An anonymous reader writes "A few weeks back, Intel launched a new dual core chip with little applause. It appears we know now why, as the chip has been benchmarked by the chaps at GamePC. In tests against the dual core AMD Opteron processor, Intel's new chip gets thoroughly thrashed, losing out in terms of raw performance while eating a lot more power. " Intel Dual Core Xeon Benchmarked Log in/Create an Account | Top | 311 comments | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 311 comments 0: 300 comments 1: 242 comments 2: 176 comments 3: 56 comments 4: 29 comments 5: 20 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. great (Score:1, Funny) by Prince Vegeta SSJ4 (718736) on Wednesday October 19, @11:18AM (#13826838) yeah, but can it run Duke Nukem Forever? [ Reply to This Re:great (Score:4, Funny) by eln (21727) on Wednesday October 19, @11:20AM (#13826866) Don't be ridiculous, everyone needs you need an Infinium Phantom Console to run Duke Nukem Forever. [ Reply to This | Parent1 reply beneath your current threshold.Somehow... by Short Circuit (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @01:32PMRe:great by niteskunk (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @03:08PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. I'm kinda shocked... (Score:2) by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday October 19, @11:21AM (#13826880) (http://www.d-n-a.cc/) Intel knew what they were up against and somehow didn't cut it? Intel has been the masters of their domain for a long time and I'm rather astounded that they couldn't come up with something to 1-up the competition this go-around. They have so much in the way of resources to throw at this too.... why?I don't know what's going on behind the doors of Intel, but have people in business department been cutting back on the R&D again? [ Reply to ThisRe:I'm kinda shocked... by evil agent (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @11:31AMRe:I'm kinda shocked... by airjrdn (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @12:20PMRe:I'm kinda shocked... by halltk1983 (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @01:49PMRe:I'm kinda shocked... by killmenow (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @11:35AMRe:I'm kinda shocked... by erroneus (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @11:42AMRe:I'm kinda shocked... by gytterberg (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @02:28PMRe:I'm kinda shocked... by 32771 (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @07:19PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:I'm kinda shocked... by Thuktun (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @11:46AMRe:I'm kinda shocked... by justsomebody (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @11:56AMRe:I'm kinda shocked... by RustyTaco (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @03:31PMRe:I'm kinda shocked... by Michael Hunt (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @09:56PMRe:I'm kinda shocked... by Aldric (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @11:58AMRe:I'm kinda shocked... by Brazilian Joe (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @12:26PMRe:I'm kinda shocked... by slipnslidemaster (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @02:03PMRe:I'm kinda shocked... by diegocgteleline.es (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:43PMRe:I'm kinda shocked... by wpmegee (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @02:08PMRe:I'm kinda shocked... by diegocgteleline.es (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @02:23PMRe:I'm kinda shocked... by Worminater (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @03:50PMRe:I'm kinda shocked... by styrotech (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @05:20PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:I'm kinda shocked... by smooth123 (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @01:28PMRe:I'm kinda shocked... by IPFreely (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @02:00PMRe:I'm kinda shocked... by leathered (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @05:20PM3 replies beneath your current threshold. AMD's dual cores are great (Score:5, Informative) by jarich (733129) on Wednesday October 19, @11:22AM (#13826886) (http://www.jaredrichardson.net/ | Last Journal: Saturday June 18, @09:11AM) I just bought my wife a dual core (3800 model) and it's just as responsive as my dual Opteron. I'm seriously considering selling my dual CPU box and getting a dual core myself just to have fewer fans in the box and generate less heat.I had been considering an Intel dual core but it sounds like I need to aim for an AMD instead. [ Reply to This Re:AMD's dual cores are great (Score:4, Funny) by master_p (608214) on Wednesday October 19, @11:40AM (#13827011) I just bought my wife a dual core Lucky you...she asked me to buy her a diamond core... [ Reply to This | ParentRe:AMD's dual cores are great by jarich (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @11:45AMRe:AMD's dual cores are great by js3 (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @12:00PMRe:AMD's dual cores are great by Michalson (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:43PM Re:AMD's dual cores are great (Score:5, Informative) by Jherek Carnelian (831679) on Wednesday October 19, @12:49PM (#13827781) They aren't real dual-cores hence the abysmal performanceNo, they are honest-to-goodness real dual cores. Two fully functional cpus in a single socket.The problem is that the socket only has enough memory bandwidth for one cpu's worth of work. So, even if you double the number of cpus, you still can't shovel the data in and out fast enough to keep up with the work being done. Thus one of the two cores is almost always stalled out waiting on memory.The AMD chips have got more memory bandwidth, so they can keep both cpus fed with data reasonably well. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:AMD's dual cores are great (Score:5, Insightful) by Eukariote (881204) on Wednesday October 19, @01:34PM (#13828317) The AMD chips have got more memory bandwidth, so they can keep both cpus fed with data reasonably well.Not just that. The AMD dualcore chips have an on-chip connection between the cores: both cores share a crossbar fronting the memory controllers and have the on-chip equivalent of a coherent HyperTransport connection. So, you see, the AMD design is in fact a real dual-core design. The current Intel dual-cores, on the other hand, share nothing on-chip. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:AMD's dual cores are great by Jherek Carnelian (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @04:50PM Re:AMD's dual cores are great (Score:4, Insightful) by quarkzone (133513) on Wednesday October 19, @02:12PM (#13828725) The problem is that the socket only has enough memory bandwidth for one cpu's worth of work.This is exactly right. It is really surprising that Intel has focussed so completely, almost obessively, and for so long, on the problem of supplying the maximum number of work-cycles per unit of time (GHZ, Pipelining, Itanium's EPIC design) while seemingly paying so little attention to supply-of-work-to-do (FSB speed and architecture)AMD has paid quite a bit of attention to the work-supply and has a much more efficiently balanced work-cycle-supply/ data-for-work design. http://www.hypertransport.org/ [hypertransport.org] gives AMD a big leg-up over Intel. If Intel fails to do something spectacular to FSB speeds, AMD is sure to continue to pull away from Intel. The more cores and threads per CPU, the greater AMD's lead over Intel will become (at least from a performance point of view), until Intel addresses this problem. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:AMD's dual cores are great by WuphonsReach (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @03:43PMRe:AMD's dual cores are great by Fweeky (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @06:06PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:AMD's dual cores are great by The Tyro (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @12:08PMRe:AMD's dual cores are great by pyrrhonist (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @03:13PMRe:AMD's dual cores are great by bill_mcgonigle (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @05:06PM Re:AMD's dual cores are great (Score:5, Funny) by DrSkwid (118965) on Wednesday October 19, @12:33PM (#13827566) (http://www.milksucks.com/ | Last Journal: Monday September 15, @01:30PM) A *real* geek would get a dual dual core ;) [ Reply to This | ParentRe:AMD's dual cores are great by ender- (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @12:54PMRe:AMD's dual cores are great by OverlordQ (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:56PMRe:AMD's dual cores are great by ender- (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @01:42PMRe:AMD's dual cores are great by GuidoW (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @02:01PMRe:AMD's dual cores are great by ender- (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @06:20PMRe:AMD's dual cores are great by FluffyWithTeeth (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @02:11PMRe:AMD's dual cores are great by CyricZ (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @02:21PMRe:AMD's dual cores are great by toddestan (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @07:17PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:AMD's dual cores are great by markdesign (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @02:29PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold. Just specced out an AMD system for MHD modeling (Score:5, Informative) by Dr. Zowie (109983) <slashdot@de[ ]est.org ['for' in gap]> on Wednesday October 19, @01:00PM (#13827901) Running a Xeon dual-core is like mounting a Chevy big-block engine under a VW carburetor. The memory access just isn't there. Most of my stuff (modeling the solar corona) is RAM-bound anyway, so there's no win to be had at all by running the dual Intel cores. The Opterons have better RAM latency, which is a win -- but, more importantly, the two cores communicate cache-to-cache at the CPU clock speed, so dual-threaded processes run amazingly fast. If they're sharing memory, you effectively double the L2 cache size of both cores, which is a big win all around.So, er, Xeon is teh 5uk and Opteron Pwns. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:AMD's dual cores are great by geekee (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @01:30PM Stupid pre-retail release (Score:5, Interesting) by dada21 (163177) * <dada@d n g i nc.com> on Wednesday October 19, @11:23AM (#13826889) This release seems dumb for Intel. No optimized motherboards, outrageous power requirements and a really inefficient core? It isn't even alpha-release worthy. Why would Intel release a product that is just waiting for a poor review? Is the high end market that hungry?The article didn't need 15 pages to explain Intel's mistakes. Intel will lose more customers to AMD than if they had waited until they had a viable and competitive product.400W while idling? For sub-standard performance? Yay. [ Reply to This Re:Stupid pre-retail release (Score:5, Interesting) by Ihlosi (895663) on Wednesday October 19, @11:32AM (#13826947) Is the high end market that hungry?No, the high-end market is waiting for something that has "Intel" and "Dual Core" written all over it. Everything else is irrelevant. [ Reply to This | Parent Dude, you're getting whatever we sell you! (Score:5, Insightful) by Wesley Felter (138342) <wesley@felter.org> on Wednesday October 19, @11:32AM (#13826950) (http://felter.org/wesley/) Dell is locked into Intel and they really needed dual core, so there it is. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Dude, you're getting whatever we sell you! (Score:5, Insightful) by cbreaker (561297) on Wednesday October 19, @11:58AM (#13827169) (Last Journal: Sunday April 17, @11:24PM) Yes, I think this is exactly why. Other big vendors - IBM, HP, Sun - they all have Opteron/Athlon machines in their line-ups. When I asked a Dell rep why Dell had zero, and no intentions to ever have any AMD, he said it was because AMD wouldn't be able to supply them enough CPU's. I call bullshit. AMD has a great deal of production capacity, and adding more all the time. Dell wouldn't have to all of a sudden convert 100% of it's line up with AMD. But, therein may lie the problem. They very-well might have to, or lose some insane deals with Intel. I think that's why they stay Intel - and mention it on every single Dell ad.If I could upgrade my existing 2P dell servers to even inefficient dual cores that run too hot, I'd do it. But I doubt my existing servers would be able to cool them, so it's probably not going to happen anywyas. If we could get 2x dual-Opteron servers, we'd jump on it for all our ESX servers - especially with ESX3 and native x64 memory support. SWEET! But no, we'll be stuck with Xeon "EMT64" bastardized x64 CPU's because we're locked into Dell. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Dude, you're getting whatever we sell you! by Bert64 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:16PMRe:Dude, you're getting whatever we sell you! by Clover_Kicker (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @12:44PMRe:Dude, you're getting whatever we sell you! by cbreaker (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @11:17PMRe:Dude, you're getting whatever we sell you! by cbreaker (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @11:24PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Dude, you're getting whatever we sell you! by devaldez (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @12:25PMRe:Dude, you're getting whatever we sell you! by truesaer (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @01:05PMRe:Dude, you're getting whatever we sell you! by krakrjak (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @03:04PMRe:Dude, you're getting whatever we sell you! by cbreaker (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @12:14AMRe:Dude, you're getting whatever we sell you! by frank_adrian314159 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @03:43PMRe:Dude, you're getting whatever we sell you! by toddestan (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @07:20PMRe:Dude, you're getting whatever we sell you! by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @02:11PMRe:Dude, you're getting whatever we sell you! by cbreaker (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @12:02AMRe:Dude, you're getting whatever we sell you! by Loopy (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @02:43PMRe:Dude, you're getting whatever we sell you! by Jeff DeMaagd (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @11:58AMRe:Dude, you're getting whatever we sell you! by Ryan Amos (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @03:37PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Wow (Score:3, Interesting) by Canadian_Daemon (642176) on Wednesday October 19, @11:23AM (#13826890) From the article... 4 cores with 4 Virtual CPU's. What a beast. And they even talk about licensing issues we were curious if having eight processors (four physical cores + four virtual processors) would cause operating system-related licensing issues. After all, even multi-threaded operating systems like Windows XP Professional are sold with a "2 Processor" limitation. While technically the system still only has two physical processors, dual-core and Hyper-Threading technologies are certainly pushing this limitation further than Microsoft originally intended.I find it interesting how, in a world of IP, somebody out there ( Intel ) can still 'cheat' the system by creating dual core CPU's which still count as a single processor, thus allowing for a system like this. [ Reply to ThisRe:Wow by Hado (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @11:31AMRe:Wow by nahpets77 (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @11:42AMRe:Wow by Mercano (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:02PMRe:Wow by Vancorps (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @04:36PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Wow by BlogPope (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @11:36AMRe:Wow by Jerrry (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @11:52AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Microsoft licensing by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @11:38AMRe:Microsoft licensing by vincecate (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @05:06PMRe:Wow by Homology (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @11:40AMRe:Wow by Trepalium (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @12:29PMCounter-Wow by DrYak (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:38PM Power Consumption (Score:5, Funny) by matr0x_x (919985) on Wednesday October 19, @11:23AM (#13826901) (http://www.linuxpoker.net/) This is the 21st century in North America, since when do we care how much power a CPU uses.*Drives away in Hummer* [ Reply to ThisRe:Power Consumption by OverlordQ (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @11:33AMRe:Power Consumption by Martin Blank (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @11:45AMRe:Power Consumption by FidelCatsro (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @01:55PMRe:Power Consumption by Martin Blank (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @02:33PMRe:Power Consumption by FidelCatsro (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @02:41PMRe:Power Consumption by Fulcrum of Evil (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @02:21PMRe:Power Consumption by sjames (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @12:04AMEcology by Spy der Mann (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @12:00PMRe:Ecology by m0rph3us0 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @01:21PMRe:Ecology by ab8ten (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @02:29PMRe:Ecology by Woody77 (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @05:50PMRe:Ecology by Tim Doran (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @02:34PMRe:Ecology by civilizedINTENSITY (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @02:50PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Power Consumption by walt-sjc (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @12:15PMRe:Power Consumption by Jozer99 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:24PMRe:Power Consumption by fossa (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @02:18PMRe:Power Consumption by Jozer99 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @02:55PMRe:Power Consumption by WalksOnDirt (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @04:47PMRe:Power Consumption by Jozer99 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @04:52PMRe:Power Consumption by WalksOnDirt (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @05:14PMIn all seriousness... by PCM2 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @01:24PM Bah (Score:5, Insightful) by Red Flayer (890720) on Wednesday October 19, @11:24AM (#13826903) Got through several pages of the benchmarking before it appeared /.ed. First concern is that though the chip has been released, motherboards configured for it aren't close to release yet. I'd rather see it benchmarked as distributed, since that's what really matters to the end user. Second concern is power usage and heat production. If you can't make a chip as powerful as your competitors, you better make sure it is not as expensive to operate. Really, why would someone choose to use a chip that is less powerful, intrinsically costs more to operate, and costs more to cool? Chips are cheap enough that the operating costs are often now more expensive than initial cost. [ Reply to ThisRe:Bah by amazon10x (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @12:54PMRe:Bah by Red Flayer (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @01:12PMRe:Bah by MrNemesis (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @01:06PMRe:Bah by Red Flayer (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @01:15PMRe:Bah by MrNemesis (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @01:39PMRe:Bah by Red Flayer (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @02:18PMRe:Bah by drsmithy (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @06:47PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Don't worry (Score:4, Insightful) by dsginter (104154) on Wednesday October 19, @11:24AM (#13826906) Intel is notorious for "Unnouncements". They will simply unnounce some strange new technology that is "coming real soon now" but they will leave out all of the details. This might just keep Dell from leaving them. [ Reply to ThisA good example of marketing management by amcdiarmid (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @11:49AMRe:A good example of marketing management by poszi (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:03PMRe:A good example of marketing management by amcdiarmid (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:30PMRe:A good example of marketing management by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:33PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold. Is GamePC really Intel's target here? (Score:5, Insightful) by hal2814 (725639) on Wednesday October 19, @11:24AM (#13826910) Is GamePC the best place to read benchmarks on a dual core Intel Xeon chip? The article appears to be /.ed already (or just REAAALY slow at my end) so I can't read the results, but I can't help but think somewhere called GamePC isn't exactly Intel's target audience here. [ Reply to ThisRe:Is GamePC really Intel's target here? by manno (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @11:41AMRe:Is GamePC really Intel's target here? by lithandie (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @12:00PMRe:Is GamePC really Intel's target here? by manno (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @01:37PMRe:Is GamePC really Intel's target here? by Mr Z (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @02:11PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.2 replies beneath your current threshold. Who would be suprised? (Score:4, Interesting) by cybrthng (22291) <byronmhomeNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Wednesday October 19, @11:25AM (#13826915) (http://www.mozdex.com/ | Last Journal: Friday October 31, @01:16PM) Intel is engineering for it's next gen chips that are still vaporware as far as i'm concerned. AMD put out some great technology that works today.The big question will be who is the leader next year! As far as i'm concerned the opteron/amd64 has already proven intself against p4/xeon arch and it's up to the next gen chips to see who will stomp on who.Will AMD pull some new tech? Will Intel be able to deliver or will sun come around and smack everyone with the new Niagra chips? [ Reply to This2 replies beneath your current threshold. Coral cache link (Score:5, Informative) by Freggy (825249) on Wednesday October 19, @11:28AM (#13826923) http://www.gamepc.com.nyud.net:8090/labs/view_cont ent.asp?id=paxville&page=1 [nyud.net]Seems it's slashdotted already after 8 posts. Finally when will all slashdot-links be coralized automatically? [ Reply to ThisRe:Coral cache link by MyLongNickName (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @11:51AMRe:Coral cache link by Quince alPillan (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @02:59PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Coral cache link by hkb (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @11:55AMRe:Coral cache link by Spy der Mann (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @12:06PMRe:Coral cache link by mrtroy (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @02:52PM Stock market (Score:5, Funny) by 13bPower (869223) on Wednesday October 19, @11:30AM (#13826936) (http://www.myspace.com/losgordoslocos) Hello, Stock market? Please read slashdot. I need to sell my AMD stock and buy a new amp. [ Reply to ThisRe:Stock market by alfrin (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @01:14PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. strange. (Score:4, Insightful) by CDPatten (907182) on Wednesday October 19, @11:31AM (#13826944) You would think with all their resources intel could start to make a chip to compete with AMD.Its really surprising to think AMD blind-sided intel this badly (multi-core/x64), but I guess they really did. Good for them, and great for us. Once again supply and demand in the free market prevails. [ Reply to ThisRe:strange. by Sir_Cockalot (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @12:29PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Nice, but.... (Score:3, Insightful) by Bullfish (858648) on Wednesday October 19, @11:32AM (#13826952) Amd has thrashed intel for a few years now in terms of cpu performance so this is no surprise. What they really need to do is become more marking savvy. Most people don't know amd even makes chips. That includes many computer literate people as well, whereas even the luddites know who intel is [ Reply to This Star Trek (Score:2, Offtopic) by jcr (53032) <jcr@NOSpAm.idiom.com> on Wednesday October 19, @11:41AM (#13827023) (Last Journal: Saturday September 03, @10:27PM) Why is it that every time I see a story about this processor, I keep thinking about the Star Trek Nazi episode?-jcr [ Reply to This1 reply beneath your current threshold. Intel is all about the Mhz (Score:5, Interesting)