backtop


Print 34 comment(s) - last by hstewarth.. on Sep 2 at 10:17 AM

Netburst still has life left in it

Intel has officially released its 65nm Tulsa core Xeon 7100 series processors. The dual-core processors are based on Intel’s Netburst architecture and will drop into existing LGA771 motherboards. Intel is catering the Xeon 7100 series to multi-processor servers. The new Xeon 7100 series has new features such as up to 16MB of shared L3 cache and Intel Virtualization Technology. DailyTech previously reported details of Intel’s Tulsa.

Eight Tulsa core Xeon 7100 models are available with varying cache sizes of 16MB, 8MB and 4MB. Xeon 7100 models also have varying front-side bus speeds of 800 MHz and 667 MHz. Two different models with different thermal data power ratings of 95W and 150W are available. The Xeon 7100M models will have 150 watt TDPs while the 7100N models will have 95 watt thermal envelopes.

Intel Xeon 7100 series processors are available from 2.5 GHz to 3.4 GHz. Pricing starts at $856 for the lower Xeon 7110N and tops out at $1,980 for the top of the line Xeon 7140M model. Servers based on Intel Xeon 7100 series processors are expected from the likes of Dell, HP and IBM.  



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: 16MB = awful latency
By Fenixgoon on 8/30/2006 10:03:38 AM , Rating: 2
if you bothered to actually READ the system setups, you'd notice that the Tulsa 8CPU/16core setup has roughly double the score of a 4CPU/8Core AMD Opteron Rig (not to mention that Tulsa one has 4x the memory). Your "squashes everything" theory is total crap, when it's really an expected jump.

Plus, is an opty 2.6 the fastest one available?


RE: 16MB = awful latency
By hstewarth on 8/30/2006 10:26:25 AM , Rating: 2
That funny you also see that a Dual Woodcrest system 5160 will be 4 cpu AMD 2.2. Just imagine when Xeon MP are based off Core 2 technology. I believe its early next year - think of how fast it went beent 50xx and 51xx series.


RE: 16MB = awful latency
By RMSe17 on 8/30/2006 11:11:32 AM , Rating: 2
I dont see why anyone would get a xeon that is not a woodcrest...

MacPro's have had dual woodcrest xeon in them for few weeks already.


RE: 16MB = awful latency
By Phynaz on 8/30/2006 11:41:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
if you bothered to actually READ the system setups


Here let me spell it out for you, since YOU are the person that can't read.

Xeon 7140 16 core - 335330 LPH
Xeon 7140 8 core - 213000 LPH
Opteron 885 8 core - 170330 LPH

I'll even help you with the math - that's 25% faster for an equivalent system.

Your comprehension is what's "crap".


RE: 16MB = awful latency
By Fenixgoon on 8/30/2006 12:53:10 PM , Rating: 2
so how do 8 opterons with 16 cores total do? oh wait, that isn't in the benchmark.


RE: 16MB = awful latency
By mino on 8/30/2006 1:32:33 PM , Rating: 2
You've got it a bit screwed, I'll try to clear it up a bit:

IMB 3950/Xeon 7140/IMB chipset/DDR2 - 8way/16core - 335330 LPH
HP DL580/Xeon 7140/Intel chipset/FBD - 8way/16core - 213000 LPH
HP DL585/Opteron 885/no chipset!/DDR - 4way/8core - 170330 LPH

*HP DL585/Opteron 8220/no chipset/DDR2- 4way/8core - 210000 - my estimate


RE: 16MB = awful latency
By Phynaz on 8/30/2006 1:41:10 PM , Rating: 2
Jesus people can't read.

Here's a cut and paste.

HP ProLiant DL580 G4, 4 processors / 8 cores / 16 threads, Intel XEON 7140M 3.4 GHz, 16 KB L1 cache and 1 MB L2 cache per core, 16 MB L3 cache per processor

That system processes 213000 LPH.


RE: 16MB = awful latency
By Phynaz on 8/30/2006 1:42:09 PM , Rating: 2
That was for mino btw.


RE: 16MB = awful latency
By mino on 8/30/2006 1:51:18 PM , Rating: 2
What about this ?

HP ProLiant DL580 G4, 4 processors / 8 cores / 16 threads, Intel XEON 7140M 3.4 GHz, 16 KB L1 cache and 1 MB L2 cache per core, 16 MB L3 cache per processor


RE: 16MB = awful latency
By mino on 8/30/2006 1:53:00 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, just read after myself - I take that back, that "4" was in another line a I missed it.

My mess!


RE: 16MB = awful latency
By mino on 8/30/2006 1:56:17 PM , Rating: 2
To sum it up.

4-way 7140 is comparable to 4-way 8220 on 32GB configs.

Sounds like a tie for Tulsa - nice result indeed.


RE: 16MB = awful latency
By Phynaz on 8/30/2006 2:17:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
4-way 7140 is comparable to 4-way 8220 on 32GB configs


Ummmm....It's 25% faster.



RE: 16MB = awful latency
By mino on 8/30/2006 4:52:06 PM , Rating: 2
No, 885 with DDR is 20% slower.
8220 should be on par. 5% slower at worst.


RE: 16MB = awful latency
By Phynaz on 8/30/2006 1:50:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
so how do 8 opterons with 16 cores total do? oh wait, that isn't in the benchmark.


How much effort do you put into being so dense?


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

Related Articles
16MB of L3 Cache: Intel's "Tulsa"
May 28, 2006, 7:12 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki