[Beowulf] Nehalem Xeons lest think about 6 core Dunningtons ifjust drool factor
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Tom Elken tom.elken at qlogic.comWed Oct 15 09:07:59 PDT 2008
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Nehalem Xeons lest think about 6 core Dunningtons if just drool factor
- Next message: [Beowulf] Nehalem Xeons
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> [mailto:beowulf-bounces at beowulf.org] On Behalf Of Mark Hahn > > > If you really want to drool then Intel's new 6 CORE > > nah. to me, it's just a density play - nothing wrong with that, > but not really interesting. if you have small-memory, > cache-friendly code, > you'll be happy, but putting 6 cores on the same old tired memory > is not what I'd call an HPC solution. To support Mark's statement, at this page, http://www.spec.org/cgi-bin/osgresults?conf=cpu2006&op=form you can enter '6' in the "# Cores Per Chip " field and hit the "Fetch Results" button at the bottom. You will see 36 results as hits -- I think they are all Dunnington. The more interesting are the "CINT2006 Rates" and "CFP2006 Rates" as you scroll down. I think that some of the Integer Rate results are records or near records for x86_64 compatible machines, at least for 4-CPU (4 socket) machines. I think the FP Rate results are very good, but not quite at the level of some 4-socket, 16-core AMD Barcelona results. Since FP is more relevant for HPC (not that INT is totally irrelevant), this supports Mark's point. -Tom > iirc, the 6-core chips > are also > quite big/expensive.
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Nehalem Xeons lest think about 6 core Dunningtons if just drool factor
- Next message: [Beowulf] Nehalem Xeons
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
