Would anyone really spend £3,000 on 2 Xeon's for a gaming PC? you're gonna have to match that with an equally brutal quad SLI setup that would melt a wallet quicker than thermite through HMS Invincible!!
Originally Posted by B1GBUD Would anyone really spend £3,000 on 2 Xeon's for a gaming PC? you're gonna have to match that with an equally brutal quad SLI setup that would melt a wallet quicker than thermite through HMS Invincible!!
Why do I get the feeling you just described Coolmeister's current mod?
Originally Posted by B1GBUD Would anyone really spend £3,000 on 2 Xeon's for a gaming PC? you're gonna have to match that with an equally brutal quad SLI setup that would melt a wallet quicker than thermite through HMS Invincible!!
Why do I get the feeling you just described Coolmeister's current mod?
The memory results are seriously weird. They are _supposed_ to achieve much higher bandwidth than Opteron setups - are you sure there's nothing fishy about the setup?
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3n3tiX Interesting hardware, what about single processor performance ? In a "normal" motherboard ?
Might be (slightly) more accessible, to some.
Same as the i7 965, because it's the same processor.
if so, me want new Mac Pros! since they are built better with the removeable CPU/RAM tray
Yup looks like it, dual Nehalem Xeon Quad-cores in the Mac Pro
Although removable trays are nice I don't think it justifies the enormous price inflation associated with most Macs ;)
And that's technically better design, not being built better....
How much for a Kidney!! The benchmark to render 25 frames @ 1920 x 1080, make you realise how much parallel processing power and value modern GPU offer.
Originally Posted by bowman The memory results are seriously weird. They are _supposed_ to achieve much higher bandwidth than Opteron setups - are you sure there's nothing fishy about the setup?
The memory bandwidth result was pretty disappointing (although still a huge improvement over previous generation Xeons), so it does seem a bit fishy. I suspect one of the problems may be early motherboard BIOSes - we went through two different versions while doing the testing, so there may still be some unresolved problems.
Hopefully its something we can clarify once more motherboards (and BIOSes) are released.
Nice proof of concept. And that is what it is... for 99% of all people. There are hardly any companies out there who need this.
I mean, the render time is amazing but only intersting if you have to render on a tight time budget. And then there are OpenCL and CUDA apps in the making that'll most likely make the render times of Intel's and AMD's CPUs look as cute as a LOLcat.
Oh, by the way, Tim:
This was a review worthy of being published. :p :)
Originally Posted by B1GBUD Would anyone really spend £3,000 on 2 Xeon's for a gaming PC? you're gonna have to match that with an equally brutal quad SLI setup that would melt a wallet quicker than thermite through HMS Invincible!!
There are not enough PCIe lanes for 4 2.0 x16 ports. It is theoretically possible to have 2 IOHs for a total of 4, but I don't think anyone has made a board like this.
Originally Posted by Splynncryth There are not enough PCIe lanes for 4 2.0 x16 ports. It is theoretically possible to have 2 IOHs for a total of 4, but I don't think anyone has made a board like this.
Comments 1 to 25 of 59
ReplyWhy do I get the feeling you just described Coolmeister's current mod?
:D
And according to moores law that thing is losing value at the rate of £10 a day.
Might be (slightly) more accessible, to some.
Same as the i7 965, because it's the same processor.
are they used in the new Mac Pros??
if so, me want new Mac Pros! since they are designed better with the removeable CPU/RAM tray
fixed, thanks Ta10n
Yup looks like it, dual Nehalem Xeon Quad-cores in the Mac Pro
Although removable trays are nice I don't think it justifies the enormous price inflation associated with most Macs ;)
And that's technically better design, not being built better....
The memory bandwidth result was pretty disappointing (although still a huge improvement over previous generation Xeons), so it does seem a bit fishy. I suspect one of the problems may be early motherboard BIOSes - we went through two different versions while doing the testing, so there may still be some unresolved problems.
Hopefully its something we can clarify once more motherboards (and BIOSes) are released.
I mean, the render time is amazing but only intersting if you have to render on a tight time budget. And then there are OpenCL and CUDA apps in the making that'll most likely make the render times of Intel's and AMD's CPUs look as cute as a LOLcat.
Oh, by the way, Tim:
This was a review worthy of being published. :p :)
There are not enough PCIe lanes for 4 2.0 x16 ports. It is theoretically possible to have 2 IOHs for a total of 4, but I don't think anyone has made a board like this.
Couldn't you just run dual GTX 295s?
You could indeed, that's exactly what I'm planning on using for an upcoming feature on Folding@home :D
Is it? Not according to your monthly buying guide...not price/performance wise anyway...
That doesn't sound like "incredible Performance" nor like "must have"
;)
Don't try to hide your gaming gluttony, behind your good deeds
-
« Previous
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums