Printable View
kaz-n in Japan tested dual Clovertowns (2 X quad-core) on a Supermicro board. The results at only 2.4GHz speak for themselves. CPU-Z reads the processors as Woodcrest. But Sandra correctly shows there are four cores per CPU.
http://blue.ap.teacup.com/kaz622/img/1155331585.jpg
http://blue.ap.teacup.com/kaz622/img/1155331675.jpg
http://blue.ap.teacup.com/kaz622/img/1155331648.jpg
http://blue.ap.teacup.com/kaz622/img/1155331623.jpg
Here are some Xeon based system resluts
【CPU】 XEON 5160 (Woodcrest 3.0GHz)
【MEM 】 ATP DDR2-667 FB-DIMM 512MB*4
【M/B】 SuperMicro X7-DA8
【VGA】 Leadtek WinFast PX7900 GTX TDH 512MB
【driver】 ForceWare 83.91
【DirectX】 9.0c
【OS】 WindowsXP Pro SP2
【power】 Zippy-600GE typeR
3Dmark06
【Score】 6784
【SM2.0】 2595
【HDR/SM3.0】 2485
【CPU】 4432
【CPU】 XEON 7140M @stock (Tulsa 3.40GHz 16MB L3cache )
【MEM 】 Kingston DDR2-800 4*1GB
【M/B】 SuperMicro X7-DA8
【VGA】 XFX GF7800GTX512 SLI @ 690/1800
【driver】 ForceWare 91.37
【OS】 WindowsXP Pro SP1
【power】 Enermax Galaxy 1000 Watt PSU
3Dmark06
【Score】 11845
【SM2.0】 4985
【HDR/SM3.0】 4952
【CPU】 5328
【CPU】 XEON 7140M @ 4338MHz
【MEM 】 Kingston DDR2-800 4*1GB
【M/B】 SuperMicro X7-DA8
【VGA】 XFX GF7800GTX512 SLI @ 780/1968
【driver】 ForceWare 91.37
【OS】 WindowsXP Pro SP1
【power】 Enermax Galaxy 1000 Watt PSU
3Dmark06
【Score】 13452
【SM2.0】 5781
【HDR/SM3.0】5697
【CPU】 6632
That looks sexy
Amazing. This time hardware is much ahead of the software. There is still liltle soft that uses dual core. But im sure programs like rosetta and folding can realy take advantage of this. But games. hehe i wish..........
Now that's hot. :toast:
New games already have SMP support :) It would be stupid not to include it now
Literally :explode2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Popo
wonder if these would work plugged into a mac pro?
apart form this needing ECC ram and 4x4 wont.Quote:
Originally Posted by brentpresley
There are alot of companies that would want AMDs 4x4 or a Intel quad core but dont really need the ECC ram.
:toast:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Popo
Tulsa (Opteron Killer as it's called) with its humongous cache system is the last Intel attempt to show the strength of Netbust.:stick: Don't F**k with a giant. :fact:Quote:
Originally Posted by milkcafe
These bad boys are stingy! They start from a 4 -way system with a total of 16x4 = 64MB L3 total cache.
One can not but marvel at the pace of technological development in microprocessor these days. It remind me of the first IBM PC that was equipped with a slow 64MB of system RAM. We are now having CPU's ammassing such amount of memory as fast cache! Things are going to get really interesting in the coming years.
Jeebus. Tulsa looks pretty strong. Look at that overclock! 3.4 to 4338!
Umm... wow. Those are some insane scores. What's up with the voltage read-out on CPU-z though? Is it just buggy due to it not being updated, or does it add the voltages for both sockets together or something?
Still, for stock that is insane. Those Sandra scores are droolworthy.
Xeons FTW! Intel is getting a lot better with future compatibility. At least FOUR Xeon processor lines that can use the same board? That's crazy.
if they made a board that was made for gamers that supported quad quad cores:slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: with quad pcie slots for octo sli 7950s and 16gb of ram with scisi supprt :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber:
ncie scores:slobber: :slobber:
i would like to make sure i have this right....
conroe dual core -> kentsfield quadcore
woodcrest dual core -> clovertown quadcore
is that right?
Yes, that's correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Qkjhfhaiguihfma
Man o Man I hope quadfather is really as good as im hoping, or some of AMD's high ranking officials are going to be applying for jobs as janitors at intels camp :P
CMon Quadfather be the Don!
in addition to more cores, these will also be process and cache upgrades.Quote:
Originally Posted by brentpresley
Not even close...Quote:
Originally Posted by brentpresley
This, is a server. It uses only server chips(cloverton is a server chip, just like woodcrest), which carry a massive price premium over standard chips. It also has to use registered ECC ram, something 4x4 won't be limited to.
If you want to say this beat 4x4 to the punch, then technically the "4x4" dual socket system was done first quite some time ago, no?
Also, to the mention of Tulsa...
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/news.php?ti...hardware.co.uk
That's almost a 1.328 BILLION transistor chip. TDP of 150W average(I don't even want to know the maximum) on 65nm...That's with only 1.25V. That chip could boil water if you fed it ANY more voltage than stock.
Why Intel is releasing this chip is beyond me, it's basically a Presler EE with 16mb of shared L3 cache. Only nice thing is that the two cores talk via the L3 cache instead of the FSB.
Either way, I would LOVE to see the stock cooler for that chip.
Woodcrest are priced equivilent to or even cheaper than the corresponding conroe model - its only motherboard and ram costs that make woodcrest systems more expensive than conroe.
Motherboard cost will be higher for 4x4 also, so its only the use of FB-DIMM that differentiates the two approaches.
I hope so too, but please, for the love of all that's holy, stop calling it "quadfather." :stick: I don't know what AMD was thinking with that crap. I'm taking it as a personal mission to make sure that term never catches on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosophy
Guys, please don't turn this into another AMD vs. Intel thread. It's getting really tiring. The usual suspects always show up. I posted kaz-n's results, so people can see what's coming. Peace.
Well, that's a first...Generally server chips have always costed a price premium over desktop chips... Good job on that one intel.
There's still the issue for intel that their server boards have no overclocking features.... None.
i want one(or should i say 2?) pretty badly lol
With some savvy shopping, you can catch some pretty good Xeon deals. All we need is some better availability for boards and chips.Quote:
Originally Posted by DilTech
Somehow people are managing to get some good overclocks with these supermicro boards.
Sorry for being such a newbie with benchmarks, but I tried to compare kaz-n's similar kentsfield numbers (here: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/....php?t=109445), and they seem to be better than Cloverton. Does that make sense? I thought Clovertons would be at leat the same, if not better than Kentsfields., especially if we're talking about 2 physical processores versus only one.
Can someone help me "decypher" these results (I'm really bad at reading benchmarks) and tell me which one appears to be faster and by how much?
Thanks
That kentsfield was clocked at over 4 ghz for the super-pi run. Super-pi, being single threaded, obviously was going to give that win to kentfield. 4.6 ghz vs 2.4 ghz... Definitely not even in the same ball-park for comparing.
Everything multi-threaded should be won by cloverton.
Eitherway tdx, you must remember, cloverton is a server chip. Server chips aren't all just pure speed, they're all about stability. A server chip needs to be able to run days/weeks/months at full load without a single error. Yes, they also need power, but stability means more than anything in that market.
I get you, thanks for the clarification.Quote:
That kentsfield was clocked at over 4 ghz for the super-pi run. Super-pi, being single threaded, obviously was going to give that win to kentfield. 4.6 ghz vs 2.4 ghz... Definitely not even in the same ball-park for comparing.
Everything multi-threaded should be won by cloverton.
Eitherway tdx, you must remember, cloverton is a server chip. Server chips aren't all just pure speed, they're all about stability. A server chip needs to be able to run days/weeks/months at full load without a single error. Yes, they also need power, but stability means more than anything in that market.
I'm really leaning towards a Woodcrest now-Cloverton later rig, but I want to make sure the price difference is worth it.
Your comments seem to indicate that: since i'm not an overclocker, the added stability (and hopefully processing power) are what I'm looking for.
It's just a shame that all the Woodcrest mobos so far are server-oriented, and the pure workstation mobos are nowhere to be seen.
can we start betting on what we think his 3dmark06 cpu score will be?
i think itll be between 8-9k
that has to be a record!
A stock server chip is not any more stable than a stock desktop chipQuote:
Originally Posted by tdx
Well...Quote:
Originally Posted by sierra_bound
I haven't seen you in awhile Sierra! I was looking in the wrong place (or forum) I guess.
The platform usually is though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Repoman
cloverton doesnt have a 1333 fsb?
wha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?
there are woodcrest boards that dont do 1333?
Thank you sierra and Everybody.
Since it is a rest this summer, it cannot participate in discussion for a while. I'm sorry.
Cloverton have a 1066 fsb.
I think 2*Kentsfield.
:eek2: <-My facial expression exactly. :p:
If a Clovertowns CPU and a Kentsfields CPU at the same frequent/FSB
which one will be faster ??
FB-DIMM will hurt Clovertown. Other than that they are the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by milkcafe
cinebench resaults?
I've been confused about this, so I just looked it up:Quote:
Originally Posted by brentpresley
http://www.intel.com/technology/architecture/coremicro/
Maybe it's pronounced "Cloverton"?Quote:
Intel will also deliver a quad-core (4 full execution cores) processor to the DP server segment based on Intel Core microarchitecture, codenamed "Clovertown." Clovertown is targeted for introduction in the fourth quarter of 2006, on the Bensley and Glidewell platforms.
clovertown is rightfully named. 8 cores is almost like the size of one town.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanavit
My only question is, whats next?
wow somebody throw in the towels..intel is showing no mercy! :)
Any chance to put that 7900 to the test with these pups?
Id like to see a run of the mill..
Cenibench Ownz...
thanks , i appreciate that :)Quote:
Originally Posted by sierra_bound
Intel Xeon X5355
2006.11.13 release.
Intel Xeon X5355 result
CPU Intel Xeon X5355 Clovertown 2.66GHz (2x Intel Woodcrest Xeon 5150 CPU)
VGA NVIDIA Quadro FX4500 512MB PCI－E
M/B Supermicro X7DAE
MEM Apacer PC5300 FB-DIMM 1GB + 1GB + 512MB + 256MB Quad Channel
comparing
Clovertown 2.66GHz
3DMark06 CPU score
5581
Kentsfields 3.6GHz
3DMark06 CPU score
5206
Conroe 2 Xtreme X6800 @ 5.05GHz
3DMark06 CPU score
4387
http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/5765/3dmarkkk6.jpg
http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/8800GTX/12.gif
http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL256.../179023183.jpg
Nice post
Tigerton 8 cores?????
Lets not forget Intel released C2D Xeons for the 775 socket.
Yorkfield in the orginal roadmaps was suppose to be 8 cores but I believe thats now 4 cores. The orginal 4 core I forget the name is now 8 cores. go figure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle 1
Yorkfield is 6 cores
Link pleaseQuote:
Originally Posted by milkcafe
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20060928A2007.html
6MB L2 per processor pair (3mb per core).
Looking nice. How much will it cost.
Thanks
Yes and according to the digtime link . the L2 cache will be shared among all cores so that would mean 1 core could have access to 12mb of L2 cacheQuote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
Intel schedules Yorkfield launch for 3Q
Intel plans to launch its second-generation quad-core processors - the Yorkfield series–as replacement parts for the upcoming Core 2 Quad (codenamed Kentsfield) CPUs in the third quarter of 2007, motherboard makers familiar with Intel's latest roadmap revealed. Intel is on track for a roll-out of its Kentsfield series on November 16, according to the makers, adding that the first-generation quad-core lineup may be considered a transitional product segment due to insufficient design capability.
Since Kentsfield appears to have two separate L2 caches, shared separately by each pair of processors, bus bandwidth consequently increases, the makers said. In contrast, Yorkfield will have one L2 cache shared directly by each pair of chips, enabling more efficient quad-core operation, with less FSB bandwidth, the makers noted.
Intel's Yorkfield will be paired with the next-generation Bearlake chipset family, which will support a 1333MHz FSB and a PCI Express 2.0 interface, according to the makers. The first Yorkfield-based systems, which will utilize the Bearlake X chipset and DDR3-1333 memory, will target the high-end gaming market, said the makers.
Intel's Yorkfield will be manufactured on 45-nanometer (45nm) process technology, the makers indicated.
8 x core Clovertown Xeon5355 is on sale in Japan:slobber:
Xeon5355 $1365
Xeon5345 $999
Xeon5320 $816
Xeon5310 $546
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/akiba...mage/nqxd9.jpg
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/akiba...mage/nqxd2.jpg
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/akiba...mage/nqxd4.jpg
Is Clovertown 8 cores in one package/processor? Or is this 2 quad core processors on 1 board?
Cloverton is a dual Kentsfield setup. Its basically 2 Kentsfields on one board (2 sockets).
A Cloverton consists of 2 Dual Core chips on one PCB, same as Kentsfield, so its no "real" quadcore.
If you want to see more Clovertons, have a look at the WCG subforum. :)