Has anyone seen any benchmark comparisons out there which compare the
Intel dual core processors against the same clock speed XEON x 2?

It's like there's a conspiracy by Intel to not allow the two to be
compared. I suspect that the Pentium D 820 (2.8GHz) would be quite close
to the XEON parts. Or at least within 5% or so...

Thanks for any guidance!

There was a recent article on Tom's Hardware which compared AMD
dual-cores against dual AMD single-cores. They mentioned a Xeon SC vs.
Xeon DC in that article too, but never seemed to do any tests of them.
It was a rather confusing article, so I'm not going to bother posting
its URL here again, you can do the search on Tom's site. But it's not
really going to tell you much about your particular question about
Xeons, but it will tell you plenty about Opterons.

Yousuf Khan

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:35:25 -0500, Richard Cook <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Has anyone seen any benchmark comparisons out there which compare the
>Intel dual core processors against the same clock speed XEON x 2?
>
>It's like there's a conspiracy by Intel to not allow the two to be
>compared. I suspect that the Pentium D 820 (2.8GHz) would be quite close
>to the XEON parts. Or at least within 5% or so...

It wouldn't surprise me if the desktop chip is faster in some/many apps:
Intel usually derates the FSB on Xeons which on top of registering makes
the memory response worse, so they throw more cache into the Xeon soup. It
also depends on which chipset you want to look at - Xeon will shine with
dual sockets and dual independent bus.

You see the same thing with Athlon64 vs. Opteron - the former is almost
always faster if you can get the 1T command rate on the memory but cache is
used to boost the Opteron.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:21:33 -0500, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:35:25 -0500, Richard Cook <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Has anyone seen any benchmark comparisons out there which compare the
>>Intel dual core processors against the same clock speed XEON x 2?
>>
>>It's like there's a conspiracy by Intel to not allow the two to be
>>compared. I suspect that the Pentium D 820 (2.8GHz) would be quite close
>>to the XEON parts. Or at least within 5% or so...
>
>It wouldn't surprise me if the desktop chip is faster in some/many apps:
>Intel usually derates the FSB on Xeons which on top of registering makes
>the memory response worse, so they throw more cache into the Xeon soup. It
>also depends on which chipset you want to look at - Xeon will shine with
>dual sockets and dual independent bus.
[snipped]

Unlike desktop P4s, Xeons run on multi-dropped buses. That problem goes away
with processors running behind Blackford et al. Going point-to-point should
enable 1.33 Gigawiggle FSBs...

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:21:33 -0500 George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in Message id:
<(E-Mail Removed)>:

>On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:35:25 -0500, Richard Cook <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Has anyone seen any benchmark comparisons out there which compare the
>>Intel dual core processors against the same clock speed XEON x 2?
>>
>>It's like there's a conspiracy by Intel to not allow the two to be
>>compared. I suspect that the Pentium D 820 (2.8GHz) would be quite close
>>to the XEON parts. Or at least within 5% or so...
>
>It wouldn't surprise me if the desktop chip is faster in some/many apps:
>Intel usually derates the FSB on Xeons which on top of registering makes
>the memory response worse, so they throw more cache into the Xeon soup. It
>also depends on which chipset you want to look at - Xeon will shine with
>dual sockets and dual independent bus.

Thanks for your reply, George. Assuming that the Dual XEON _is_ using a
dual independent bus, and are 2.8GHz parts, do you think the difference in
performance would exceed 10% over the dual core Pentium D 820, or would
you think it'd be somewhat less?

>You see the same thing with Athlon64 vs. Opteron - the former is almost
>always faster if you can get the 1T command rate on the memory but cache is
>used to boost the Opteron.

I would like to go with AMD's offerings due to being the best bang for the
buck, Unfortunately, our customers are stuck on Intel. They're military
and industrial process control types - practically immovable. In fact,
some of them still insist on using NT 4.0 making driver issues a real
headache.

Thanks again!

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 06:59:36 -0500, Richard Cook <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

....snip...
>
>I would like to go with AMD's offerings due to being the best bang for the
>buck, Unfortunately, our customers are stuck on Intel. They're military
>and industrial process control types - practically immovable. In fact,
>some of them still insist on using NT 4.0 making driver issues a real
>headache.
>
>Thanks again!

I was under impression that MS discontinued 4.0 and all support
thereof about a year ago. In fact, one of my projects of that time
was rewriting of one old system in .NET because 4.0 servers were
subject to decom by Nov.'04, and 2k/2003 server didn't play well with
some legacy technology that ran on 4.0 just fine. But then, those
guys demanding 4.0 may be invested into similar legacy software and
have no (budget, expertise, intent, other, all of the above - pick any
;-) to do a major app overhaul.
NNN

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:00:30 GMT "(E-Mail Removed)"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in Message id:
<(E-Mail Removed)>:

>On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 06:59:36 -0500, Richard Cook <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>...snip...
>>
>>I would like to go with AMD's offerings due to being the best bang for the
>>buck, Unfortunately, our customers are stuck on Intel. They're military
>>and industrial process control types - practically immovable. In fact,
>>some of them still insist on using NT 4.0 making driver issues a real
>>headache.
>>
>>Thanks again!
>
>I was under impression that MS discontinued 4.0 and all support
>thereof about a year ago.

I believe you are correct.

>In fact, one of my projects of that time
>was rewriting of one old system in .NET because 4.0 servers were
>subject to decom by Nov.'04, and 2k/2003 server didn't play well with
>some legacy technology that ran on 4.0 just fine. But then, those
>guys demanding 4.0 may be invested into similar legacy software and
>have no (budget, expertise, intent, other, all of the above - pick any
>;-) to do a major app overhaul.

Actually, we're using NT 4.0 embedded licenses for our customers, which
gets us around the availability issue.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 17:09:14 -0500, daytripper <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:21:33 -0500, George Macdonald
><fammacd=!SPAM^(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:35:25 -0500, Richard Cook <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>Has anyone seen any benchmark comparisons out there which compare the
>>>Intel dual core processors against the same clock speed XEON x 2?
>>>
>>>It's like there's a conspiracy by Intel to not allow the two to be
>>>compared. I suspect that the Pentium D 820 (2.8GHz) would be quite close
>>>to the XEON parts. Or at least within 5% or so...
>>
>>It wouldn't surprise me if the desktop chip is faster in some/many apps:
>>Intel usually derates the FSB on Xeons which on top of registering makes
>>the memory response worse, so they throw more cache into the Xeon soup. It
>>also depends on which chipset you want to look at - Xeon will shine with
>>dual sockets and dual independent bus.
>[snipped]
>
>Unlike desktop P4s, Xeons run on multi-dropped buses. That problem goes away
>with processors running behind Blackford et al. Going point-to-point should
>enable 1.33 Gigawiggle FSBs...

All those code names - so confusing.:-)

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:33:32 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 17:09:14 -0500, daytripper <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:21:33 -0500, George Macdonald
>><fammacd=!SPAM^(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:35:25 -0500, Richard Cook <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Has anyone seen any benchmark comparisons out there which compare the
>>>>Intel dual core processors against the same clock speed XEON x 2?
>>>>
>>>>It's like there's a conspiracy by Intel to not allow the two to be
>>>>compared. I suspect that the Pentium D 820 (2.8GHz) would be quite close
>>>>to the XEON parts. Or at least within 5% or so...
>>>
>>>It wouldn't surprise me if the desktop chip is faster in some/many apps:
>>>Intel usually derates the FSB on Xeons which on top of registering makes
>>>the memory response worse, so they throw more cache into the Xeon soup. It
>>>also depends on which chipset you want to look at - Xeon will shine with
>>>dual sockets and dual independent bus.
>>[snipped]
>>
>>Unlike desktop P4s, Xeons run on multi-dropped buses. That problem goes away
>>with processors running behind Blackford et al. Going point-to-point should
>>enable 1.33 Gigawiggle FSBs...
>
> All those code names - so confusing.:-)

Are you sure there is such a word as "gigawiggle"? My first thought on
seeing this was that it must be a made-up word, like someone saying
"bazillion" when they mean a really large number.

A quick search on google finds one hit, something to do with antennas and
feed horns.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:00:30 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 06:59:36 -0500, Richard Cook <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>>
>>I would like to go with AMD's offerings due to being the best bang for the
>>buck, Unfortunately, our customers are stuck on Intel. They're military
>>and industrial process control types - practically immovable. In fact,
>>some of them still insist on using NT 4.0 making driver issues a real
>>headache.
>>
>>Thanks again!
>
> I was under impression that MS discontinued 4.0 and all support
> thereof about a year ago. In fact, one of my projects of that time
> was rewriting of one old system in .NET because 4.0 servers were
> subject to decom by Nov.'04, and 2k/2003 server didn't play well with
> some legacy technology that ran on 4.0 just fine. But then, those
> guys demanding 4.0 may be invested into similar legacy software and
> have no (budget, expertise, intent, other, all of the above - pick any
> ;-) to do a major app overhaul.
> NNN

The last time I had to work with NT4, the drivers were a real problem.
Among other things, NT4 had (has) no support for modern, fast IDE
interfaces, which left a lot to be desired performance wise. I suppose you
could work around this by using SCSI drives, but the cost differential for
SCSI is huge these days.

Still, if they have ancient software which only works on NT4, and it would
cost tens or hundreds of thousands to rework the software, then....

Who was it that said the hardware is ALWAYS cheaper than the software? I
seem to recall reading that in Jerry Pournelle's column in Byte magazine 15
years ago, but I bet it goes back much further than that.