Re: [Xen-users] Xeon 5160 vs 5080

["Terje J. Hanssen" <nteknikk@xxxxxxxx>]

Nathan Allen Stratton wrote:


> Chip          Clock           HT      Cache   Bus Speed
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> 5080          3.7 GHz         YES     2MB     1066 MHz
> 5160          3.0 GHz         NO      4MB     1333 MHz
>
> Does the .7 GHz and HT worth more then 4MB cache and higher bus speed? The
> application is VoIP so there is not a lot of IO so I would not think Bus
> Speed would matter. I am finding mixed information on HT, some say it is
> great, others say it actually slows things down, could this be why the new
> chips done have HT?

I recently ordered a Dell Precision 490 workstation with a single Xeon
5160 (Woodcrest) CPU instead of the Xeon 5080 (Dempsey) CPU. My reasons
was a cooler CPU (85W vs 130W Peak TDP) and a faster, more effective CPU
(4MB shared vs 2MB per core L2 Cache, 1333 MHz vs 1066 MHz FSB speed).
Dell's 490 price with Xeon 5160 was lower than for an equally configured
390 single socket workstation with the slower Core 2 Duo Extreme 2.93
GHz CPU.

The following benchmark by Phoronix with FC5 Linux proves that even the
2,66 GHz Xeon 5150 in general is faster than the 3,77 GHz Xeon 5080 with
exception for little lower RAMspeed
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=521&num=1

More about the Xeon Woodcrest/Bensley platform vs Opteron at Tom's Hardware
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/06/26/xeon_woodcrest_preys_on_opteron/index.html

The new Mac Pro is also based on Xeon 51XX Woodcrest:
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816


Rgds
Terje


_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users