We are having our pc's upgraded at work. The current ones are about 3 years old. They have a 3.06GHz pentium 4 cpu running at 133Mhz x23 according to the bios. The replacement pcs are Hewlett Packard xw6400 Xeon 5140 machines and according to the blurb run at 2.3Ghz. I'm not at all up to speed with Intel chips these days so can someone assure me that this new pc will be faster than the old one in raw number crunching terms, when running single core apps? How much faster would it be ball park if it is faster.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Someone tell me if cpu A is faster than cpu B
- Thread starter Bubo
- Start date
Raw clock speeds won't tell you anything anymore, AFAIK the Xeon's are probably faster.
Bus Speed of the Xeon's look like they are 333 compared to older Pentium which has 133 and the multiplier on those is almost laughable.
Any other opinions/corrections?
Bus Speed of the Xeon's look like they are 333 compared to older Pentium which has 133 and the multiplier on those is almost laughable.
Any other opinions/corrections?
Last edited:
Will_3rd said:Raw clock speeds won't tell you anything anymore, AFAIK the Xeon's are probably faster.
Bus Speed of the Xeon's look like they are 1333 compared to older Pentium which has 133 and the multiplier on those is almost laughable.
Any other opinions/corrections?
ehh 1333? i can say the same for the p4 wich is 533 that way, the xeon is 333 mhz (true fsb, like the p4 is 133)not 1333... (this is *** quadpumped speed, the p4 has a 533 mhz speed of this not 133, its not that it has a 10 times lower fsb...)
I dont know much about xeon, but if its the newer architecture the xeon will be miles ahead of the p4
Hi,
The 3.06 P4 will have a cache size of only 512k. The Xeon will have a cache size of 4Mb (2x2Mb) as its Dual Core. The Ghz rating is important these days only when comparing chips from the same range as C2D's have proved. (a 1.8Ghz e4300 would be faster than a 3.0Ghz P4 as the new "core" architechture is way more efficient than the old "netburst" architechture. i.e it can perfom more instructions per second at the same frequency as a P4). AFAIK, when the xeon is running a single core app, it will utilise the full 4Mb cache, and, as will3rd pointed out, it uses a much higher fsb 1333(333 quad pumped) compared to the 533mhz(133 quad pumped) of the P4. TBH I don't know anything much about Xeon CPU's but I can assure you that it will be faster, as to how much faster, I'll let someone else tell you that
The 3.06 P4 will have a cache size of only 512k. The Xeon will have a cache size of 4Mb (2x2Mb) as its Dual Core. The Ghz rating is important these days only when comparing chips from the same range as C2D's have proved. (a 1.8Ghz e4300 would be faster than a 3.0Ghz P4 as the new "core" architechture is way more efficient than the old "netburst" architechture. i.e it can perfom more instructions per second at the same frequency as a P4). AFAIK, when the xeon is running a single core app, it will utilise the full 4Mb cache, and, as will3rd pointed out, it uses a much higher fsb 1333(333 quad pumped) compared to the 533mhz(133 quad pumped) of the P4. TBH I don't know anything much about Xeon CPU's but I can assure you that it will be faster, as to how much faster, I'll let someone else tell you that
Cairnsey said:P.S If the old CPU's you are upgrading from are P4 socket 478, can I have one?
It would be an improvement over my 2.4
Smiley meltdown detected, initiating emergency shutdown....
I think the old pcs are earmarked for replacing even older pcs in the office soz. Thanks for the info though, looks like they will be an improvement. They are coming with 4 gig and quadro fx 3500 graphics cards too btw.
Yeah, Xeon 51xx are Woodcrest (IE the same core as Conroe / Core2 Duo more or less).
Simply put the Xeon will blow away the P4's with ease. Even at 1.83Ghz the lowest Core2 based chips can outperform 3.73Ghz P4's in general benchmarks. By the time you reach 2.3Ghz like your Xeons, then the P4's just dont have a chance.
Simply put the Xeon will blow away the P4's with ease. Even at 1.83Ghz the lowest Core2 based chips can outperform 3.73Ghz P4's in general benchmarks. By the time you reach 2.3Ghz like your Xeons, then the P4's just dont have a chance.
Bubo said:
I would strongly advise going for a processor based on the new core2 architecture.
My job is reasearching meshless numerical methods (and I often use FE / FV simulations as comparison). I use a 3Ghz P4 at work, and at home I have a core2 duo 36600 running at 3.5Ghz. My home machine runs my (single threaded) calculations 3 to 4 times faster than the P4, with the added bonus of being dual core letting me do 2 simultaenous runs. The new architecture really eats these numerical simulations alive...
I imagine you're using a large commercial code (abaqus? ansys?) which already has efficient parallelisation to take advantage of the second core, but still you will see a massive benefit from the new c2d range. In fact, if I was going to be building a cluster for FE simulations I would definitely go for the quad-core Qx6600 chip (or Xeon equivalent if there is one).
Just my 2p.
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 909
I think Xeon 53xx are the quad core versions...
Stupidly fast and stupidly expensive but so cool
Stupidly fast and stupidly expensive but so cool
Corasik said:
Ah, no worries then. And yes, the new chips will spank the old ones several ways from sunday. I still think you should look into quad core though - even with the machines limited to 4Gb per box you've got the option to run the same simulation, passing fewer elements to each CPU core (so you don't exceed 4Gb total mem useage per machine), and getting the simulation done in just over half the time.
