Re: Performance improvement using X5355 over 5080
- From: "stefanbanev@xxxxxxxxx" <stefanbanev@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:24:43 -0700
On Jul 3, 9:23 am, Torbjorn Lindgren <t...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bill Davidsen <david...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Qu0ll wrote:
Can anyone give me a rough guide to the relative performance gains I
would expect to get by swapping 2 x Xeon 5080 3.73GHz Dual-Core CPUs
with 2 x Xeon X5355 2.66GHz Quad-Core CPUs? I would like to know if it
is worth the upgrade.
Probably not. Look at it this way... you are trading two cores which are
40% faster, for four cores. So it depends on the number of cpu-bound
Except that it's silly to compare MHz/GHz that way. Yes, the clock
frequency of the cores in the 5080 is 40% higher but that doesn't mean
the performance is... Core 2 is a *very* different beast compared to
the Netburst (P4) Xeon DC.
I would be rather surprised if the 5355 doesn't provide at least the
same per-thread performance as the 5080 and it could be noticeably
faster (15-25% is by no means impossible). It will also of course
provide twice the number of (hardware) cores.
Enabling HT on the 5080 changes the landscape a bit, you get more
"cores" but lower per-thread performance (the more threads the bigger
hit, but there's a small base hit). However, this really only helps
with large number of runnable threads (see below), and in those
scenarios the 2x5355 will be a MUCH better choice.
OTOH two 5355 are expensive enough that I'm not sure it makes sense to
"upgrade" that way, how much extra does it cost to just buy another
machine instead and use both :-)
threads in your system, if the number of runable threads is two or less
on average, you lose big time. If the number is three you slightly
better than break even, and only when you get to four do you win by
about 40%. And at time when you have load, but ony a few threads
running, you lose, even if you win under max load.
This is why I suggested that 2x5160 (2x3.0) might be worth looking
into. Cheaper, uses less power and a little bit better single-thread
performance (but only slightly).
And the number here are four or less, not two or less. Two sockets
means twice the number of cores.
If this machine is loaded to death most of the time then more is better,
but your description of the load in a later post doesn't sound that way,
it sounds like spike load when you are doing certain things, and only a
few threads the rest of the time. Look at your video programs running
and see how many threads are waiting for cpu. Ditto your games, if they
are not threaded you will hate the slower individual threads.
The post processing stage of video editing (including compression) is
one of the things that can use the quads well. The actual editing
varies depending on what program is used and how big the files are.
A heavily loaded multi-user server or Web server is also good
examples of this, but most "desktop" and even many "workstation" tasks
doesn't have that many heavy threads (especially not with two sockets,
even with duals you'll have 4 cores).
Games isn't for now, benchmarks show some (fairly minor) benefits for
a single quad over a single C2 dual at the same frequency (but you pay
in $ and power/heat), but with two sockets you reach the same number
of total cores with the dual-core CPUs.
I'm not sure anyone has even benchmarked 8 vs 4 cores for any game,
but I'd be surprised if there was any benefit at all (unless you also
run a heavy-duty CPU burning program at the same time).
TL> Except that it's silly to compare MHz/GHz that way.
Except that it's silly to compare MHz/GHz that way.
You are too delicate: it is not silly way, it is just totally dumb,
ignorant & simpleton way. The way that had allowed Intel to sell total
BS for 3 years; I would have no objection to exploit people stupidity
to get profit unless it affects my being and it definitely affected
for a while by P4 idioticity. If not AMD it could last much longer.
.
- References:
- Re: Performance improvement using X5355 over 5080
- From: Bill Davidsen
- Re: Performance improvement using X5355 over 5080
- From: Torbjorn Lindgren
- Re: Performance improvement using X5355 over 5080
- Prev by Date: Re: FSB Info
- Next by Date: Intel Dual Core Processors Advance System Clock When Playing Sounds
- Previous by thread: Re: Performance improvement using X5355 over 5080
- Next by thread: Re: Performance improvement using X5355 over 5080
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
