On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 02:37:03AM +0100, Petr Baudis wrote: > 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)
...and another woodoo with numbers: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html i7 970 = 10073 http://www.cpubenchmark.net/multi_cpu.html 4x6174 = 29627 Then, trying to convert 4x6174 to 2x6134: 29627/2*8/12 = 9875. So in _this_ one, 2x6134 would come off slightly worse than 970. But who knows if the scores are even comparable. *sigh* -- 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
