Published on 31st March 2010 by
Originally Posted by coolmiesterMade good reading and great to see Bit-Tech covering something for the dual CPU enthusiasts, especially as i just got a couple of X5650's :)
I'm currently running mine in an Intel S5520SC Shady Cove board running BIOS update 48 and getting in the region of 36014 in Cinebench R10 to your 32724 which is quite a large increase.
I'll run a few more of the benchmarks you ran and see how they compare.
Originally Posted by SplynncrythAre the benchmarks free? I have have a few of the other Intel boards at work and it might be interesting to run the benchmarks on those.
Originally Posted by AnfieldHow about a review of a 64 socket Nehalem EX system? [url]http://www.intel.com/performance/server/xeon_mp/summary.htm?iid=products_xeon7000+body_benchmarks
Originally Posted by LizardWe can't do a 64-socket system, but we do have a quad-socket Nehalem EX review with 64-threads in the works :)
Originally Posted by TurbotabNo database tests?, sadly many of these poor chips, will spend their lives as slaves to SQL / Oracle.
Originally Posted by LizardMost of them are yes, you can find the download links on the benchmark description pages within the article.
Originally Posted by SplynncrythI wonder if the difference is in the BIOS, I have some idea where the Intel BIOS stands in terms of errata, but I have no idea about Supermicro.
Are you using the integrated graphics on your shady cove board or a GPU? Might that be affecting the score?
Are the benchmarks free? I have have a few of the other Intel boards at work and it might be interesting to run the benchmarks on those.
Originally Posted by leexgxcan you post the frame times as well as the expected PPD for Folding@home
Originally Posted by pearl.of.wisdomSurely, this is always the case, application code optimization has always had a massive impact on performance, that's why Intel has has been obsessed with preventing a fair playing field between the two; Intel will do anything, possibly short of arson and assassination, to keep developers from supporting AMD properly.
Originally Posted by TulatinI think you should change your username to Pearl of Bias.
Originally Posted by pearl.of.wisdomO Touche!, Dear Frog Sir [Or Madam], but please do be reasonable, coding optimizations do have such a terrible impact on performance; have you not heard the stories over the years of the fights that have been had? Wheather it may be Intel here, or Nvidia their, or AMD over that way.
And you left the dots out of my non deplume! You accursed amphibian!
Still, you're right a little bit; "To the last breath of my dying body, I will spit out my hate, my hate, too those demons at Intel Corp. Die! I tell you! Die!"
Originally Posted by TulatinWhile Intel is far and likely to be doing things like this, it's just a function of business. I'm fairly sure AMD does it - you don't have to demonize them to the point of running a lawnmower through a field of babies.
You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.
4th February 2016
3rd February 2016
2nd February 2016
© Copyright bit-tech