Hi,
Martin Cracauer wrote:
For integer workloads Intel's Core2-base Xeons outperforms K8 (the
old-school AMD64) by about 25-30% per clock per core. K10 seems to be
5-15% faster than K8 for integer workloads (I hope to run my benchmark
suite on one thi week or weekend).
the guys at heise.de published these numbers:
Prozessoren Kerne Takt- SPEC CPU2006 (Base)
im System frequenz Einzelkern Durchsatz
int_2006 fp_2006 int_rate_2006 fp_rate_2006
2 × Opteron 2350 2×4 2,0 GHz 10,2 11,6 70,2 68,3
2 × Opteron 2222 2×2 3,0 GHz 12,8 13,9 50,0 50,2
2 × Opteron 2212 2×2 2,0 GHz (9,8) (10,4) (37,9) (38,6)
2 × Xeon X5365 2×4 3,0 GHz 15,7
(18,9) 15,8 72,5
(98,9) 61,9
Yes, the table looks like crap but you should be able to get the idea.
The Xeons are faster if one CPU is running and slower when all are
running most likelz caused by the memory interface.
The hardware was based on a Broadcom chipset and supported by SuSE but
not by other Linux versions.
On the other hand, if you want K8 or K10 in a modern SMP mainboard you
have to live with NVidia for chipsets, and the socket F boards all
It seems that Broadcom is back into this game.
Erich
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
