Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Intel

8-Core Dual Xeon "V8" Test Rig Performance 140

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the bet-it's-faster-than-your-box dept.
MojoKid writes "Back in January at this year's CES show, Intel was giving the press glimpses of a rig in their booth dubbed the V8. It was essentially a dual-socket workstation platform outfitted with a pair of quad-core Xeon processors for a total of eight cores — hence the "V8". The enterprise platform that this box was built around is based on Intel's 5000X chipset, aka Blackford, and it supports up to 32GB of FBDIMM serial memory. HotHardware has a component build-up of a more current Intel V8 machine here, with preliminary benchmarks, pictures and more details on this 8-core dual Xeon powerhouse."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

8-Core Dual Xeon "V8" Test Rig Performance

Comments Filter:
  • Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)

    by Pojut (1027544) on Wednesday April 25, 2007 @12:07PM (#18871609) Homepage
    Imagine a beowolf clu-

    oh, sod it.
  • by Penguinisto (415985) on Wednesday April 25, 2007 @12:10PM (#18871651) Journal
    I realize that it ain't exactly enterprise-grade server type stuff (no dual power supplies, dedicated SCSI/SAS hot-swap backplane, etc etc), but an 8-core Mac with lots o' RAM and a ton of HDD space RAIDed out a bit is likely to be way cheaper than what the likes of HP and Dell are gonna charge for this sucker once they spec a rackmount box to wrap around it (I wonder how this critter and the 8-core Mac stack up against each other, anyway?)

    But then, who knows? Maybe the SME market might put some pressure on Dell and HP, pointing at the Mac while doing it. (I know, I know... but seriously - rEFIt for booting, a solid Linux distro like CentOS, and a couple of PCI-X cards, and you've got a full on server for most small/medium biz needs. Chuck in AppleCare for (most) warranty stuff, and a small business can do the same computing horsepower for a whole hell of a lot less than they otherwise could afford, IIRC).

    /P

    • by Jeff DeMaagd (2015) on Wednesday April 25, 2007 @12:19PM (#18871759) Homepage Journal
      Mac Pro doesn't support PCI-X cards, only PCIe. This is one downside compared to the Dell 690, which is one of the closest analogues in the Dell line. The 690 supports PCIe and PCIx.

      I suppose for the price difference, you might be able to afford to replace even some of the very expensive PCI-X cards you might hypothetically have and might still be less than a 690 with thee most similar specs. One thing I do like about non-Apple workstations is that you can buy with one socket populated now, and buy the second CPU & heat sink later when the chip gets cheaper and when more of your software supports more cores. With Apple, all systems are sold with both sockets populated, so the original purchase is a little more prohibitive, and any later upgrades are harder to justify.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jellomizer (103300) *
        I bet apple could give they systems away for free and you PC Nicks will still find a way to show that macs are more expensive then PCs
        • I bet apple could give they systems away for free and you PC Nicks will still find a way to show that macs are more expensive then PCs

          It's the TCO, man! The purchase price hardly matter! Everyone knows that....

        • by Ilgaz (86384) *
          I got a Quad G5 here and the PCI-E (or extreme,whatever it i called) only may bother some actual professionals. There are very expensive SCSI/Fiber cards which were bought to last and Apple says "Throw them away, buy new ones".

          Lets not forget Workstation class professional graphic cards too.

          The poster uses "Dell" which seems a bit trollish but it is not the case. I threw away a very happily used ,working PCI TV card which isn't big deal for price but throwing away a working solution really bothers you.
        • And as a corollary, the board is barely released and you Macheads have decided that Apple will have one out soon, "far less than what HP/IBM/Dell will charge for it". Who is worse?
        • "you PC nicks"? What the hell? Dude, you might be surprised, but I do own a Mac Pro. Owning a Mac doesn't mean I have to be happy with everything about how Apple choses to offer it. I think it's sad that there's the Mac-heads that, not in so many words, but tell everyone else to put up or shut up. I think that's one reason people stay away from the platform. Jobs isn't a god and Apple computer is more or less just another company, but one with some nice products. The Apple cult shouldn't demand homog
        • by kestasjk (933987)
          When consumers have to buy their upgrades/repairs off you, you can afford to perhaps charge less to get them hooked. There's a bit of a conflict of interest there, isn't there?
    • by afidel (530433)
      Huh? We've had the quad core Xeon's in the server space for quite a while. I have a bunch of HP BL460c's with dual E5345 for a total of 8x2.33Ghz cores.
    • Well, kinda affordable. Been out of the loop since new expenses have frozen my multi-CPU fetish at a dual Athlon MP. Nice to know that when I get some cash I can still put together a multi-chip system without paying $2000 for a mobo.
    • by lpq (583377)

      but an 8-core Mac with lots o' RAM and a ton of HDD space RAIDed out a bit is likely to be way cheaper than what the likes of HP and Dell are gonna charge

      Wake up, smell the reality. While Macs with Dual Dual-core Xeons are available recently at over a 10K pricetag, Dell had these puppies available (Precision 690 workstation with 5000X motherboard) available from last July for ~4K (w/4G memory, expandable to 64GB). That was with a top-of-line
      Nvidia FX4500 Commercial card.

      The exact same system (with built i

      • Two dual cores have been available from Apple for a long time. Currently their cheapest (2GHz, four cores) is at $2,200. They recently brought out their two quad core machines, which can be had for $3997 (3GHz, 8 cores).

        So, yes I think the mac is a a reasonably good price/performance comparison.
  • So it's a Mac Pro? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZachPruckowski (918562) <zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 25, 2007 @12:11PM (#18871659)
    Sounds a lot like a high-end Mac Pro [apple.com] (shipping for months) with a nicer graphics card. Dell Precision 690s are a bit pricier, but they do the same thing (admittedly, I envy the SAS built-in). I assume HP has a similar model, but I didn't check.

    How is this news? Intel attached a marketing name to a product that has existed for months and is the logical extension of having dual-socket boards and quad-core chips. I mean, it's basically (2*2)*2 - dual-core processors (2) on MCM (*2) in a two-socket (*2) board. There's exactly no advancement going on here.
    • by Jeff DeMaagd (2015) on Wednesday April 25, 2007 @12:22PM (#18871807) Homepage Journal
      Sounds a lot like a high-end Mac Pro (shipping for months)

      The eight core Mac Pro was released exactly three weeks ago, Wed. April 4, not months ago.
      • as a cpu drop in not a big update.
      • by Lars T. (470328)

        Sounds a lot like a high-end Mac Pro (shipping for months)

        The eight core Mac Pro was released exactly three weeks ago, Wed. April 4, not months ago.
        But more than on person put the pre-production 4 core chips in the old Mac Pro months ago.
    • Well, I for one am still impressed by these fancy tricks. Back in the day, the only way to do this level of incremental scaling the power of the CPU was to design a new one. Someone once said compound interest is the most powerful force in the Univers. This maybe just an Intel marketing ploy, but it does reflect the relativly powerful scaling they can do with just compounding a dual-core design with less effort than ever before.
    • Umm, the 8core Mac Pro "Shipping for months" isn't quite correct. Apple released the 8-core mac pro on April 4th; 21 days ago. As the article said, these 8-core systems were showcased back at CES in January.


      /just sayn

    • First of all, the 8 core Mac Pro has been shipping for 3 weeks. Second, the demonstration spoken of was in January, well before said Mac shipped. What exactly was your point? Fanboyism?
      • by MrHanky (141717)
        Plugging Apple gets you an automatic +5, insightful (lol), so why not?
      • by Altus (1034)

        So in other words this story is 3 months late (based on the date of the demo)?

        I kind of get his point. Apple is shipping a machine like this, so is dell, what about the article is news?

        Sure this guy sounds like a mac fanboy but if he had left out the mac pro and just talked about the Dell his point would be pretty much the same. This is a fluff article. How to build your own 8 core Xeon machine which is pretty similar to a bunch of shipping hardware. Its not a special hack, its not unique and its not rea
        • by Kadin2048 (468275)
          For that matter, I'm not sure that Apple's machine is really all that groundbreaking, either, which makes this after-the-fact, DIY article (which is nothing more than parts assembly; please, stop calling it "building" a computer) even less interesting.

          I have a dual G5 (Early 2005, PCI) and the Xeon's just don't have me reaching for my wallet yet. So far, they're only advertising them as being 2x or 4x as fast as the G5s were, and I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that's on whatever benchmark favors t
          • by Altus (1034)

            There is little innovative about putting the newest chip in your box and getting better hardware. There really isnt that much innovative about building commercial boxes for the most part but it is how companies make money (and how most of us do our computing).

            As for the new intel macs. I have a 2 processor dual core Xeon here at work. Its very nice, very respoinsive. Its a worthy upgrade over the G5s. That said, your dual G5 has probably got plenty of life in it and is going to perform well for the nex
    • by Jozer99 (693146)
      Indeed it is. Now, motherboard manufacturers need to get in on this new scam of making consumers buy two of everything (two processors, two graphics cards, two disk RAID arrays). We need new "Dual Motherboard" systems so that Asus and Gigabyte can further stuff their pockets! I'm sure Intel wouldn't mind the extra cash to shove into its already bulging bank accounts! Also, it would be one more thing that AMD doesn't have! Win win situation!
  • site fubar (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ArchieBunker (132337) on Wednesday April 25, 2007 @12:11PM (#18871669) Homepage
    Fubar already. Anyone have a coral cache link?
  • All that, the bag of chips, and a glass of lemonade and I STILL can't run Oblivion with max settings and get a decent FPS...
  • horray (Score:5, Funny)

    by jswigart (1004637) on Wednesday April 25, 2007 @12:28PM (#18871901)
    One step closer to running Vista! Baby steps.
  • As always with this type of hardware, just bring money. No big deal, right?
    • by dbIII (701233)

      As always with this type of hardware, just bring money. No big deal, right?

      Not necessarily - two dual socket motherboards with 4 core processors in each socket in 1U is nowhere near as expensive as you would expect. Starting knoppix on one of them before install was worth seeing - 8 penguins lined up at the top of the screen. Memory is the huge expense with stuff like this, so if you are CPU bound it doesn't cost a huge amount.

  • *slaps forehead* I could have had a V8!
  • ...the silicon space heater! This sucker can probably heat a room.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Tom Womack (8005)
      http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=x5 3 55&page=3&cookie_test=1 [gamepc.com] says 450 watts peak power consumption, for a system with two quad-core processors and a crazy nVidia graphics card.

      That's with 2.66GHz quad-cores, and it's possible that the 3GHz ones use up to 25 watts more each, but 500 watts is still a pretty pathetic space heater.

      A test with 3GHz dual-cores of a server-like machine (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2892&p=10 ) used 325 watts peak; the nVidia graphics chips do
  • It has been a while since I've heard anything about the Itanic. About a year back, Microsoft, Intel and HP had been talking about serious long term plans for the high-end Itanium, while AMD64 will be mostly among the mid-range offerings.

    But looking at the way the Core architecture processors are scaling (in number of cores), where does that leave the Itanium? If the future is n^x core processors and parallelism, the Itanium is really dead.

    Long live the Itanic!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LWATCDR (28044)
      Actually it doesn't seem to scale all that well at all. Take a look at the memory bandwidth scores.
      Two sockets with Intel Quad core chips looks to be at the saturation point for the FSB. I have heard that the Xeon uses slower memory than the Duo but I think that 8 cores on the Intel FSB is about all your going to get for now.
      The Itantium and Opteron both will scale to more CPUs than the current Xeon.
  • Nobody really needs a V8 on their workstation. Maybe you can connect to a shared computing grid to do the actual CPU-intensive task. But while you are playing Solitaire, entering parameters for the CPU-intensive task and so on, well you are wasting electricity for no good reason. Hopefully they at least reuse the heat for cooking or something.
    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      Nobody really needs a V8 on their workstation.

      Most people with V8s (the motors) in their cars don't need them either.

      They can still be fun.

      • by cayenne8 (626475)
        "Most people with V8s (the motors) in their cars don't need them either."

        Thank you!!

        For some reason, so many people forget that things can be had just for FUN!

        I'm personally about to try to get in the market for an old big V8...a 1976 Trans Am 455-4 speed.

        A friend of mine had one in high school, and I've always wanted one. It was the last year for the round headlights and big block engine...and can still be gotten in reasonable shape for reasonable price. VROOM.

        I think it gets about the same mileage a

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          Well, with all that said, I think buying one for use as a daily driver is irresponsible. And cars should never be driven for short distances, it's not good for them or the environment because the catalyst doesn't work until it heats up. But as long as you bring the car up to operating temperature it's okay for the car. To do otherwise is to draw more moisture into the crankcase than absolutely necessary, which ruins the oil and causes corrosion over time. (Full text for posterity, not just you - based on yo

          • by cayenne8 (626475)
            Nah..the old muscle car will be for weekend fun, or if I actually need cargo space for a short trip.

            I needed a car pretty fast after the storm, and got a good deal on an '05 mazdaspeed miata...the turbo'ed on. It is quite fun, and handles very well. I'm about to swap out the exhaust and air intake, and probably put on a larger intercooler..that will put me just over 200 true HP at the rear wheels, this is from Flyin Miata [flyinmiata.com] . That will be a pretty serious little street burner. Later, I plan to do the rest

    • by IRIGHTI (831307)
      My whole department (4 of us) Got Dual Quad Core Xeon machines a couple of months ago. And if you ever do any FEA you would be eating your words. They save ALOT of time. Granted they are fairly memory bandwidth limited though. We can push about 80% full out, overall utilization.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by linuxdoctor (126962)
      Someone said that cars would never catch on because they were too noisy and smelly. Someone said that television would never catch on because movies were so much better. Someone even said that nobody needs more than 640K in a personal computer. Just look where we are now.

      All you need to do is give someone a fun today to play with and they'll find a way of doing something interesting, perhaps even useful, with it.
      • by mgblst (80109)
        Someone said that cars would never catch on because they were too noisy and smelly. Someone said that television would never catch on because movies were so much better. Someone even said that nobody needs more than 640K in a personal computer. Just look where we are now.

        Someone also said that playing real life frogger was dangerous. Someone also said that invading iraq was a bad idea.

        So what exactly is your point? Do you really live your life on the opposite of what someone said? If so, how come y
    • by afidel (530433)
      I take it you've never run Autocad,SolidWorks,Maya,3ds Max, etc? Because there are plenty of workstation apps that will use as much CPU power as you can throw at them, even for preproduction.
    • 8 cores is enough to do real time raytracing of moderately complex scenes. See OpenRT [openrt.de] for examples and the systems they've used.
  • Is it just me, or is this like having a 6 bladed razor. Next they will be telling us they are adding an aloe strip on the spacebar!

    7 cores in the front and 1 in the back for really precise computing!
  • Shouldn't it be VV8? Cause last time I checked the quad cores were actually dual dual cores.
    • No.

      It's technically a "Flat Eight" or a "Boxer" since the chips and their many cores are all arranged on the same plane. If it was a V8, then the chips and their cores would be stacked on the mother board and tilted at a 45 degree angle.

      Although if they can arrange the sockets just so and make the heatsinks look like pistons, I might be willing to accept the V8 name.
      • by Bert64 (520050)
        They make dimm sockets in some machines (usually 1U servers) at angles...
        I had an old server there there were 2 CPUs mounted at a V-shaped angle, so effectively a V2.
  • Kind of old news. A friend of mine built one of these using the 1.6 ghz
    chips and is using it for doing all kinds of things but is currently using
    it to run Seti @ Home.

    Here's his url:
    http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.ph p?hostid=3131492 [berkeley.edu]

  • When one of the high-tech fanboy aerodynamics researchers around here (a university town) buys one, it will be entertaining to remind him that my $2000 Sun E10000 is still faster.
    • by Mateito (746185)
      my $2000 Sun E10000 is still faster

      Probably, but the Sun E10k needs 6x 240v 28A power feeds, whereas the Dual intel box will run off a single pc powersupply, albiet a fat one.

      I guess if you live in Alaska, you save money on your heating bill, but I think his TCO is going to be a LOT lower.

      • by CompMD (522020)
        I don't have a furnace, you insensitive clod! :)

        Actually, even with the high-amperage power requirements, its the easiest way to get a huge amount of RAM and processing power into one box for some scientific programs that really need to be run on something like the E10k or an Origin2000.

Almost anything derogatory you could say about today's software design would be accurate. -- K.E. Iverson

Working...