactly that area.
Or more general: why wait for the “next big thing” from Redmond despite the availability of – in some areas way better – alternatives?
(Hope it’s now clearer than the “candle” thing 🙂
English is obviously not my mother tongue…)
linux supports NX but it doesn’t have to worry about viruses as much as Windows.
linux supports NX but it doesn’t have to worry about viruses as much as Windows.
Linux only very recently got support for NX (as of 2.6.5 I believe), an you’re right about the viruses. However, NX does not protect against viruses (contrary to AMD’s advertising), but protects against (buffer overflow exploiting) worms, and Linux is every bit as vulnerable to these as is Windows.
Back in my Linux days, my machines got infected twice before I learned my lesson.
I was asking why those who are concerned about security (some of them calling themselves even “experts”) limit their choice to an OS with obvious shortcomings in exactly that area.
Did you miss the part where I wrote “using the best OS for the task”? Perhaps there are many tasks that Windows does better and perhaps there are some tasks that ONLY Windows can do. What good is another, by default, more secure system of you can do the tasks you want to do or if you cant do them as effectively as on Windows. You can still be conserned about security (I am) and still use Windows. To use your leaky analogy (pun intended); if you think the leaky boat is a better/faster wa to travel although it is leaky, you do something about those leaks. You can for instance plaster its outside (i.e. add a firewall) and give it extra protection.
Those who ONLY think that security is all that matters are dimwhits as in my opinion there are other aspects that are MORE important as you can, very easily do something about security. If you care about security you also will not rest once you have secured your system. You stay on top of it and read and monitor. This you HAVE to do on ALL systems, even OpenBSD. Otherwise you cant say you really care about security.
Or more general: why wait for the “next big thing” from Redmond despite the availability of – in some areas way better – alternatives?
Who said one need to wait? There are excellent systems available today (including Windows) that can be made extremely secure.
As always use the best system for the given task, I know I do.
“What good is another, by default, more secure system of you can do the tasks you want to do or if you cant do them as effectively as on Windows.”
should of course be:
“What good is another, by default, more secure system of you can’t do the tasks you want to do or if you can’t do them as effectively as on Windows.”