Socket 1567 Xeon Nehalem-EX

[duploxxx]

Yet another Intel thread ran down by AMD marketing, Come on.

as if you are any different in other threads

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.

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.

I really wonder if there are already so many review sites that have Nehalem EX for testing purpose, highly doubt it

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...

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.

[gallag]

as if you are any different in other threads

Show me?? I could show you a lot more where you are worse, I also praise AMD products when they deserve it.

[Micutzu]

...
I really wonder if there are already so many review sites that have Nehalem EX for testing purpose, highly doubt it
...

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.

[savantu]

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.

Both Intel and AMD apply the same principles in measuring TDP, there's no measurable difference between the 2.
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 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

[JF-AMD]

Both Intel and AMD apply the same principles in measuring TDP, there's no measurable difference between the 2.
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 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

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.

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)

[Drwho?]

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.

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:
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

[Katanai]

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:
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

This, this is a flamers wet dream. It has certainly brought a tear in the corner of my troll eye.


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...

[savantu]

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.

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

Nice job of comparing some "measured" numbers ( who knows how they were actually measured) with official figures.
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.