Does anyone have a Quad COre system and can upload some benches…
I am gonna get another Slave and am thinking about upgrading to 64…8GB Ram…etc…and Monarch seems to be down or under construction…
Thanx all
Eric
http://www.chaosgroup.com/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=17726&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=25
look at the bottom, at jujubee’s post :
the Intel Quad QX6700 clocked in this benchmark around 3:14.It was wrongly compared it with a dual xeon 5160 system, which has the xeons running at 3ghz, where as the QX6700 is running at 2.66ghz.
If you realy want to compare rendertimes you should compare between the QX6700 and a dual Xeon5150 set up.
I very much wanted to buy me a QX6700 but they are damn hard to get at the moment…
Well, if you can hold off till the new year, I’m getting a new dual-quad core 2.33 ghz system here at work but I’m out until Jan 2nd, I’ll probably bench it the first day and post it here somewhere.
It was wrongly compared it with a dual xeon 5160 system, which has the xeons running at 3ghz, where as the QX6700 is running at 2.66ghz.
It wasn’t ‘wrongly’ compared - it’s compared to what is posted in that thread and simply looking at what is the fastest out there. And yes, the clock speeds (Mhz) are different. But if you want to level Mhz out, then the QX6700 is probably on level with 5150s.
When I look at these benchmarks, my primary focus is to see which has the fastest speed as well as which processors have the most reasonable price-tag.
sorry to have put it in such a crude way, jujubee… 
But it is unfair to make it appear that Xeons beat the QX6700 quad core by 40s, if you don’t mention they are not running at the same speed.
It gives people with little technical insight a false impression.
I’d love to see some 5150 xeon results here on this board. From crude extrapolation, i’d say the xeon 5150 and QX6700 are matched very closely, except for the price then…
Which leads to the conclusion that, if you want to go for xeons, you absolutly need to go for the quad core versions (5300 series), because the QX6700 is apparently a much better “bang for da buck”. It is cheaper then the 2 xeons combined, it can be used on a cheaper MB and uses cheaper memory.
Do you really think that it makes sense to buy dual quads? As far as i understand, they’re going to multiply the number of the cores with each new generation, and since dual sockets are so expensive in terms of more expensive cpu, mobos, and RAM, it seems to me that it doesn’t make much sense.
The loss when using dual quad cores is substantial, you get a 50-60% increase with the second cpu, and the price is much higher than that.
Well, if you really want to get technically matched, mHz eve across brands don’t match. As I said before, the thread is not a mHz matching competition, but a rendering time comparison.
When the quads came out, people (including myself) thought it would be the fastest but so far, the 5160s still beat it. I don’t see why that is confusing…
It’s not so much confusing as it is just not very logical. Too add some logic, the 5160’s cost about $900 apiece so $1800 for 4 cores. Two 5150’s (a performance match to the qx) are still $1400. The qx can be had for under $1100. In price per performance there is nothing else available that beats the qx…
And what about the expensive motherboards, RAM, power supplies…
ReRender is right from what I’ve seen - price-wise the QX home-built systems can be cheaper than dual 5150s or 5160s.
Good point, the xeon boards are about $500 where as the 965’s are $200, the qx does not need a particularly large PSU unless you are running sli too, 500 watt should do, the xeons need about 850. For memory the xeons use ECC Ram so you’ll pay a premium there too. All making the qx an even better value.
Where did that come from? That seems unreasonably high. The woodcrest xeons are supposed to consume less power than the opterons and I am running a dual opteron on a 400w ps without a problem. Granted, it is a rackmount computer with no video card and one hard drive, but still. I just ordered a couple of these from supermicro http://supermicro.com/products/system/1U/6015/SYS-6015V-MR.cfm
They come with a 520w supply and I doubt they would really underpower their own systems, or even cut it close.
Yeah, a blade is going to require less power since there is no video card and smaller fans, etc. Looking at supermicro’s desktop stuff they recommend a minimum of 550 -700 watts watts for their workstation boards. I have been looking at the Tyan’s which seem to require a bit more power or maybe they just spec a bit more overhead. Don’t get me wrong, the xeons are great, I have a Dell 5150 at work and it is a great system, just pointing out the value of the qx.
a little ot, found this PSU calculator http://extreme.outervision.com/psucalculator.jsp
Yeah it’s still a great value for time/price comparison. Personally speaking, I think I’ve been spoiled with sub-$300 x2 processors. I hope the QX drops in price within the coming months.
As for PSU, the Apple Pros with the dual 5160s come with a PSU which I believe is under 400 watts. I looked this up because I was considering putting in a 8800GTX which has steep power requirements.
Besides having to be powerful, are power supplies for xeon based computers supposed to have a different standard? EPS12v or something, does that add to the cost?
What’s the difference between these 5300 series and the QX series? Do they all have four cores? Can they all be used in a dual config (so 2*4cores)?
I have little technical insight and I get completly lost in this CPU discussions. I’m thinking of buying a new workstation and I simply want to know what the best price/speed buy is, and maybe if I need to wait a few months until these quad cores dropped in price already?
The qx are single only cpus, the 5300s are also quad core but can be used in multi-cpu machines.
Actually the Mac Pro draws around 250 watts in normal usage with 7300GT. But the PSU can feed up to 1200 watts. It is a hefty one inside there!
cheers!
It’s a 1200 watt PSU??? Are you sure? That’s pretty excessive even by most computer standards.
I really don´t have any evidential source to point to at this time but it is what i have been told.
Those are all peak useages. The Pro’s PSU may be *rated* to 1200 watt, but won’t ever actually come near that. If you put 4 high RPM drives in the pro, used all the PCIe slots, all the ram slots, 2 optical drives and both mobo power rails, then you might begin to approach the rating at boot time. Remember, this is Apple and (much like enthusiast home PC builders) they’re going to put in a PSU that is rated above whatever the machine will actually need so that less stress is put on it.
Just a couple of cents in this matter.
cheers!