Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 23:58:59 03/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2003 at 11:18:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On March 06, 2003 at 00:19:54, Keith Evans wrote: > >>On March 05, 2003 at 22:41:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On March 05, 2003 at 20:10:56, Keith Evans wrote: >>> >>>>On March 05, 2003 at 15:09:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 05, 2003 at 14:46:18, Keith Evans wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On March 05, 2003 at 11:34:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On March 05, 2003 at 10:21:32, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Your data is simply wrong. The xeon core has _not_ changed from 2.8ghz to 3.06 >>>>>>>ghz, >>>>>>>and I have no idea why you want to supply your "disinformation" that it has. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>We have four of these on the way (dual 3.06 dell 650s) for faculty. They have >>>>>>>shipped >>>>>>>(2/28) so they should be here any time. I'll run the tests and post the results >>>>>>>to further >>>>>>>debunk this "myth" that 3.06's are different... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>What is the difference between a 3.06 GHz P4 and a 3.06 GHz Xeon? >>>>>> >>>>>>Thanks, >>>>>>Keith >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Not a whole lot, other than the xeons have the necessary hardware for multiple >>>>>processor >>>>>configurations. IE the ability for each to invalidate pieces of the cache based >>>>>on activity on >>>>>the other processor. >>>> >>>>At Dell you can buy dual processor P4 systems. How are they handling the >>>>multiprocessor configurations compared to a Xeon? Is there a performance >>>>hit? Are they really Xeons and not P4s? >>> >>>What machine? We have bought several 650's and they are xeon-based. My >>>2600 server platform is also xeon-based. >>> >>>Tell me what you are looking at and I'll poke around Dell... >> >>Now that I'm looking again I can't find them. Which means that it must have been >>a figment of my imagination, and you're right about the multiple processor >>stuff. I'm actually quite glad to be wrong about that because otherwise I would >>be very confused... Sorry about that. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>Also there are xeons and xeon-MP versions. The MP >>>>>versions are >>>>>supposedly the only ones capable of running in 4-way and up boxes. What the >>>>>differences are >>>>>I really have not taken the time to discover... >>>>> >>>>>Oh yes. There is one significant difference. Price. :) >>>> >>>>Has anyone run crafty on an MP system? Any idea how a 2 GHz MP would compare to >>>>a 3 GHz Xeon? >>> >>> >>>I have run it on a 4-way 2ghz box. It is faster than my dual 2.8, but then >>>it is _way_ more expensive as well as the 2ghz xeons (MP certified) only come >>>in 2mb L2 cache versions and each CPU is selling for $4K or so. Makes the >>>machine _very_ expensive. >> >>I might be interested in such a box for running ASIC simulations so cost >>wouldn't be an issue. I think that a dual MP box could be had for under $15k at >>Dell which isn't bad compared to the cost of the software that I would be >>running on it. The large cache might be a huge win - the 512k Xeon cache >>definitely helped. >> >>Regards, >>Keith > > >When you say "dual MP" I assume you mean dual xeons but with huge L2? I haven't >tried >to check, but I would suspect it might not work. There is something in the back >of my mind >that the MP xeons have one extra pin, but that might be a faulty recollection. >But if it is >true, it would mean that you couldn't swap a couple of 2MB L2 xeons into a box >like mine. > >I think this is mentioned somewhere on the Intel web site. I ran across it when >trying to figure >out what I wanted to buy when I got my dual. There are 503-pin Xeons and 504-pin Xeons. I don't know what the difference is, but I know some have 1 extra pin. -Matt
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.