Why xeon is giving perfomance advantage?Is it is simply because of the Cache?And what is the main perfomance factor in the Itanium?Instruction level parallalism?
Xeon is special because it starts with an X and people like words that have an X in them, so to start with an X is even more special. I mean why do you think everyone loves the Xpider case? Sure, the looks are cool, but it's the name that really hooks them in.
<i>I like coffee and I like tea, but <b>X</b>enophobic is neat to say! (Just not neat to be.)</i>
--------------------
But seriously, performance advantage over <i>what</i>? The L3 cache on the high-end Xeons is sometimes useful. Xeon's real claim to fame is just it's ability to be used in multiple CPU boxen.
Asking what the main performance factor in Itanium is would be only slightly less complicated than asking what Itanium itself is, which is only marginally more detailed than trying to explain EPIC. It's a whole new way of running a CPU. Unless you want to waste hours and hours on the subject you can pretty much leave it at that and just let the benchmarks speak for themselves.
<pre><A HREF="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030905" target="_new"><font color=black>People don't understand how hard being a dark god can be. - Hastur</font color=black></A></pre><p>
Now things are becoming complicated. What technology makes the xeon more multiprocessor friendly than P4? At the first instant I guess instruction level parallelism is the main factor in Itanium performance.
The Xeon uses the P4 core. End of story on the technology.
Intel made sure Socket 478 wouldn't support dual CPU's. Probably a signal pin they eliminated or something. Why did they do that? So they could charge more for the Xeon. Same core, different socket.
There are Xeons available with extended cache, but the vast majority are using the stock P4 cache levels.
<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
Well there are probably paths for memory transfers between the CPUs or something like that, but yeah, the Xeon and the P4 are virtually identical. Even more identical are the AXP and the AMP. **ROFL** But yeah. Such is just life. If you want dualie boxes you pay more for the CPUs. How else can companies make good money on servers?
<pre><A HREF="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030905" target="_new"><font color=black>People don't understand how hard being a dark god can be. - Hastur</font color=black></A></pre><p>
Yes, after all, those server guys tend to have all the money they really need... Plus, something like 70-80% of server prices is usually memory - a ton of memory.
Xeons have more pins than P4. They are all voltage and grounding pins though. Supposedly being SMP enabled is something special in the P4. P3 and Athlon's both used the same socket for single and SMP processors. Apparently there are higher stability requirements for Xeon and MP chips.
this question is actually not that good... Itanium is very good at floating point, but would make one lousy laptop CPU... Centrino is excellent, from a laptop point of view. Celeron is not that good, but it's for low-cost niches... Pentiums are desktop processors, and relatively good ones at that... they occupy different niches... it's not good to compare them. It would be like comparing a bike to a ferrari - they're both transportation, yet they have an entirely different scope.
your reasoning is justifyable.But if you are thinking about technology Itanium is the best.So it is the best technology processor.And as Servers are the most demanding computers and Itanium is the best server processor,you can think it as the most powerful computer you can buy(Discard super computers).
HyperX, Corsair XMS, don't they just <i>sound</i> cool and important and worthy of high prices? It's the X that makes all the difference. I mean would anyone consider spending the same money for something named 'Value Select'? Nope. They have no X to make them <i>sound</i> cool.
And the next best thing to X is Z, which is why OCZ sounds almost as good as HyperX.
I'm not sure why Y gets skipped, but maybe it's because it's a consonant and sometimes it's a vowel so no one is really sure what to make of Y. Or maybe it's because marketing has no higher purpose, so it has only two dimentions, X and Z.
<pre><A HREF="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030905" target="_new"><font color=black>People don't understand how hard being a dark god can be. - Hastur</font color=black></A></pre><p>
Why else would the top-end new A64 be named an Athlon F<b>X</b>? Because the pecking order goes X > Z > plain and AMD had to make it sound cool. Why else wouldn't they just have called the A64FX the Opteron that it was? Because Opteron didn't sound like a cool big-brother to the Athlon 64. Hence Athlon 64 FX.
It's all about marketing.
<pre><A HREF="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030905" target="_new"><font color=black>People don't understand how hard being a dark god can be. - Hastur</font color=black></A></pre><p>
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.