It appears you have not yet registered with our community. To register please click here...

 
Go Back [M] > Madshrimps > WebNews
Intel Nehalem, Bloomfield has 8MB of cache Intel Nehalem, Bloomfield has 8MB of cache
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Intel Nehalem, Bloomfield has 8MB of cache
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 26th March 2008, 09:44   #21
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,002
jmke has disabled reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney View Post
Bottom line still is "what do I gain from productivity point of view?".
I just told you; one physical server, multiple virtual servers, easy to configure, easy to backup, easy to restore, easy to upgrade.
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2008, 09:48   #22
Rutar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke View Post
I just told you; one physical server, multiple virtual servers, easy to configure, easy to backup, easy to restore, easy to upgrade.
easy to store, easy to cool too
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2008, 11:07   #23
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,002
jmke has disabled reputation
Default

the actual DATA storage is separate if you want to have speedier, fail-prove, multiserver support
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2008, 14:15   #24
Kougar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorgal View Post
I'm quite sure that Sidney wasn't personal Kougar, just speaking "in general". I for one am a bit like you : interested in progress because I like it, and to have some fun benchmarking and competing against others... the amount of money I spend having this fun however...
Well, to be frank there was nothing in his post to indicate if it was a overly broad, general statement, or if it was directed at my past comments. Given the highly facetious/mocking tone of his post and that due to my replies up to that point only seemed to indicate the later.

I would agree whether the performance increase is worthwhile enough to justify an upgrade is a important consideration to any review. However I also think being able to get higher performance for the same $1 spent towards a new system or new mainframe is also important.

Sure, it won't affect Excel that much, but with that logic all anyone needs is a Pentium 4, which is true. However not all consumers cannot make use of all four cores, and not all businesses cannot make use of the extra CPU power. Solely focusing on business computers that run Office products all day is just another small portion of the market.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2008, 14:21   #25
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,002
jmke has disabled reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kougar View Post
Solely focusing on business computers that run Office
products all day is just another small portion of the market.
got to be kidding right? most companies I know use almost solely office and little else, maybe a custom program here and there, but nothing that ever requires quad cores or even dual cores. we're talking about hundreds of thousands machines here, vs a few special cases which need more power.

(coca cola, mobistar, european union, atlas copco, toyota, monroe, banks, etc etc, large companies)
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2008, 16:21   #26
Rutar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It would indeed be more effective to give everyone a 24" VA LCD for boosting productivity and/or a MTRON SSD and 4 GB RAM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2008, 16:56   #27
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,002
jmke has disabled reputation
Default

exactly, 22" is ~$200, that's peanuts. 2gb minimum for Office. SSD drive with write speeds at 100Mb/s+ will be interesting
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2008, 10:02   #28
jakebot
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kougar View Post
The entire point of thise insanely large 12mb L2 caches, even 16MB caches is to keep the CPU fed with data to crunch.

If you look at AMD K7 processor verses AMD K8 processor benchmarks you will see the improvement integrating the memory controller will bring... it is the biggest reason for why AMD's K8 easily defeated the Pentium.

For example... Imagine you and two other people in a building... You need to complete a project but lack the information. To get the info you must ask the 2nd person to go talk to the 3rd person to get your info and bring it back to you. If you keep havingto ask questions or you find you don't have all the info you can see how slow this would make completing your project...

The middle guy has to act as the go between for you to get the information you need... Until now the middle guy has always been the chipset, the CPU could never directly talk to or update the memory.
kougar... that was the perfect explination. thanks
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2008, 10:04   #29
jakebot
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kougar View Post
Well, to be frank there was nothing in his post to indicate if it was a overly broad, general statement, or if it was directed at my past comments. Given the highly facetious/mocking tone of his post and that due to my replies up to that point only seemed to indicate the later.

I would agree whether the performance increase is worthwhile enough to justify an upgrade is a important consideration to any review. However I also think being able to get higher performance for the same $1 spent towards a new system or new mainframe is also important.

Sure, it won't affect Excel that much, but with that logic all anyone needs is a Pentium 4, which is true. However not all consumers cannot make use of all four cores, and not all businesses cannot make use of the extra CPU power. Solely focusing on business computers that run Office products all day is just another small portion of the market.
i get people hatin on my p4 but hey... it honestly still gets the job done. sure i can't unzip files as fast. but that's ok. regardless it's still time for that upgrade
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Power gating and turbo mode: Intel talks Nehalem at IDF jmke WebNews 0 20th August 2008 16:04
NVIDIA Brings SLI Technology to Intel Bloomfield CPU Platforms jmke WebNews 1 14th July 2008 23:13
First Intel Nehalem has 8MB cache jmke WebNews 3 27th May 2008 01:53
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6950 coming Q4, 3.33GHz, 12MB L2 cache jmke WebNews 0 27th July 2007 16:46
Intel Bloomfield To Hit > 4GHz and Has 8MB Cache jmke WebNews 3 19th December 2006 11:44
Most efficient L2 cache usage: Intel shared or AMD dedicated? jmke WebNews 0 23rd October 2006 14:04
Intel Preps 3.50GHz Server Chips with 8MB Cache jmke WebNews 0 14th January 2005 10:58
Intel Itanium 2 to Get Additional Clock-Speed, Cache jmke WebNews 0 25th May 2004 16:21
Intel Heads Towards 4MB Cache in Desktop Processors jmke WebNews 0 17th March 2004 09:36

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:22.


Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO