Hi! On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 07:37:33AM -0500, Don Dailey wrote: > I think you get the most bang for the buck with the i7-980x, which is not > really the same chip as the other Intel chips, and I think they are coming > out with improved versions of that if they have not already. This has 6 > real cores (and 6 additional pseudo cores.
Yes, I was looking at i7-970, which is quite similar. (I don't aim at overclocking too much, I don't think I can fit a lot of cooling into a 2U rack server.) However, now I'm seriously torn between taking one i7-970 or two 6134 (which should be the same as 6174 just with 8 cores inst. of 12): http://iltsarnews.blogspot.com/2010/03/amds-opteron-6174-12-cores-magny-cours.html It seems to bode extremely well in the benchmarks. Two 6134 are just a bit more expensive than an i7-970, and if I extrapolate the scores (which is a rther lame, but what can I do?): 2x6174 -> 2x6134: 49372*8/12 = 32915 2xX5670 -> 1xi7-970: 35868/2 = 17934 (i7-970 has faster clock, but slower QPI and memory) This seems rather clear, even considering the gross inaccuracies this kind of transformation introduces. So it seems that this boils down to how bogus the benchmarks above are. ;-) Per core / per thread performance is of course a different matter, but given how very fuzzy and workload-specific this can get and how well MCTS parallelizes (with shared memory), I think it's more useful to discuss the total performance. Does anyone have datapoints on how good the latest Opterons (i.e. the 6100 line) really are? (Compared to i7-970 (or similar Xeon) or at least i7-950.) -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis The true meaning of life is to plant a tree under whose shade you will never sit. _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
