Desværre svinger hastighederne fra 2.2GHz til 2.4GHz og 2.8GHz, men man kan alligevel se et mønster i resultaterne.
As we have already written before, the appearance of dual core processors from both leading x86 CPU manufacturers has raised natural interest: how their performance correlates with "honest" SMP systems, where two equally-clocked cores are in separate processors? We have already analyzed the competition between Pentium XE 640 and Dual Xeon 3.2 GHz and drawn the evident conclusion: dual core processors are preferable in terms of performance, though that's most likely not due to the performance difference between the processors, but due to a more "conservative" platform. What's the situation in the AMD camp?
At first sight, Opteron systems are advantageous in this competition, if compared to the already tested Xeon system: they use the same DDR400 as Athlon 64 X2. However, there are still nuances: the memory modules are Registered; besides, they have higher timings (it's probably a tribute to the notorious "server reliability"). Besides, you shouldn't forget that the dual processor system based on Opteron has two memory controllers (in each processor) instead of only one, as in case of Athlon 64 X2. Moreover: in the most general case, you can install memory in such systems in two ways. In the first case, memory is distributed between the processors (each one has its own memory and "another's" memory, calling which would require using the memory controller of the second processor, connected with Hyper Transport bus). In the second case, one of the processors has no memory at all (all the memory "belongs" to the other processor, being slow to call), while all the modules are connected to the second processor (thus, all the memory is its own, fast).
Del med dine venner