[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [school-discuss] Intel quad core vs AMD 6-core thin client server



On 10/12/2010 04:53 PM, Michael Shigorin wrote:

> No, but I have quite a bit of Intel quad hardware at hand
> (both C2Q and Xeon 55xx/54xx, have used 53xx too) as well
> as some AMD dualcores (Opteron and Athlon64 X2s).
> 
>> I'm looking for a new 32-client computer lab server.
> 
> You need RAM, cores/sockets, network bandwidth and I/O.
> Rather in that order (when LTSP is reasonable) -- with the
> latter two possibly swapping depending on the nature of apps
> and activities.
> 
>> I lean to the quad core since it's at least a generation ahead
>> architecturally
> 
> Someone told you lies, Intel "quad core" is effectively two
> dualcore dies slumped together in one package.  It's at least
> generation _behind_ architecturally, in fact. (not that I dislike
> Core family, it's fairly nice especially when compared with P4)

This hasn't been true for a couple years.

The Xeon 53xx [2] is from 2006 and is a 'Core' part. It is two
dual-cores in a single package. The Xeon 54xx [3] is from 2007 and is
also a 'Core' part. It is also two dual-cores in a single package.

The Xeon 55xx [4] is from 2008. It's a 'Nehalem' part, so it's quite
different from the 53xx and 54xx. It is natively quad core, has an
integrated memory controller, has a replacement for the front side bus,
has hyperthreading, and has turboboost. The 'Nehalem' CPUs certainly
can't be said to be behind architecturally.

The 55xx was superceded by the 56xx in 2010, which is also a 'Nehalem'
part and goes up to 6 cores. There is also the 65xx, if you need to go
up to 8 cores in a single CPU.

I didn't realize I'd become an intel fanboy until I started writing this
email.

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeon#5300-series_.22Clovertown.22
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeon#Harpertown
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gainestown_(microprocessor)#Gainestown

-- 
All the best,
Brian Pitts