AMD 12 cores

[CMetaphor]

Originally Posted by Zero82z

I like how you have nothing to add to the discussion other than to insult me with your posts. If you actually had a reasonable counterargument I'm sure you would have used it, but if you're not going to post something that contributes, next time just don't bother posting at all.

He's the one who started talking about server CPUs...

I like how you think you're a smartass 27/4 and that you think youve "won" all the time.

Sure, lets go back to the arguement shall we: "Ooooh! But <x> years down the line <y> processor will beat <z> LOL!!!111one!"

How about this: We don't care what's coming or on paper for the future, how about present? laff.

Now please, just Stop.

[Soultribunal]

Enough Both of you. Seriously.

ST

[Zero82z]

Originally Posted by CMetaphor

Sure, lets go back to the arguement shall we: "Ooooh! But <x> years down the line <y> processor will beat <z> LOL!!!111one!"

Beckton is slated for release in Q1, so it should be available around the same time as Magny-Cours (if perhaps slightly later). If I was going to talk about CPUs farther down the line, I'd be mentioning Sandy Bridge and Bulldozer.

[MarkOne]

We talk a lot about multi cores processors, have you read the article about Microsoft who want to design an Os with more multi cores affinity . That may open a lot of door.

[Wi-Fuzzy]

Yikes...I started a war.......ducks under cover

[Zero82z]

For the skeptics: bit-tech.net | Review - Intel Xeon X7560: Nehalem EX Review

114k PPD from a 4-way Beckton machine. 32 cores, 64 threads, running at 2.26GHz.

[CMetaphor]

Originally Posted by Zero82z

For the skeptics: bit-tech.net | Review - Intel Xeon X7560: Nehalem EX Review

114k PPD from a 4-way Beckton machine. 32 cores, 64 threads, running at 2.26GHz.

Oh yes, accurate comparison there. Intel Quad-socket's 32cores/64 threads VS 24 Cores on the AMD system.Oh wow, what an amazingly fair comparison there.
... And the Quad-socket Intel Still get spanked in wPrime, lol.

Did I mention the ridiculous X7560 Quad system drew 1130 watts at full load? Lmao...

[Zero82z]

Also take a look at the dual X5650 F@H score which was just a hair below the dual 6174 system but with half as many cores. The reason the Beckton machine didn't do better than 114k PPD is because of its low clock speed.

Keep in mind the only thing I'm concerned with here is F@H performance. The other benchmarks are a bit disappointing overall, but to be honest I don't really care about that (and some of it was also caused by the benchmarks not being able to scale up to 64 threads as well).

[m1dget]

The only thing I see here is "more cores more performance lulz". Very interesting to see common sense (?)

...


Why don't you just try to compare one architecture to another instead of just trying to argue over two things that created a biased comparison?

Heck why not just compare those two with a x64 rendering/compiling farm and see if that beats both of them?

...

Lot of pretty weird argument around here.


And if I can add to the discussion, finally some x86-64 cpus with more than 8 cores... they are still very late and their architecture is not the best compared to other solutions on the market (nomnom UltraSPARCs) but still I'm interested in seeing them perform against them.

[Zero82z]

Originally Posted by m1dget

Why don't you just try to compare one architecture to another instead of just trying to argue over two things that created a biased comparison?

Okay. Here you go: bit-tech.net | Review - AMD Opteron 6174 vs Intel Xeon X5650 Review

24 AMD cores versus 12 Intel cores. The Intel system wins by a fair margin in most tests, and at F@H they are about equal. So comparing the architectures directly, Intel does more work with fewer cores.