Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

1366 VS Dual 771 - Benchmarks

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 20, 2011 4:26:14 AM

I have a friend who is quite knowledgeable about servers. He has a dual 771 Dell Server running two quadcore neons at 2.5Ghz (i believe,) And some FB DIMMS. I have an i7-950 overclocked to 4Ghz (water cooled) on a ASUS P6T Deluxe (original with onboards SAS) 12GB 1600Mhz Patriot RAM. He really believes that he has a superior system to mine Based on the cost of our systems. Thus we made a bet. We are gonna run 15 benchmarks to put our arguement to rest. The winner keeps the losers machine. So this thread is for two things. Please Fire off about who you think will be the Victor (Me of coarse) and what operating systems do you Recommend we running our benchmarks on and what benchmarks do you recommend. I want a wide range of benchmarks synthetics and real life applications. After I read all your opinions and advise I will post the OS and the benchmarks to be ran. Also if you could provide links to download some of these benchmarks I would really appreciate it.
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2011 4:39:20 AM

You are most lucky to win in benchmark testing, unless you are running test that act like multply users/computers are running at the same time on the sever. I would say use futuremark3D Vantage, PassMark Performance Test or check here http://downloads.guru3d.com/
m
0
l
March 20, 2011 2:29:30 PM

Several versions of 3Dmark, and also a few graphic intensive games and compare framerates.

I personally hope the server will win just because I hate how overrated i7s are and how everyone who owns one seems to think it's the greatest thing in the world and can beat any computer ever. I especially hate the 950. It's not even one of the good i7s, implying that there are good i7s.
m
0
l
Related resources
March 20, 2011 3:37:53 PM

Of coarse anything I say would be bias so I will reserve my comments to myself. But I have a question for ActionHobo. What CPU are you running?
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
March 20, 2011 4:05:43 PM

horatio b said:
I have a friend who is quite knowledgeable about servers. He has a dual 771 Dell Server running two quadcore neons at 2.5Ghz (i believe,) And some FB DIMMS. I have an i7-950 overclocked to 4Ghz (water cooled) on a ASUS P6T Deluxe (original with onboards SAS) 12GB 1600Mhz Patriot RAM. He really believes that he has a superior system to mine Based on the cost of our systems. Thus we made a bet. We are gonna run 15 benchmarks to put our arguement to rest. The winner keeps the losers machine. So this thread is for two things. Please Fire off about who you think will be the Victor (Me of coarse) and what operating systems do you Recommend we running our benchmarks on and what benchmarks do you recommend. I want a wide range of benchmarks synthetics and real life applications. After I read all your opinions and advise I will post the OS and the benchmarks to be ran. Also if you could provide links to download some of these benchmarks I would really appreciate it.

Well, you should make it somewhat fair. Windows 7 has the best thread management of any Windows OS so far.

With those clock speeds, the i7 definitely has the advantage. Anything with 4 threads or less will make the i7 win by a long shot. Things with 8 threads might be close.

Sisoftware Sandra will show the theoretical best of each system:
http://downloads.guru3d.com/downloadget.php?id=2056&fil...

Cinebench has single thread and multithreaded tests:
http://downloads.guru3d.com/CineBENCH-11.5-download-247...

Good luck; I don't know why he thinks his system beats yours just based on cost especially since server parts cost a ton more for the same type of hardware. If he really knows servers, he should know how fast the i7 really is compared to the older Core 2 arch. FB DIMMS were terrible for bandwidth, and the FSB is nowhere near as good as QPI even though QPI is useless for desktop; the FSB will slow his config down.
Share
March 20, 2011 4:35:59 PM

Best answer selected by horatio b.
m
0
l
March 20, 2011 4:38:00 PM

ActionHobo said:
Several versions of 3Dmark, and also a few graphic intensive games and compare framerates.

I personally hope the server will win just because I hate how overrated i7s are and how everyone who owns one seems to think it's the greatest thing in the world and can beat any computer ever. I especially hate the 950. It's not even one of the good i7s, implying that there are good i7s.


Haserath said:
Well, you should make it somewhat fair. Windows 7 has the best thread management of any Windows OS so far.

With those clock speeds, the i7 definitely has the advantage. Anything with 4 threads or less will make the i7 win by a long shot. Things with 8 threads might be close.

Sisoftware Sandra will show the theoretical best of each system:
http://downloads.guru3d.com/downloadget.php?id=2056&fil...

Cinebench has single thread and multithreaded tests:
http://downloads.guru3d.com/CineBENCH-11.5-download-247...

Good luck; I don't know why he thinks his system beats yours just based on cost especially since server parts cost a ton more for the same type of hardware. If he really knows servers, he should know how fast the i7 really is compared to the older Core 2 arch. FB DIMMS were terrible for bandwidth, and the FSB is nowhere near as good as QPI even though QPI is useless for desktop; the FSB will slow his config down.


Best response so far. This is exactly what I was looking for.
m
0
l
March 20, 2011 5:26:07 PM

i think the server board will win. i7 might top at synthetics
m
0
l
March 20, 2011 5:27:44 PM

proton9 said:
i think the server board will win. i7 might top at synthetics


Please support your argument.
m
0
l
March 20, 2011 5:32:32 PM

real cores are better than logical ones.
m
0
l
March 20, 2011 5:38:48 PM

proton9 said:
real cores are better than logical ones.


That is your entire argument? What about architecture? What about clock speed? What about RAM? What about Windows 7 advance Multithreading handling capabilities, where it knows what cores are physical and logical and what kind of work load to assign to each? What about the AMD Thuban sucks compared to most i7s?

Well I appreciate your opinion... but you might wanna do some research for your own personal knowledge for when you plan on upgrading your system next. Tomshardware has tons of articles benchmarking CPUs/GPUs and a heck of a lot of other hardware and software. so just check them out, it's a wealth of knowledge.
m
0
l
March 20, 2011 5:51:54 PM

well i did say i7 might top at synthetics..... as its running at 4ghz
cine bench kinda mutithreaded benchmarks prefer c2qs over i3s. same goes for dual quad core
m
0
l
March 20, 2011 6:09:52 PM

Oh ok... but we are gonna be running more than cinebench...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2011 6:18:45 PM

proton9 said:
well i did say i7 might top at synthetics..... as its running at 4ghz
cine bench kinda mutithreaded benchmarks prefer c2qs over i3s. same goes for dual quad core

The server system is @ 2.5ghz while the i7 is @ 4ghz. i7 is ~20% faster clock for clock plus 0-30% with hyperthreading depending on the application.

The server is also hampered with FSB, this slows multi-cpu configurations since the processors have to go through the FSB along with memory, graphics, HD data, etc.

It may just depend on how much the program is optimized/can make use of hyperthreading.
m
0
l
!