Questions about the new Xeons

[tommychan]

I want to build a new machine based on the new core architecture from Intel. I decided to go for Xeon (woodcrest) because it supports more than one processor on board. However I am not sure if this is what I want. The major criteria for my new system are stability and low power consumption. Could someone explain my concerns below?

1, Am I right that Xeon are more stable then the mainstream desktop processor?
2, Why are there so much price difference between Xeon and Conroe (Core 2 Duo) just because Xeon support SMP, some more cache and is more stable? Or there are other differences? Is that worth?
3, I did some research on the data of the new processors and found that there is a LV low voltage version for Xeon (5140 and 5148), with same amount of speed, cache, FSB, and provide exactly the same features, but consumes a less power and cost less, which does not make sense to me. Have I missed out something?
4, Its so nice the TDP of Conroe and Woodcrest are the same, which makes Xeon looks like so great, but is it not for game and multimedia? I have always heard premium game machines are all Pentiums and Athlon but never Xeon and Opteron. Are there anything (apart from prices) that Conroe better then its server version woodcrest?
5, I heard that woodcrest does not support HT, is it true? If it supports HT, with two cores and SMP, will I see 8 virtual processors within windows (sooo cool!)?
6, I also heard that simplified speaking, the new processors are approximately 30% faster then the current processors from Intel at the same speed. Does it mean a new 2.3GHz processor is as fast as an old 3GHz processor? And does it mean a program will able to run on a processor 30% of its minimum requirements (in terms of MHz)?

 

[Ycon]

1. not necessarily, but usually (99%) they are, so that would be a yes.
2. Xeons support a higher FSB so they have to be higher quality chips plus theres an intensive validation phase for each processor, that drives the price up.
3. The 5148 costs a bit more than the 5140 because it is a higher quality chip that can run the 5140s specs at a lower Vcore.
4. No, Woodcrest doesnt have HT (maybe yet?). But the performance is way higher than anything older Xeons can offer.

 

[tommychan]

Thanks for the answer.

But wouldn't be stupid for Intel that to relaease a cpu that is hotter but at the same speed and have the same features? I assume there must have something that the LV version worse then the normal version.

Also I am wondering why Intel get rid of HT for the latest Xeon, seems that Intel is so confident to the speed improvement of their new Xeon even with HT disabled

 

[Action_Man]

But wouldn't be stupid for Intel that to relaease a cpu that is hotter but at the same speed and have the same features? I assume there must have something that the LV version worse then the normal version.

????

Also I am wondering why Intel get rid of HT for the latest Xeon, seems that Intel is so confident to the speed improvement of their new Xeon even with HT disabled

HT wouldn't do much for woodcrest.

 

[Action_Man]

1. They're the same.

2. Just FSB and higher clock speeds. Cache is 4mb on both.

3. Lower power means less cooling and cheaper to run. Good for really dense blade servers.

4. Woodcrest is max 80w and conroe is max 65w. Nope.

5. Doesn't need to.

6. Its going to depend on the benchmarks.

 

[the_vorlon]

Am I right that Xeon are more stable then the mainstream desktop processor?

In theory, yes. As a practical matter no.

Why are there so much price difference between Xeon and Conroe (Core 2 Duo) just because Xeon support SMP, some more cache and is more stable? Or there are other differences? Is that worth?

Intel and AMD charge more for server parts because, well, they can

I did some research on the data of the new processors and found that there is a LV low voltage version for Xeon (5140 and 5148), with same amount of speed, cache, FSB, and provide exactly the same features, but consumes a less power and cost less, which does not make sense to me. Have I missed out something?

LV Parts are better in the sense they can run stable at lower votages. Typically, if you crank up the voltage, the LV parts will overclock like hell as well. - LV parts are standard issue bin sorts, except instead of takling a great chip that goes to a high clock speed, they take a great chip and make it run the same speed with less power.

4, Its so nice the TDP of Conroe and Woodcrest are the same, which makes Xeon looks like so great, but is it not for game and multimedia? I have always heard premium game machines are all Pentiums and Athlon but never Xeon and Opteron. Are there anything (apart from prices) that Conroe better then its server version woodcrest?

Woodcrest is on a 2 x 1333 mhz bus, while Conroe is 1 x 1066. A dual Woodcrest should massively kick but, but for gaming solid graphic card support (SLI, Crossfire, PCIE-16 lane) could very very hard to find in a dual cpu board.

5, I heard that woodcrest does not support HT, is it true? If it supports HT, with two cores and SMP, will I see 8 virtual processors within windows (sooo cool!)?

Hyperthreading is NOT turned on in the first versions of Woodcrest. It "may" exist, but most "speculation" seems to assumne they will not turn it on till the 45 nanometer node. - The first p4s (willamette) had hyperhtreading, but it was never turned on.

6, I also heard that simplified speaking, the new processors are approximately 30% faster then the current processors from Intel at the same speed. Does it mean a new 2.3GHz processor is as fast as an old 3GHz processor? And does it mean a program will able to run on a processor 30% of its minimum requirements (in terms of MHz)?

Clock for clock, probably close to 40-45%, (A 2.93 Conroe absolutely destroys the old 3.73 ghz EE) but yes you have the idea

 

[djkrypplephite]

I want to build a new machine based on the new core architecture from Intel. I decided to go for Xeon (woodcrest) because it supports more than one processor on board. However I am not sure if this is what I want. The major criteria for my new system are stability and low power consumption. Could someone explain my concerns below?

1, Am I right that Xeon are more stable then the mainstream desktop processor?
2, Why are there so much price difference between Xeon and Conroe (Core 2 Duo) just because Xeon support SMP, some more cache and is more stable? Or there are other differences? Is that worth?
3, I did some research on the data of the new processors and found that there is a LV low voltage version for Xeon (5140 and 5148), with same amount of speed, cache, FSB, and provide exactly the same features, but consumes a less power and cost less, which does not make sense to me. Have I missed out something?
4, Its so nice the TDP of Conroe and Woodcrest are the same, which makes Xeon looks like so great, but is it not for game and multimedia? I have always heard premium game machines are all Pentiums and Athlon but never Xeon and Opteron. Are there anything (apart from prices) that Conroe better then its server version woodcrest?
5, I heard that woodcrest does not support HT, is it true? If it supports HT, with two cores and SMP, will I see 8 virtual processors within windows (sooo cool!)?
6, I also heard that simplified speaking, the new processors are approximately 30% faster then the current processors from Intel at the same speed. Does it mean a new 2.3GHz processor is as fast as an old 3GHz processor? And does it mean a program will able to run on a processor 30% of its minimum requirements (in terms of MHz)?

Typically more stable? Sure, slower? A little, probably.

It's a bit more than 30% buddy.

Hyper-Threading will make a return in 2008 (per Intel Xeon engineer or VP or something, some PR person), none until we get longer pipelines again. HT is basically stuffing another thread into the pipeline before the first one is done, emulating two processors and getting twice as much done in one clock cycle. 14 stages don't leave you an awful lot of room to do it with.

A less costly version that uses less power? Whatever you're smoking, you better start sharing.

Don't worry about MHz much anymore, any Woodcrest can handle anything you want to throw at it, they're brand spankin' new and will tear through most anything.

 

[Action_Man]

Hyper-Threading will make a return in 2008 (per Intel Xeon engineer or VP or something, some PR person), none until we get longer pipelines again. HT is basically stuffing another thread into the pipeline before the first one is done, emulating two processors and getting twice as much done in one clock cycle. 14 stages don't leave you an awful lot of room to do it with.

Its about getting the execution units always doing work. The Power5 is ~14 stages and it has SMT. Its very wide like core, SMT/hyperthreading doesn't have to have deep pipelines. It can benefit deep pipelines and/or wide cpus.

 

[Ycon]

Yes, I heard that HT might have an even bigger effect on Core 2 than on NetBurst. I dont quite remember where but it said that the benefits could be upwards of 30% (NetBurst getting only like 20-25 avg.).

 

[tommychan]

Thanks for answering all my questions.

 

[Action_Man]

They'd probably be better off without it, since it has very aggressive power saving technologies the small increases wouldn't warrant the extra heat. They'd be better off just clocking them higher or adding more cores.

 

[Ycon]

But they do have special high-performance series, 120W TDP, and these are NOT Clovertowns.
I smell they might re-release HT next year, with a few fixes (HT decreased performance in some cases).

 

[tommychan]

I would not be surprised if we hear the Extreme version supports 2 physical or 4 logical cores .... unlikely, but if it happened I would not be shocked.

I thought Intel puts Xeon at a higher position then Extreme cpu. So Xeon should have everything that Extreme version have.

 

[Dante_Jose_Cuervo]

Interesting... about the hyperthreading on the new architecture, would they be using the Wide Dynamic Bus to do that or what? If this has already been answered sorry, but it' slike 2 in the morning and I'm not really catching on. Oh an also from what I heard hyperthreading is dead... but we'll just have to wait and see.