Source
http://www.eduaskhrb.com/xwdt/Upload...2085134731.jpg
http://www.frostytech.com/ArticleIma...ackage6001.jpg
Printable View
finally :cool:
is that only 3 phase power per-cpu? (on shown board))
Well as long as the components of the phase are up to it. The reason we look down upon smaller phases is the complete garbage used by standard mobo makes till they start bragging about the overclocking.
Maybe, you wouldn't be using a bottom barrel Powmax power supply with that thing though. The juice powering a system like that would be coming from a true sine wave UPS into a power supply that's cleaner than a spit shined and polished bald head.
Another wide CPU, huh?
Interesting, not all the elements are under the heat spreader...
this may sound a bit noobish but where are the memory slots? is it on another add on board?
I believe that each of the PCI looking slots next to each socket are for memory bank riser boardsQuote:
Originally Posted by endlesszeal
socket 1567:ROTF:
Next year, Intel bring socket 2011 for sever segment !:rofl:
Now we buy Nehalem EX system, next year we can't update CPU from Nehalem to Sandy Bridge ! :D
socket 2012: the end of the line for CPU performance as we know it?
Thanks, I was wondering where the memory was myself..:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blauhung
I'm not sure if Nehalem ex will support it, but Intel showed a technology that allows them to shut down some of their memory risers.
The system had 512 GB of RAM in 8 memory risers.
They shut down half the ram and decreased power consumption from 1000 watts to 900.
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/itdojo/?p=987
The more cores you have side by side, the wider the CPU is.Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
So anyone have any idea when we can buy one?
So if I do the math right, you're saying that 256GB = 100W. So if they shut down the rest of the memory, that would be 800W for CPUs, fans, power and a drive or two?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuji
Wow, that is a power-hungry CPU.
But can it run Crysis?
I took it for the team. Seriously however, is this socket relevant to regular enthusiasts? What is the projected lifespan of 1366?
Well, if it was used as a server, it would have had a lot of hard drives (10+). So I wouldn't say a drive or two.Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
I'd buy that for a dollar! :)
Actually, most of the power is consumed by the module that is being read/written at a certain time, so by removing some memory from a system you only save the power needed to refresh it, wich is about 10-20 times less than the one needed when active.Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
800w for CPU's, fans, drive(s), chipsets.. a bit power hungry on the CPU possibly, but not really unexpectedly.
here is a video that demos the ras capabilities. you can actually see what he is doing in this vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bZIWYLttjY
thanks for making me not feel like a noob ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
and thanks blauhung for the info :up:
well, let s be gentlemen ... you do the math on your own processors, and you avoid to mess up the math on mine. Thanks! :) :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :ROTF: :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
Your Timex watch is using less power than YOUR processor, it does not mean Timex CPU is a good server chip. Thanks!
On Xtremesystem, it is about horse power, world grid as fast as you can with awesome efficency ... but 1st, you want to top of the list ...
those board has no overclock option hehe
Yay, boards are in the wild...
Now to get my hands on one :D
that is beckton, paper launch on 30 March and availability expected somewhere in June.Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
The elements under the heat spreader are fb buffers, while they used to have fbdimm they now moved the buffers to the mobo to reduce the dimm cost and can work with legacy Rdimm ddr3. But now you get a very expensive mobo and some additional HOT spots :D as a trade off for some additional RAM features.
price will decide if this system will shine or not.
they use max pc8500 ddr3 rdimm which consumes about 2.1W idle and 3.5W high load no LP, we don't know the amount of dimms in there and we have no idea what the buffers will consume, although my guess is about 4-5W idle and upto 8-10W load looking at those heatsinks. In the end whatever we try to figure out what exactly remains on or off, the fact indeed remains that there is still a lot of power consumed, on a not so high loaded system :DQuote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
Oh now only Intel's employes have exclusive rights to comment their product on public places like forums?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
And when it comes to YOUR math, we all know that you do have special TDP math that only applies to Intel processors, so instead of 800W or 200W per CPU you'll say that TDP of these behemoths is actually 150W ;)
So your "advice" to JF was in place - only Intel holds rights to Intel's TDP math!
BTW
I hope that you're not Rolling On The Floor so much in some data-center filled with cables ;)
Well apparently you think that 200W CPU that requires new socket on the new $XXXX mobo is good server chip!Quote:
Your Timex watch is using less power than YOUR processor, it does not mean Timex CPU is a good server chip. Thanks!
You might not know this but I have no doubt that your business managers do know - This is just paper-launch chip useful only for pissing contest on forums, not something that conscious corporate buyer will consider, taking in to account power bills, infrastructure price and probably something else I can't think of it :)
Apparently you somehow selectively filler all those posts about power consumption of GPUs and CPUs... so yeah it is about the power, but it's also about power consumed ;)Quote:
On Xtremesystem, it is about horse power, world grid as fast as you can with awesome efficiency ... but 1st, you want to top of the list ...
45nm 8 cores 16 threads... ouch about the tdp.... must be near 200w if it runs at some decent clock .....
Even this is entertaining for us, come on guys, don't use flawed technical arguments. I said in a previous post that if shutting down half the memory reduced the power from 1000W to 900W, shutting down the rest won't reduce it by just another 100W but more, because idle memory consumes much less than active memory. Other than that, let's assume a system with 4 CPU's, a server motherboard, a few drives and a few fans consume 800W. A SCSI drive takes up to 20W, a high-power fan up to 15W, substract a few of each from the 800, substract a few more W for the various motherboard integrated stuff, then multiply everything with 0.9 (wich is a fair efficiency figure for the CPU PWM circuit), and you might end up just where you should.
On the other hand, in the testing done by us and also other hardware review websites, i haven't seen figures for the power consumption that would be far off the rated TDP.
Yet another Intel thread ran down by AMD marketing, Come on.
wow is that true? socket 1567 is a dead end?Quote:
Originally Posted by vietthanhpro
whats the big deal? its hot, yes, but its fast... you always have to balance the two and every chip will be different... and francois, as long as you guys dont try to hammer this thing into a laptop, i dont think anybody cares about the heat :p: hahahahQuote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
at least here on xs...
3 power phases per cpu looks low indeed...
loooots of io on that board... pciE, memory... very impressive...that is one huge motherboard... :o
I'm kinda curious how this will turn out. By the way I see it this platform sits between the current x86 setups and the Itanium systems. I think it will do well but only time will tell. HP has some nice systems coming up on this platform, on which I cannot really say much, other than they are true beasts!!! Will try to post some info on XS when the NDA lifts on them...
Not totally trueQuote:
Originally Posted by vietthanhpro
Also take a look at this
as if you are any different in other threads :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
Fully agree, but then again the system was more or less idle, only running few VM's, perhaps they totally disabled any other power saving feature in the bios.Quote:
Originally Posted by Micutzu
I really wonder if there are already so many review sites that have Nehalem EX for testing purpose, highly doubt it
looking at the HP lineup you don't need a wizard to try and find out what types they will bring with EX.. very obvious, those "beasts" are already existing yet off course with different chipsets and architectures, EX will just replace existing intel 4s+ offerings and create new ones where these days only AMD was offered within the HP portfolio.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katanai
Show me?? I could show you a lot more where you are worse, I also praise AMD products when they deserve it.Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
Nedjo was talking generally about how Intel rates their processor TDP, and so was I. Plus, I'm thinking you can't fool around with ratings for the kind of customers the EX is targeted at, 30% more power consumption per CPU means much more costs overall in that enviroment.Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
Regarding power consumption, I'll wait for real numbers (review or spec). Total power consumption of a system is quite meaningless wihtout knowing what performance it does deliver.
Also I guess people and companies really considering such systems prioritize other things, like higher reliability or on the fly error correction, rather then power conumption.
Before I clean the living crap out of this thread I want to say to you that this time Francois was right and fair in what he said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
He was replying to JF-AMD's comment and he works for AMD.
So do you from what I've been told.
XS is NOT the place for company employees to drop trou and have a "Whose is bigger" biatching match.
As I said politely earlier last night to one gentleman from a company: Tout your own product, don't dump on the other guy's.
I've seen this crap go on since I got here over 4 years ago.
When the hell are you children going to grow up?
It's a frigging processor not life or death and no matter how much either company dumps on the other it won't make a tinker's dam in your sales.
The public will decide that.
Honest to God, I'd like to reach out and slap some damned sense into some of you and it's always the same people.I think I'll grab some coffee before I lose my temper and start handing out bans!
Thread reopened but I'll say it plain, keep this crap up and I won't say another thing. I'll just ban the guilty parties and it won't be for a week.
Act like adults please and leave the fanboyism where it belongs, in the barrel.
ouch.. has been a long time since I'v see you so pissed movieman. :eek:
Quote:
Originally Posted by vietthanhpro
i thought socket 2011 was 1366 replacement, not 1567....
Both Intel and AMD apply the same principles in measuring TDP, there's no measurable difference between the 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Micutzu
The TDP for both parties is defined as " max power while running power hungry commercial apps ". The cooling solutions are designed to handle this.
CPUs from both companies can exceed this TDP in special cases like a thermal virus. Typically TDP is reached while running Linpack, everything else drops below it.
So how exactly is Intel's TDP misleading as you imply ?
What is truly misleading is ACP; a pure marketing invention that nobody who actually uses the systems cares about. It is basically a weighted mean given that CPUs also spend time idle. Which is pure bull:banana::banana::banana::banana: because :
-cooling designers need to target TDP, cannot assume idle time in utilization
-users need to assign both power and cooling based on TDP, since you need to cover the peak
Now, where's one 8-socket test system for each dedicated WCG/Folder on XS? ME WANTS! :slobber:
It must have touched his blue heart :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Just kidding pls dont ban me... :D
It is far more complicated than you think. Our TDP is max power, which is the most power that the processor can consume. For Intel, this is "max power", not TDP.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Real power at the wall is what will matter. For example:
Xeon X5570:
TDP: 95W
Max power: 155W (sustained)
Highest power 197 (I would generally ignore this number, but it is an interesting data point)
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/I...602X5570).html
Power at the wall @100% utilization: ~254W
Opteron 2435:
ACP: 75W
TDP: 115W (this is max power)
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AM...S6DGNWOF).html
Power at the wall: ~258W
Power at the wall for both (I just grabbed the first result, thus the ~):
http://www.spec.org/power_ssj2008/re...r_ssj2008.html
So, what you really see, is at the wall, you have to plan for about the same amount of power for both. So you can't compare TDP only (95W to 115W).
Nor, can you compare our ACP to their TDP because again there is a 20W delta.
What you really need to look at is the power at the wall, and you can see that they are both about the same.
That is a pure power discussion. You could layer in performance to try to argue it one way or the other, but you have to be really careful in doing that as both products are going to rev in 2 weeks. Unless you know where both are going to end up you might not want to put your stake in the ground just yet. (also don't forget that this is a $989 part vs. a $1386 part)
Can you please keep talking about your own product and avoid distributing false information about your competitor's product ... you are mixing Max electrical and max thermal numbers to confuse people, this is not a gentleman like attitude. I don't think you have a grip on Intel methodologies:Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
I propose that you talk about what you understand and know, and ONLY this.
Your little FUD on the power stuff should be kept on your own processors, you obviously don't understand the difference between electrical max power and Thermal max power, and I know why, your processors don't have a PCU, (power control unit), and you are trying to confuse people on it. Reality is that Nehalem and Westmere are able to make the difference between Electrical and thermal power, and we exploit this to provide maximum performance for a given TDP. Again, stay away from what you don t understand.
So, please, keep marketing your platform, but only speak about what you know and don't spit in the soup of your neighboor (with false claims and banana to apple comparaisons) ... thanks! :(
Francois
*Dangerous tone*
XS is the place where fight of the marketing people takes place....
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:k...tel_vs_amd.png
JF vs Who, place ur bets gentlemen fight of the year rite here :)
This, this is a flamers wet dream. It has certainly brought a tear in the corner of my troll eye. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Now on a more serious note: why has everything here degenerated this much and every thread has to be only about AMD??? For example the reply I got to my previous post was a flamebait ending in AMD something...
I am not fighting with him, we all need this forum to stay clean, no false claim, no "below the belt", and his posting are full of misleading and miss understood comparaisons ... , and I see him doing this in many forums.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
Take the high road!
I was ask to refrain to post in AMD related threads, I think JF need to refrain to post on Intel Threads. I look at the title and if it is AMD related, I stay away, even in EXtreme News area. (because otherwise, it was creating too much flaming, Charles and I agreed on this)
I did post in the past in AMD threads, and with the experience, it was a mistake.
I broke the argument down to say that in the end power at the wall is the best way to measure this. That has always been my position.
The rest of it IS confusing. Power at the wall is pretty straightforward, wouldn't you agree that it is a better way to compare?
No, it is not true either, because otherwise, you discard the level of performance at a given power watt usage.Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
It is much more complexe than this when you have a dynamic architecture. :yepp:
It is OK to have high peak of power when you need a high peak of processing FLOPS or MIPS.
Soon, you ll tell us that your platform has better idle, so basically, your platform is better when you don't need it?
If you don't need it, don't buy it ...
Basically, Nehalem and westmere are scaling in Cores and core performance, provide the best today's avaivalble performance when you need it, and it is capable to step back to awesome idle power, all of this, at a maximize power usage for each level of load.
The problematic of choosing a server is not about comparing 2 or 4 numbers into 2 different PDF ... pretending it is as simple as this is "funny" :rofl:
See here's difference: I have no objection with you agreeing with dr. who, or for that matter I have no objection on anyones personal opinion, but apparently you have objection on my own! And what's worse, you have the power to simply shut me of if you don't like what I think!Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
we're in complitelly different line of business for AMD. he's insider, I'm not... but regardless we're both comming here as "JF-AMD" and "Nedjo" with our own personal opinions, not companye policies!Quote:
He was replying to JF-AMD's comment and he works for AMD.
So do you from what I've been told.
And that's crucial thing in this thread that in all your fairness you failed to see! Nor JF, nor my self are comparing AMD's and Intel's tech! JF made remark on power consumtion of Bextons, and dr. who slapped him with bunch of R_O_F_L_S and false acusations of FUD-ing!
Why haven't you reacted then?? What right does dr. who has in dishing out people from the thread just 'cos he has abjection with different opinion?
Doesn't we all have right to expose our own opinion about the subject? I agree on this with JF - Bexton is power hog ACORDING TO THE ARTICLE! NOT ACRODING TO AMD!!
Does that mean that I'm forbidden to express opinion on company "X" products? Or to comment on things written in some article about company "X" products?Quote:
XS is NOT the place for company employees to drop trou and have a "Whose is bigger" biatching match.
As I said politely earlier last night to one gentleman from a company: Tout your own product, don't dump on the other guy's.
Well you're taking this crap to seriously and personal... NHF!Quote:
I've seen this crap go on since I got here over 4 years ago.
When the hell are you children going to grow up?
Exactly!! So why are you so persistent in trying to give so much seriousness to this beatching?!Quote:
It's a frigging processor not life or death and no matter how much either company dumps on the other it won't make a tinker's dam in your sales.
The public will decide that.
So what if I don't agree with dr. who, and think of his company product differently than he (naturally) does? I'm I not entitled in expressing my opinion? Does he has some exclusive privileges on this forum? I don't think so!
well you do that! 'cos my friend you've taken this way to much serious. :up:Quote:
Honest to God, I'd like to reach out and slap some damned sense into some of you and it's always the same people.I think I'll grab some coffee before I lose my temper and start handing out bans![/COLOR][/B]
On the other side, if it's forbidden to comment on anything that comes out from Intel just 'cos I prefer green instead of blue, just say so, and I'll obey the rule... 'cos after all this is not democracy this is forum, and you're mod, and I'm just a member ;)
I am out to Game Dev conference, have fun guys!
lol it doesn't get more fanboi than employees going at it.
the package is so large due to all the pads necessary. 1567 pads is a lot.. 2011 will be nuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salavat23
I should ban you for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by munim
Oh theres a simple reason for that... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Katanai
Yeah, but also dont forget, sandybridge has a GPU and a Quadcore cpu on one package, so its quite obvious why it needs that many pads.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] gomeler
unless it contains some features beneficial to the market which the Xeon-MP is marketed toward I don't see an integrated GPU on sandybridge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
http://news.softpedia.com/images/new...nveiled-2.jpeg
The GPU looks like it would take the die area of 1.5-2 cores.
and if the I/O hub is the server variant of the x58
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/wp-co...-ex-8-core.jpg
In maintaining socket compatibility, I would speculate that the future Sandybridge based Xeon-MPs won't have the integrated PCI-E controller either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
I'm going to tell you what the difference is in plain f-ing words that you better understand because I'm not repeating it again;
When a known AMD employee, especially one with your background of dumping on Intels products, come into an Intel thread it not only appears, but smells to high heaven of misinformation designed to delude, misinform and plain outright lie for the sole purpose of trying to gain market share.
This isn't the first time I've seen you pull this crap but I'm telling you it's the last time. Stay the hell out of the Intel threads if you know whats good for you or I'll toss your account into the barrel with all the other trolls and spammers.
Now I don't have a Beckton system so I can't speak to whether it runs hot, takes umtynine million watts to run it or not, JUST as I don't have a magny-cours system to see how it stands up.
When the systems hit the public( us) then we will know and only then based on what unbiased people have to say not company employees.
S2011 is rumored to be replacement for S1336 (and maybe S1156), it has nothing to do with the highend mp server socket.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuji
I wouldn't be suprised if we see a totaly different socket for the next MP-Xeon, cause S1567 still will stay for some time.
well actually i showed before already in a few threads with power calculations of the largest OEM suppliers that it is like that :), idle and medio core load is better on istanbul then Nehalem for E series. (not talking about the L series where you really own the market performance/power for the moment)Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
so not going into discussion about TDP/ACP/MAX TDP, for me they are all useless and I use the official power calculation tools from OEM, that way I can calculate max heat and power and compare real easy between platforms.
keep those words just for a few days more, yes you will remain to have the fastest single threaded performance but there it will end for a large amount of applications.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
comparing a 2009 platform against 2006..... :D yeah again you are right there is no PCU in the old platform... just a few more days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
And NO i don't work for any CPU brand I just happen to decide what to buy for a few 1000 of both :D :D
Just show me some Chess results and i know enough :up:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=202139
JP.
Lets settle this ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
You name the benchmark that's closest to the type of application yopu have in mind. I'll run it this weekend on not a 16 core or 32 core Beckton but on a wimpy 12 core Westmere and we can see the results ok?
Pick the one that YOU want that factors in both cpu power and IO and lets show all these people some facts and get away from all this heresay..
How's that for fair? Yes?:D
I'am a neutral player here..just use the chess program..all cores will run at 100%..i have many results to compare!
And eveyone will see these result in my list if i have the right screen and analyses!
JP.
we had these discussion before you remember when i had woodcrest,barcelona,tigertown,shanghai beta. yes we could do that, but we never agreed on a test suite and accept for the fact that my MC beta is crunching on VMware vsphere all the time... don't worry you don' t have to wait that long anymore to see final reviews.Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
Again I am not going to start debating power consumption on a certain solution, i don't care, rule nr1 in for example VMware when running avarage load is to disable power management :cool:
Al I know is and those are facts, take powercalulations from large oem and compare them, you will see some amazing results.
yes i know i told you i was going to provide date as soon as possible, but my MC didn't ship any default OS, no time for the moment to install a stupid MS OS on bare metal.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPQY
I could swear i've seen that mobos picture at september or earlier when intel showed us the first becton (nehalem-ex) demos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPQY
I'm not entirely sure that a single benchmark will do.
As far as I know, all quad-socket machines are NUMA memory. So unless the program is written properly for NUMA, I don't think it will be a good benchmark for these machines.
Based on the results and posts in your thread. Your chess benchmark is highly bound by memory - as evidenced by single socket Core i7s beating out higher clocked skulltrails...
So it probably means that it won't be able to fully utilize these quad-socket machines. (mine can't either... since single-socket Core i7 can beat out quad-socket Barcelona...)
Of course, I have no other evidence to support this other than what's in your thread, but you get the idea...
Have fun you, too! :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Why? Isn't any thread about the performance not complete without this question? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by [XC] gomeler
And it'd be interesting to compare the performance of these vs. Magny Cours imo. I realise that performance per watt may be more important for server environments, but since most of us cannot afford any of these anyway, would be nice to at least see some mind blowing numbers! :D
i am aware that the sandybridge architecture in 2011 won't be the same one as the next gen 4P+ market however, the main architecture is the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Nehalem EX while it has its difference from Nehalem-EP has pretty much the same architecture.
I don't understand what you mean by:
"I wouldn't be suprised if we see a totaly different socket for the next MP-Xeon, cause S1567 still will stay for some time."
If you feel that S1567 will be around for a while, they wouldn't it be used for the sandybridge architecture? I think Intel knows that spending a thousand+ for a board only to replace it for the next upgrade is not logical.
hmmm Dave!
I smell chicken.Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
Put up or shut up.
well, you are taking about the "powercaculation" that are by OEM for price negociation ... lol ... you are more naive than I though if you believe those ... They are design to get your price down my friend ... wake up :ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
I have a story for you ...
It is a man who go to a watch store, he ask to the clock master, do you have a clock that is red with green dot in the back ground ... then, he master says "hell no!"
Then , the customer says: "So, it is 10% off on the others" ...
lol man ... you are so funny some time.
meaning = S2011 is no MP socket and will be a different one than S2011. So S1567 will stay for some time, even when S2011 (or whatever is the socket for sandybridge) is around. When ever intel decides to release a replacement for nehalem EX i guess well see a new socket, but i don't think that will happen before 2013-14. It took nehalem ex 2 years and several months to be available after nehalem was released. Sof if it follows the same pattern and sandybridge comes beginning 2011 the eraliest date we can expect MP sandybridge will be 2013.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuji
Wow I haven't paid much attention to this type of hardware in a while, but as a former mainframe and midrange (AS400) ERP SE, it's insane to me to see this much power in a PC server. PC is officially no joke.
I love you all!!!
Imagine how I feel. I grew up with sliderules and adding machines.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrcape
Both companies look to have amazing products out this year.:up:
and just think what AMD and Intel will have in a few more years.its going to makeQuote:
Both companies look to have amazing products out this year
this years hardware look a little weak:D i cant wait till 2013-2014,its going to be
so sweet,because then i'll be able to play with this years hardware:up:
It's hard to believe that Nehalem has been out for a year and like four months.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
I think the Nehalem-EX platform is coming out later than planned. I remember reading about a delay although i can't remember when.
I say this b/c generally, the XeonMP line is delayed by a year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeon
There are exceptions, but generally, there's a 6 month-1 year delay.
If you look at the XeonMP release date, you'll see that Intel has been somewhat silent about that platform. You have a year or two between releases but between 2005-2008, we had 7 XeonMP CPU releases.
Nehalem EP was released in march of 2009 so it would make sense that given the delay that it would come out around this time of year.
Having said that I think we'd see a Nehalem-EX successor sometime next year ish based on the Westmere design. And then a year or so later, transition to Sandybridge.
TDP,ACP,PCP,KGB...anyone heard of PPD (Point per day) ? :p:
That and the electric bill that comes in is what matters to me,in other words how much an X amount of PPD ( running WCG or FAH) will cost me daily,assuming 24/7/365 full load.
It all comes down to PPP -Price,Performance and Power consumption (based on the above scenario).
Who works for who, and who sleeps with who I really don't care about ;)
Nice job of comparing some "measured" numbers ( who knows how they were actually measured) with official figures.Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
What's the max power and highest power for the Opteron then ?
Oh wait, should it be 115w ? Then how is it possible for both systems to end up with the same usage at the wall ? And more extraordinarly, the Opteron loses by 4w.
Assuming more or less similarly configured systems we have :
-155W Xeon + rest of system = 254W
-"115W" Opteron + rest of system = 258W.
This makes me believe the 115W is pure BS. AMD's official definition is identical to the one Intel uses. So either the Xeon doesn't use 155W continous, which I find ridiculous for a part with a cooling system designed for 95W as per Intel's datasheet ( haven't heard of Nehalem datacenters going up in smoke or throttling down ) or that figure is grossly innacurate.
Based on what sites like Anantech, Hexus,Techreport have measured, I believe it is the later.
now who's naive here :shrug:, I don't give a :horse: what your company has written on a so called L,E,W,X serie which is rated at a certain TDP. Those TDP/ACP figures changed into a marketing sales argument with retared ratings, for me that is something a hardware vendor should take care about to calculate system air flow, electronics etc. Perhaps your company could add additional star rating for your server cpu's just like in your stupid consumer brand logo's :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
I don't care what OEM company A rates as total system power or B, wouldn't even think of a fact that would drive me to distribute other vendors just for that, have any idea what a world wide service organisation means? All we need to know what that total system is expected to consume on idle and max load for BTU calculations and power calculation. What kind of cpu we will take will not be depending on TDP or decided by again marketing hyped spec calculations although those are good indicators, that is where those spec and manipulated compilers end.
Again try to be neutral, For a certain OEM with the same server platform type but different cpu manufacturer they do calculations on power consumption then you can take conclusions what they are really consuming.
Those vendors should be neutral on that! accept for the fact that there are always people who give certain rebates to buy and sell crap remember?
Weather or not a certain system is more powerfull, gets more don in a certain time, less total cost or wathever is another discussion, you dragged in the basic powerconsumption linked to TDP.
Don't forget it is just about 1 year that your company can drag about lower power consumption on some parts, for another 6 years you could only eat paper, now lets see again what will happen in a few days.
Now since there's no PHD behind my name but instead almost 45 years of working out in the real world here's a common sense way to end all these arguments over whose system draws what,when and under what load:Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
Buy a damned $20.00 Kill-A-Watt like I did, plug into wall, turn on machine, record the numbers on the little LED at idle, run it up to 50% load, record again, run to 100% load, record again. Shut down machine, test next machine, compare numbers, toss in the variable as to machines capabilities, and bingo, decision made..
Cut's right thru everyone's claims and settles all..
Numbers don't lie, marketing depts on all companies at the very least bend the hell out of the facts and quite often lie thru their teeth.
More info about Nehalem-EX architecture from ISSCC 2010:
http://translate.google.com/translat...n&hl=&ie=UTF-8
The new thing here is that Nehalem-EX has ring bus L3 architecture. It is interesting how it will perform since upcoming Sandy Bridge also has a ring bus.
That is why I am a fan of "at the wall" power. I have a bunch of kill-a-watt meters at home and we have lots of them at the office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
Wow. You must be a fan of Intel's cpu then :DQuote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
http://www.techreport.com/r.x/core-i...-sysprices.gif
Pretty sure this is what John has been advocating all along, but good ol' Francois didn't want to play. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
So the power consumption and the price are higher, yet the efficiency is better. Of course that is in a 100% multitask scenario with HT enabled. Not the kind of comparison that I call useful for consumer cpu's.Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
Well, you can choose wathever you want from the following scenarios:Quote:
Originally Posted by v0dka
idle, load, task energy, overtime energy. They have it all:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/18581/4
I would say that i5-750 is the best thing you can find if you need performance and relative low price & power consumtion. Otherwise i3-530 is doing its job well while using impressive low power.
But wait, the AMD chips draw power smoother than Intel chips. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
Anyway this is a none-issue right here. AMD has nothing in this market segment so all comparisons are pointless and only serve to derail this thread even more. :down:
AMD has nothing in the 4P market?
lolwut?Quote:
Originally Posted by Katanai
http://products.amd.com/en-us/Optero...il.aspx?id=567
And
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=234105
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_G34
Let's keep this friendly ok?Quote:
Originally Posted by Katanai
It is very fair to say that AMD is very strong in the 4 core market right now and should continue to be.
Thier 6 core chip more than matches the current Intel Dunnington platform.
Then yes, Intel will be bringing out the 4P Beckton and AMD will be countering with the 4P 48 core MC system.
It's give and take and yes, one can spin this any way one wants but reality is they both have excellent systems coming to market.
hmmm 8 cores & 16 Threads per cpu :eek: thats 64 cores total and 128 Threads runs out on 4 cpu´s =)
no, that's 32 cores and 64 threads out of 4 CPUs ;):rolleyes:
Correct, but I've seen a 8 socket Beckton board with 64 cores and 128 threads.. Impressive but I'd hate to write the check for it..Quote:
Originally Posted by Florinmocanu
Just the cpu's is well over $25,000.00:shocked:
The SW cost makes the HW look like pennies at that level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
$3k for a server level octo-core chip with HT? Really not that bad to be honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
dear god there goes HWBOT!
Um... So what about the company that has 10,000 of these in one room (and has plans to expand?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
Sometimes floorspace matters more than power usage. :p:
Now do that math... $25K x 10,000 systems...Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
Now figure each one does 560K ppd for WCG... :rofl: