Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Xeon X5570 "Nehalem" benchmarked.

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2009 7:37:11 PM

yeah but can it run cry... oh screw it.
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2009 7:41:54 PM

lol
Related resources
a c 123 à CPUs
March 30, 2009 9:09:10 PM

Holy jebus. It beats or keeps up with a quad Xeon/Opteron setup. Thats pretty damn impressive.

Now lets see how AMD responds....
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2009 9:22:16 PM

yeah, it looks like an amazing chip.
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2009 9:30:13 PM

^LMAO
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2009 9:52:09 PM

you are aware these are server benchmarks, and everything you just said has ZERO relevance.
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2009 9:56:42 PM

Quote:
We already know Intel plays dirty, lets leave it at that.....

Well considering the Phenom 2 AM3 does pretty well against the i7, I'd say they will be pretty competetive, but at a lower price of course.

Its a shame Intels first 32nm chips will be budget dual cores in socket 1156. i7 owners will have to wait till early next year for the hexa-cores to see 32nm efficiency.

Just so you know, the 2.7-2.9GHz AMD chips in that review were the 45nm parts. AMD doesn't have any better, and won't unless they have a new architecture or process that was somehow not on the roadmap that nobody knows about.

Basically, AMD 45nm is utterly flattened by the Nehalem xeon. In almost every way. By huge margins.
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2009 10:08:35 PM

cjl said:
Just so you know, the 2.7-2.9GHz AMD chips in that review were the 45nm parts. AMD doesn't have any better, and won't unless they have a new architecture or process that was somehow not on the roadmap that nobody knows about.

Basically, AMD 45nm is utterly flattened by the Nehalem xeon. In almost every way. By huge margins.


LOL...

The 6-core version of Shanghai is supposed to launch later this year, right? That'll help close the gap to maybe Grand Canyon size. In the meantime, it looks like Nehalem is doing for server what C2 did for desktop.
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2009 11:17:13 PM

well AMD does have a point. i mean the i7 is basically all prior AMD technology is it not? its easy to take someone elses stuff and beef it up but credit and respect should be given to the innovator... but then again we do live in a capitalistic society so to hell with it.
March 31, 2009 12:12:19 AM

werxen said:
well AMD does have a point. i mean the i7 is basically all prior AMD technology is it not? its easy to take someone elses stuff and beef it up but credit and respect should be given to the innovator... but then again we do live in a capitalistic society so to hell with it.


So you are saying that Intel reverse engineered the P2 into the I7 arch then redid it in their own image??? ???

Word, Playa.
March 31, 2009 12:13:34 AM

2x post ;<
a c 123 à CPUs
March 31, 2009 10:03:52 AM

Quote:
You mean XEON is a server chip?????? OMG :sarcastic:  Thanks for letting us know big fella.
Its based on the i7 architecture, so yes it is completely relevent, just not what you wanted to hear huh fanboy?

....and no, Gulftown (hexa-core @ 32nm) is not planned till early next year, however Clarksdale (Westmere) will debut at 32nm this year in socket 1156, not 1366.
In between Gulftown and Clarksdale, there will be Lynnfield which will be a 45nm quad in 1156.
Makes no sense to me why Intel would release s1156 duals at 32nm and s1156 quads in 45nm afterwards AND have s1366 in 32nm as well. :ouch: 


Actually what happens on the DT market in performance by no means is relevant to server market performance. And vice versa. AMDs Phenom and Phenom II always owned Intel in Server for the most part. But in desktop Phenom did not own. It would keep up in some situations and fall behind in most.

What this shows is that a DUAL CPU (note that part) Nehalem server is able to keep up with in some and beat in most quad CPU Intel/AMD setups. That means that admins can save money by buying dual socket servers instead or replace their current ones with Nehalem CPUs and get even better performance gains since this only used DUAL CPU Nehalem based Xeon servers.

Basically nehamel Xeons are the king of the server ring. There is no fighting that. It was easy to see considering the bandwidth given by a Core i7 alone.
a b à CPUs
March 31, 2009 2:26:16 PM

spud said:
So you are saying that Intel reverse engineered the P2 into the I7 arch then redid it in their own image??? ???

Word, Playa.


built in memory controller, 64 bit, actual quad core.... these are all pre existing AMD technologies bro... everything that is in Intel cpus these days were created on an AMD lab table.
March 31, 2009 3:51:46 PM

werxen said:
built in memory controller, 64 bit, actual quad core.... these are all pre existing AMD technologies bro... everything that is in Intel cpus these days were created on an AMD lab table.


... and far better implemented by Intel. What's the excuse for AMD losing by those margins with their own super "inventions"?
a b à CPUs
March 31, 2009 4:12:41 PM

I think we all knew nehalem was going to be the king of the server market, but what surprises me is by how large of a margin.
a b à CPUs
March 31, 2009 4:17:58 PM

oh, if you need a good laugh, go over to AMDZone and see the comments there.
March 31, 2009 4:45:51 PM

BadTrip said:
oh, if you need a good laugh, go over to AMDZone and see the comments there.


Why when we can be just as amused here?
a b à CPUs
March 31, 2009 5:30:02 PM

werxen said:
built in memory controller, 64 bit, actual quad core.... these are all pre existing AMD technologies bro... everything that is in Intel cpus these days were created on an AMD lab table.


Out of those, the only actual AMD technology is the x86-64. Some processors as old as a Dec Alpha 21066 have an IMC, so it is neither a new concept nor is it really specific to either company. Also, Intel has done a native 80 core before, so a native quad is not exactly AMD specific.
March 31, 2009 6:50:35 PM

werxen said:
built in memory controller, 64 bit, actual quad core.... these are all pre existing AMD technologies bro... everything that is in Intel cpus these days were created on an AMD lab table.


Actually no. Intel already built an IMC way back in the 90s when they tried to create a SoC for the masses. Both HP and DEC also created IMC for the same reason back in the 90s.

64bit was actually first developed by Intel as IA64.

Intel came up with the first quad core x86 processor.
a b à CPUs
March 31, 2009 7:33:30 PM

yomamafor1 said:
Actually no. Intel already built an IMC way back in the 90s when they tried to create a SoC for the masses. Both HP and DEC also created IMC for the same reason back in the 90s.

64bit was actually first developed by Intel as IA64.

Intel came up with the first quad core x86 processor.


IA64 has nothing to do with x86-64, so I would say that all modern 64 bit X86 compatible chips are using AMD technology for that. Everything else isn't AMD specific though, as you said.
March 31, 2009 8:15:48 PM

Of course, I agree. I'm just simply pointing out that 64bit wasn't AMD's pioneering, but rather x86-64 extension. That was one of the many few true innovations (not "native" quad core BS) from AMD.
a c 96 à CPUs
March 31, 2009 8:16:40 PM

jimmysmitty said:
.....

What this shows is that a DUAL CPU (note that part) Nehalem server is able to keep up with in some and beat in most quad CPU Intel/AMD setups. That means that admins can save money by buying dual socket servers instead or replace their current ones with Nehalem CPUs and get even better performance gains since this only used DUAL CPU Nehalem based Xeon servers .....


They didn't run against 4p (or 8p) Opty's - not that it would have mattered. They ran 2p 8384s at 2.7GHz. 4p Opty 8384s score 22k in SAP ERP 6.0 two-tier.

IIRC 4p 'Barcelonas' at 2.3GHz were in the 17-18k range. (I'm guessin') 4p Shanghai Opty's at 2.9GHz will be in the 23.5-24k range.






March 31, 2009 8:38:02 PM

Quote:
Quote:
... and far better implemented by Intel. What's the excuse for AMD losing by those margins with their own super "inventions"?


Excuse? AMD needs an excuse? They are about 1/50th the size of Intel. Intel has tons more cash flow and engineering resources, duh! Yes little AMD can still compete which blows Intels mind. Why dont you do some reading, you seem really uninformed.
You would think they could design something themselves huh?

Intels famous for copying and perfecting other companies methods. Do you really think Intel engineered the C2D? No, Transmeta did and won in court when they sued Intel for patent infringement, Intel paid a lot to keep it quiet so the average person doesnt even know.
Problem is its a slap on the hand every time Intel does it and they pay out millions in fines yet make hundreds of millions off the product.



Intel can design something by themselves, like the whole x86 thing that made AMD exist - as a clone company in order to satisfy IBM. I think it's memorable that AMD has gone out of that route and made some pretty advancements of their own, but they had their ticket to ride with K8 and their management thought it would last forever. Besides, back then Intel was as big as it is today, so stop the "David vs Goliath" thing. AMD just sat on their laurels and released a broken product that almost made them unable to release anything else. When a competitor's product with half the cores performs 50%-90% better than yours [with your "inventions"] you obviously need to go back to the design table.

Curiously, your "inventing company" only exists because of the copycat one and the tech they let the other party use.
March 31, 2009 9:35:45 PM

Quote:
Quote:
... and far better implemented by Intel. What's the excuse for AMD losing by those margins with their own super "inventions"?


Excuse? AMD needs an excuse? They are about 1/50th the size of Intel. Intel has tons more cash flow and engineering resources, duh! Yes little AMD can still compete which blows Intels mind. Why dont you do some reading, you seem really uninformed.
You would think they could design something themselves huh?

Intels famous for copying and perfecting other companies methods. Do you really think Intel engineered the C2D? No, Transmeta did and won in court when they sued Intel for patent infringement, Intel paid a lot to keep it quiet so the average person doesnt even know.
Problem is its a slap on the hand every time Intel does it and they pay out millions in fines yet make hundreds of millions off the product.


Its actually a patent issue with how the Core 2's go into low power modes, think you need to read the entire article instead of the heading "Intel at it again"

Word, Playa.
March 31, 2009 9:41:15 PM

Quote:

Intels famous for copying and perfecting other companies methods. Do you really think Intel engineered the C2D? No, Transmeta did and won in court when they sued Intel for patent infringement, Intel paid a lot to keep it quiet so the average person doesnt even know.
Problem is its a slap on the hand every time Intel does it and they pay out millions in fines yet make hundreds of millions off the product.


No offense, but you need to brush up your definition of "patent infringement". It does not necessarily mean "copy and paste" :sarcastic: 
a b à CPUs
March 31, 2009 10:31:56 PM

keithlm said:
Why when we can be just as amused here?


Quote:
by ZootyGray on Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:18 pm

Chimp monkeys are imitators. Shockingly, imitation is one of the lowest forms of insanity. spintel's imitation of AMD is merely indicative of a huge corp. with low morale, living in a sick lie, driven by petty tyrants, probably festering, with no hope as the world closes in on them - doom in delayed mode (legal team). Brainwash somehow just doesn't fly. oops.
I doubt that's what you meant.

Part of the world has awakened to the multi-partnership Spirit of AMD.
This is global, trans-religious, trans-cultural, positive, mutual beneficial, progressive, unifying, creative, and a lot of fun too. One green planet shared. World peace? Hey, why not.

spintel just wants all - period.


and

Quote:
What part was insulting?
What part was not factual?
What part was immature?

You simply have been seduced by slight of hand garbage tactics = example - you post a stupid graph showing spintel is wonderful with no configuration details - was AMD running on a 486? Never mind = not interested

Just go away and enjoy you illusions. Only an idiot would buy LIES.

goo goo gah gah @ you baby - get serious, factual, mature, and anything else you find relevant to reality - is this insulting too? You want to feed us lies? THAT is insulting. We are not morons like the sources of your FUD.

Try to imagine that THIS IS AMDZONE - we see your type a lot - bye baby.


The prosecution rests its case :) ...
a c 123 à CPUs
March 31, 2009 11:13:26 PM

Quote:
Quote:
... and far better implemented by Intel. What's the excuse for AMD losing by those margins with their own super "inventions"?


Excuse? AMD needs an excuse? They are about 1/50th the size of Intel. Intel has tons more cash flow and engineering resources, duh! Yes little AMD can still compete which blows Intels mind. Why dont you do some reading, you seem really uninformed.
You would think they could design something themselves huh?

Intels famous for copying and perfecting other companies methods. Do you really think Intel engineered the C2D? No, Transmeta did and won in court when they sued Intel for patent infringement, Intel paid a lot to keep it quiet so the average person doesnt even know.
Problem is its a slap on the hand every time Intel does it and they pay out millions in fines yet make hundreds of millions off the product.


Oh yea that. You also forgot how Intel found patents that Transmeta had infringed upon as well and pulled a counter suit. Turns out Intel didn't pay money on that one. They allowed Transmeta to keep their tech and Transmeta allowed Intel to use the tech they had.

In the end, your "intel is evil" is not true.
March 31, 2009 11:27:42 PM

Screw you guys, i'm building my new comp with a homemade CPU.
a b à CPUs
April 1, 2009 2:52:18 AM

AMDZone is not comedy to these clowns. It is reality. They live in some fantasy world.
a c 96 à CPUs
April 1, 2009 3:13:45 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Holy jebus. It beats or keeps up with a quad Xeon/Opteron setup. Thats pretty damn impressive.

Now lets see how AMD responds....


I think Istanbul is their answer. It will be interesting to see what HT3, a new snoop filter, and a 50% core boost does for AMD. AMD has a pretty tough row to hoe, though, as the Nehalem-EP looks to be a pretty stout CPU.

@yomamafor1: One of the MIPS CPUs was the first CPU to do 64-bit, way back in 1991 when Intel was pursuing RISC with the ix60 line.
April 1, 2009 3:02:01 PM

It look like Nehalem is going to give AMD a complete thrashing
in the server market.



and

April 1, 2009 3:20:25 PM

Quote:
I think you Intel fanboys need to read up on Intels shady business practice. They have been sued by more than 10 companies for patent infringement and lost every case.
Not only that, how many countries are suing Intel for "unfair business practices", at least 10 that I know of. They tried there hardest to put AMD out of business, not by making a better product, which they did, but buy abusing their monopoly power and forcing companies to not sell AMD products.
Pull your head out of Intels ass for a moment of your uneventful life and google "Intel Sued" and do some reading of your own.
The funny thing is, little AMD can still compete big time.


And the same thing can be said about Apple, Google, HP, and IBM.

Its not about business practices, but how big the company is, and how much money it is making. Again, you need to brush up the definition of "patent infringement". You think Intel with some of the brightest engineers would have to resort to "copying"? :lol:  :sarcastic: 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=patent+infringement+definition
April 1, 2009 10:34:29 PM

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/AMD-Bulldozer-Opteron,...

AMD is still being that Randy Allen's and Hector's AMD after all. The better they can come up with to counter the new Nehalems on the server market is the "opti-clone" and a "one-sided interview". Istanbul looks good, but I doubt that alone will do until 2011. I wonder why a multi-billion dollar company still lets a tool like this speak for them. Perhaps because the company is run by a bunch of them?
a c 123 à CPUs
April 2, 2009 12:06:29 AM

Quote:
I think you Intel fanboys need to read up on Intels shady business practice. They have been sued by more than 10 companies for patent infringement and lost every case.
Not only that, how many countries are suing Intel for "unfair business practices", at least 10 that I know of. They tried there hardest to put AMD out of business, not by making a better product, which they did, but buy abusing their monopoly power and forcing companies to not sell AMD products.
Pull your head out of Intels ass for a moment of your uneventful life and google "Intel Sued" and do some reading of your own.
The funny thing is, little AMD can still compete big time.


Wow. Such anger. You need to take your head out of your own self righteous ass and realize that there is no such thing as a 100% perfect company. And yes that includes AMD.

So me as a consumer, should I base my decision on a companies business practisces or their products performance and quality? If I did it based off of their business practices I wouldn't have anything since no company really is 100% legit. But based off of performance means I can get the best product for my money. Easy choice.

As for this, server Admins will look at the price and performance. And when they see this can easily beat their current server setups by such a large margin they will buy it.

dattimr said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/AMD-Bulldozer-Opteron,...

AMD is still being that Randy Allen's and Hector's AMD after all. The better they can come up with to counter the new Nehalems on the server market is the "opti-clone" and a "one-sided interview". Istanbul looks good, but I doubt that alone will do until 2011. I wonder why a multi-billion dollar company still lets a tool like this speak for them. Perhaps because the company is run by a bunch of them?


Because Hector is still the head of the board. I told everyone he never truly left. And he wont ever leave as long as he can stay and act like some sort of power figure. And make money off of it too.
April 2, 2009 12:17:09 AM

jimmysmitty said:
As for this, server Admins will look at the price and performance. And when they see this can easily beat their current server setups by such a large margin they will buy it.



What you say is what some people hope.

But server Admins will also be disabling the marketing tools like hyperthreading and Turbo mode. Once those are turned off, the Intel chip may have a slight IPC benefit. But that will not really be enough to influence purchasing decisions. Certainly not the "Grand Canyon" size as another poster claimed. (Actually Turbo is very likely going to be disabled by default on most commercial systems.)

Actual power usage is going to be more important to 80% (or more) of the people that buy these types of chips than a few percentage points of performance.

Corporate people are going to want to see 4P versus 4P or even 8P versus 8P systems IMMEDIATELY.
April 2, 2009 12:23:09 AM

keithlm said:
What you say is what some people hope.

But server Admins will also be disabling the marketing tools like hyperthreading and Turbo mode. Once those are turned off, the Intel chip may have a slight IPC benefit. But that will not really be enough to influence purchasing decisions. Certainly not the "Grand Canyon" size as another poster claimed. (Actually Turbo is very likely going to be disabled by default on most commercial systems.)

Actual power usage is going to be more important to 80% (or more) of the people that buy these types of chips than a few percentage points of performance.

Corporate people are going to want to see 4P versus 4P or even 8P versus 8P systems IMMEDIATELY.


Hmmm....why would server admins disable Turbo and HT when they in fact help the overall system performance? Perhaps a wishful thought there?


a b à CPUs
April 2, 2009 1:21:05 AM

They will disable them because they are morons. Thats the only logical reason.



a b à CPUs
April 2, 2009 1:24:52 AM

keithlm said:
What you say is what some people hope.

But server Admins will also be disabling the marketing tools like hyperthreading and Turbo mode. Once those are turned off, the Intel chip may have a slight IPC benefit. But that will not really be enough to influence purchasing decisions. Certainly not the "Grand Canyon" size as another poster claimed. (Actually Turbo is very likely going to be disabled by default on most commercial systems.)

Actual power usage is going to be more important to 80% (or more) of the people that buy these types of chips than a few percentage points of performance.

Corporate people are going to want to see 4P versus 4P or even 8P versus 8P systems IMMEDIATELY.


The problem with that thought is that HT actually increases throughput more than it increases power. Therefore, if power is what they are looking for, the Intel chips will give them significantly more performance per watt than the AMD. Turbo will be on in some cases, and off in others, but I see no reason why an admin would disable it. All it does is make the chips faster. Finally, even if they do turn off turbo and hyperthreading, the Intel chips maintain a healthy lead due in many cases to the significantly lower memory latency and higher bandwidth. Also, the Intel chips have always been ahead in integer, and Nehalem can really use this advantage because the FSB bottleneck is removed.
a c 123 à CPUs
April 2, 2009 1:50:44 AM

keithlm said:
What you say is what some people hope.

But server Admins will also be disabling the marketing tools like hyperthreading and Turbo mode. Once those are turned off, the Intel chip may have a slight IPC benefit. But that will not really be enough to influence purchasing decisions. Certainly not the "Grand Canyon" size as another poster claimed. (Actually Turbo is very likely going to be disabled by default on most commercial systems.)

Actual power usage is going to be more important to 80% (or more) of the people that buy these types of chips than a few percentage points of performance.

Corporate people are going to want to see 4P versus 4P or even 8P versus 8P systems IMMEDIATELY.


While I agree in one way, not everyone will disable them. And considering that the only area where a Nehalem dual CPU server does not beat a quad Xeon/Opty setup is virtualization I don't see why they wouldn't go for it since it would save power by using 2 less CPUs.

but we shall see.

You still have to admit that this will be more of a challenge for AMD in the server market that is needed pretty badly.
April 2, 2009 2:23:51 AM

The people that think that the toy marketing features will be left enabled on server machines are definitely going to be in for a rude awakening.

Sure SOME people may use these toy features, but these benchmarking features WILL most definitely be disabled on a vast majority of machines; especially on mission critical servers.

Actually I digress: that statement will NOT be true for mission critial servers for awhile. This is because mission critical servers won't use these chips for awhile; it will probably be several years before this architecture is trusted enough to be put into those types of situations.
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2009 2:26:52 AM

Why do you think that the features will be disabled? They don't hurt stability - the chips are guaranteed rock solid with them on, and as said, they increase both performance and efficiency. You'd have to be a complete idiot to turn them off just because they are new.

April 2, 2009 2:33:16 AM

cjl said:
You'd have to be a complete idiot to turn them off just because they are new.


Or a qualified and experienced server Admin that isn't interested in opinions posted by people on internet forums.

(Apparently you have no idea how serious this issue would be in that situation. It is only YOUR OPINION that it doesn't hurt stability. There is NO GUARANTEE that these features do not and will not have adverse affects on a system that MUST remain available 24/7.)
April 2, 2009 3:01:34 AM

keithlm said:
Or a qualified and experienced server Admin that isn't interested in opinions posted by people on internet forums.

(Apparently you have no idea how serious this issue would be in that situation. It is only YOUR OPINION that it doesn't hurt stability. There is NO GUARANTEE that these features do not and will not have adverse affects on a system that MUST remain available 24/7.)


You mean people like your sacred AMDzone The_Ghost, who deletes everything that's not "AMD propaganda"? Or by "qualified and experienced", you mean yourself?

Seriously, you guys at AMDzone needs to learn the meaning of "reality". Nehalem operating at 200+ TDP? LOL!!
a c 123 à CPUs
April 2, 2009 3:03:03 AM

Whoops double same post.

Anyways. While we cannot say what a server admin will do I do not see a reason to disable HT since it actually does not change the power usage much at all.

In fact a Nehalem based Xeon only uses about 10-15w more than a Penryn based Xeon due to the IMC being on the CPU. But that means the chipset will use less power since it will not have the MC anymore thus making the power jump and loss even out.

this is even shown in a Core i7 compared to a Core 2 Quad. The CPU itself only uses 10-15w more due to the IMC but overall system power usage has not changed much at all.

Add in this and the 32nm parts that are going to have a newer versionof the HK/MG and more than likely backwards compatability it does present a threat to AMDs bread and butter server market.

I guess the only down side here is that now there is no way to say that a Intel chip will not keep up with or beat a AMD chip in the server market. Thats how it has been in the past but this is now. Things change. Much like AMD did with K8 to whomp Intel, Intel is doing with Nehalem to whomp on AMD.
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2009 4:46:34 AM

keithlm said:
Or a qualified and experienced server Admin that isn't interested in opinions posted by people on internet forums.

(Apparently you have no idea how serious this issue would be in that situation. It is only YOUR OPINION that it doesn't hurt stability. There is NO GUARANTEE that these features do not and will not have adverse affects on a system that MUST remain available 24/7.)


Actually, there is a complete guarantee. It's called Intel guaranteeing the chip. That statement of yours would be like if I claimed that all SSE extensions should not be used on AMD chips because they might hurt stability. It's complete garbage and it is utterly ridiculous for you to be spreading this FUD.

a b à CPUs
April 2, 2009 5:17:49 AM

If the people running a server think and behave like keith and the rest of these AMD clowns then an Intel system has no chance of being stable. They will urinate on the server and blame it on turbo or a marketing gimmick.

Maybe they will just replace the cooling paste with some crazy clue instead.

Or mess up the software and blame it on the CPU.




April 2, 2009 5:41:54 AM

Look guys take it easy on keithlm all he had was the server chips,
now all of that gone he has nothing else.
So grasping at straws and hoping the worst for intel is better then
excepting the complete ass pounding AMD is getting rite now.
!