AMD or Intel as well as the memory brand - page 48
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
It also turned out to be seven times cheaper, in terms of money.
Just optimization in MT4 is not the most suitable task for comparing this laptop and this desktop. In multi-threaded applications requiring a lot (dozens of GB) of memory the laptop will be 70 and 700 times inferior :)))
Just optimization in MT4 is not the most suitable task to compare this laptop and this desktop. In multi-threaded applications requiring a lot (tens of GB) of memory the laptop will be 70 and 700 times inferior :)))
No, it won't be 70x or 700x. There is a difference, but not so catastrophic. I was surprised, then I understood that it's all about memory channel width. You can have at least 100 cores, as long as they all access the same memory - that's what happens on an 8-core. The cores are just stupidly waiting for each other.
If multithreading is to be supported, the Core i7 will definitely rule. There is an online comparison of Intel's Nehalem 4-core server architecture and Opteron 6-core. At least Intel is not inferior.
The comparison was carried out for server tasks, i.e. where multithreading is currently the best implemented.
Besides, Intel's 6-core is just around the corner.
Not taking the price into account, yes. But I was just taking it. I must be mistaken or my information is outdated, but my Opterons' core performance *number of cores / price is still better. Correct me if I'm wrong.
No, it won't be 70 or 700 times. There is a difference, but not that catastrophic. I was surprised at this, and then I realized that it's all about the memory channel width. You can have at least 100 cores, as long as they all access the same memory - that's what happens on an 8-core. Cores just wait for each other.
Memory bandwidth on serious tasks is an essential factor. The Nehalem tested has 3 memory channels and fast memory (1333Meg). Opteron has 2 and 667Meg. The script doesn't require much memory. And optimization should gobble up a different amount of resources.
If you don't take the price into account, yes. But I did. I could be wrong, or the information is outdated, but Opteron's core performance * number of cores / price is so far better. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The bottom line is that "expensive" CPUs lose out to "cheap" CPUs in time-price terms.
And the "favourite" by some, the Xeon W5590, is below par!
No, it won't be 70 or 700 times. There is a difference, but not that catastrophic. I was surprised at this, and then I realized that it's all about the memory channel width. You can have at least 100 cores, as long as they all access the same memory - that's what happens on an 8-core. The cores are just stupidly waiting for each other.
And what applications exactly?
If you don't take the price into account, yes. But I did. I could be wrong, or the information is outdated, but Opteron's core performance * number of cores / price is so far better. Correct me if I am wrong.
Correct :)
Here is a link to the test. It is in English, but the tables and diagrams are quite understandable. Xeon 5570 @2.93 GHz ($1386) and 6-core Opteron 2435 @2.6 GHz ($989) are compared. Prices as of 01.06.09.
The bottom line in a nutshell is this. The 4-core has an advantage of ~1% to ~50%. Yes, it has higher frequency and yes, it is more expensive.
BUT! Its chip area (and complexity) is noticeably smaller, so Intel has a wide range of price maneuvers. At that we have to bear in mind that roughly the same performance will be given by Core i7 870 which costs "only" $562, and such prices have nothing to counter AMD's offerings, for "desktop" 6-core models are to be launched next year only, while 4-core models are understandably lagging behind
Correction :)
Here's a link to the testing. It's in English, but the tables and diagrams are quite understandable. Xeon 5570 @2.93 GHz ($1386) and 6-core Opteron 2435 @2.6 GHz ($989) were compared. Prices as of 01.06.09.
The bottom line in a nutshell is this. The 4-core has an advantage of ~1% to ~50%. Yes, it has higher frequency and yes, it is more expensive.
BUT! Its chip area (and complexity) is noticeably smaller, so Intel has a wide range of price maneuvers. At that we have to bear in mind that about the same performance will be given by Core i7 870 which costs "only" $562 and AMD has nothing to counter such prices, as "desktop" 6-core models are planned for the next year only, while 4-core models are understandably lagging behind
Well, thanks for the info. I, by the way, was originally aiming/bringing for the 860-70. When I found out about future multi-core tester support, I hesitated. Now you've reassured me)))
If anyone doesn't mind too much, run the script for the new version. The old one is too lopsided. The lion's share of the test is the array write test, which is not good from CPU performance point of view. In the new version integer and floating point operations are "equalized" in weight. The number of operations per 1 millisecond is calculated. Which is much more informative than in the previous version.
My CPU: