Quad Core Qx6700 was beated over the week end

Author	Message
Who? Send message Joined: 2 Apr 06 Posts: 213 Credit: 1,366,981 RAC: 0	Message 31447 - Posted: 20 Nov 2006, 6:22:15 UTC Last modified: 20 Nov 2006, 6:40:58 UTC The Dual Xeons at Stock frequency 2.6Ghz did beat the 4Ghz Qx6700. Obviously, more core is better :) Top 20 Still no GrandFather 4x4 in the race? Who? ID: 31447 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

bob Send message Joined: 16 Mar 07 Posts: 3 Credit: 733 RAC: 0	Message 37957 - Posted: 18 Mar 2007, 16:05:36 UTC I hope anyone who owns either a quad core or pseudo- quad machine will share their experiences. I've been running United Devices client for several years but I'm dumping them because they make it painfully obvious that they don't give a rat's butt cheeks about their volunteers. If I want to get crapped on from a great height, I'll go back to my old job. I just started running BOINC on some of my machines. Since it supports multicore processors, I was thinking of upgrading to a quad core machine. I have an AMD dual core machine but I haven't been impressed with its performance. I'm a long time AMD fan, but it seems that until the K10's are out, Intel might have a temporary advantage. Asus does make one motherboard (L1N64-SLI) that will accept 2 Athlon FX cpu's. It seems to be a power hog and apparently doesn't offer any advantage over the currently available Intel quad core chip. Also, it only has native support for DDR2-800 whereas Intel m/b's seem to support DDR2-1200. I'd be interested in hearing peoples experiences with either single chip quads or dual socket m/b's running dual cores. I'd also be interested in hearing how Vista handles multiple cpu's as compared to XP. Let me know if I should start a new thread for this. I'd be especially interested in experiences related to overclocking. ID: 37957 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

dcarey Send message Joined: 26 Nov 06 Posts: 4 Credit: 442,494 RAC: 0	Message 37983 - Posted: 18 Mar 2007, 22:19:21 UTC - in response to Message 31447. Last modified: 18 Mar 2007, 22:42:25 UTC The Dual Xeons at Stock frequency 2.6Ghz did beat the 4Ghz Qx6700. Obviously, more core is better :) Top 20 Still no GrandFather 4x4 in the race? Who? Hey WHO? Congrats on being #1 and #2 Later ID: 37983 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

netwraith Send message Joined: 3 Sep 06 Posts: 80 Credit: 13,483,227 RAC: 0	Message 38016 - Posted: 19 Mar 2007, 16:05:11 UTC - in response to Message 37957. Last modified: 19 Mar 2007, 16:21:56 UTC I hope anyone who owns either a quad core or pseudo- quad machine will share their experiences. I just started running BOINC on some of my machines. Since it supports multicore processors, I was thinking of upgrading to a quad core machine. I have an AMD dual core machine but I haven't been impressed with its performance. I'm a long time AMD fan, but it seems that until the K10's are out, Intel might have a temporary advantage. I'd be interested in hearing peoples experiences with either single chip quads or dual socket m/b's running dual cores. I'd also be interested in hearing how Vista handles multiple cpu's as compared to XP. Let me know if I should start a new thread for this. I'd be especially interested in experiences related to overclocking. You did not say which AMD dual-core you had, so, I will guess that it is an X2... This is not a simple comparison and has not been since processors became superscalar a few years back.. I am not understanding your issue with the AMD X2, probably because I don't know what applications you are basing the observations on. I have both AMD X2's and CORE-2 systems and both have their strong and weak points. The CORE-2's leave me wanting for more memory bandwidth and a secondary memory path to the CPU.. The AMD's leave me wanting for more cache and better support of the multiple HyperTransports on the 939 pin and more packages.. Some of the ills of these systems can be laid at the feet of Desktop board designers.. What do I mean by that?? Well, one example is the new AM2 socket has 940 pins, just like the Socket 940 (except keyed different to prevent confusion -- !NOT!).. but, unlike the Socket 940, there is not a single dual/quad AM2 socketed motherboard to be had.. They will tell you that AMD has not designed the AM2 to be multi-socket, but, surprise... the AM2 based X2 processor is essentially an Opteron core.. (just like all the other 64 bit offerings).. so it is still a packaging and numbers game. Intel sort of overcomes this on the desktop by putting two Conroe cores on a single die and calling it a quad... (and if my grandmother had wheels, she would be a wagon)... but, it's not that bad.. they upped the cache and added a cache layer to reduce the load on the memory bus (which is still the same LGA-775 bus designed for a single CPU thanks very much)... So, to answer your question in the most convoluted way possible, they both have stones around the neck, in a manner of speaking... So..., does the CORE-2 perform better than the AMD... In short, unless you like to oveclock (which the Intel does better), I think you will end up disappointed in the Intel as well. (I certainly was)... If I had to make the best cruncher I could, I think my next experiment would be a Tyan Crush based Socket 940 (dual socket) and a pair of Opteron 270 CPU's... (around $700 for the CPU's and board).. Still uses DDR-400/ECC/REG memory, but, has banks attached to each CPU as well as a HyperChannel in between.. Would end up with 4 cores @ 2GHZ... This would probably be a good overclock combo too, if I was so inclined... but, I am not one for overclocking.. I would rather the manufacturer push the maximum safe performance out of each component and leave well enough alone... (That's a big change from a few years ago, but, I am tired of expensive lessons, I will leave that to others)... As far as the Vista / XP comparision.. others will need to chime in there... I hate Micro$ludge.... For a short term fix, try swapping out the X2 for one with more cache (if possible)... They are a bit more $$$ due to AMD having problems with their FAB and making as many 512K cache versions as possible... Maybe they will have the yield up soon and we can move on to 2MB cache versions (Then the X2 will really start to run)... AMD's Barcelona core should be ready soon. This will be a QUAD core but, will only be available (initially) in the Opteron Socket F (1207 pin) flavor... Will require an expensive board to get rolling... in addition to the cost of the CPU... Well... It will be there, but, I am not going to be the first one to own it.. thanks very much... I think AMD might be working on a desktop version, but, it will be late 2008 before they would be able to have anything available in quantity.. (and likely later)... *Looking for a team ??? Join BoincSynergy!!* ID: 38016 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Paydirt Send message Joined: 10 Aug 06 Posts: 127 Credit: 960,607 RAC: 0	Message 38137 - Posted: 22 Mar 2007, 17:55:17 UTC - in response to Message 37957. Last modified: 22 Mar 2007, 17:55:51 UTC Hey bob, Core2Duo currently has a clear advantage in performance per watt. Also, for some projects (maybe not Rosetta, but certainly SETI) having "quad-channel" RAM provides a significant boost with 4 cores. What I mean is that some have noticed a big improvement when running 4x512MB memory versus 2x1GB. This may pertain more to a server motherboard. I'm not an expert. [EDIT: Vista is fairly worthless for now, IMO] ID: 38137 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote