Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Intel Xeon 5300 Clovertown Benchmarks!

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Default Intel Xeon 5300 Clovertown Benchmarks!

    On November 2, 2006 the embargo for Intel's Core 2 Extreme Quad QX6700 was lifted which resulted in a slurry of reviews covering this flagship desktop processor. However, this morning happens to be an important date for Supercomputing 2006 and it serves as yet another milestone for Intel Corporation. This morning Intel will be introducing the Xeon 5300 series, or perhaps better known by its codename of Clovertown. At Phoronix we have had these processors in-house for over a week now and today are able to share our thoughts on these quad-core server/workstation processors as we test them under GNU/Linux...
    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=7860

    Interested in seeing other benchmarks or information? Just ask! There are additional Xeon 5300 focused articles in the works for the near future.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    /home/$USER
    Posts
    113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=7860

    Interested in seeing other benchmarks or information? Just ask! There are additional Xeon 5300 focused articles in the works for the near future.
    Hmm, I was kind of expecting a little better showing from the 5330. Two 5330s usually got trounced by a pair of 5150s or even one 5150, so do you think that the lower clock speed or something else was the problem?

  3. #3

    Default

    It is likely due to the difference in clock frequency. I'm working on getting more Xeon 5300 parts so I'll be able to confirm more then. Where have you see the E5330 numbers?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    /home/$USER
    Posts
    113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    It is likely due to the difference in clock frequency. I'm working on getting more Xeon 5300 parts so I'll be able to confirm more then. Where have you see the E5330 numbers?
    That was a mis-type, I meant 5320

  5. #5

    Default

    Thanks for the in-depth look Michael, the 5300 really seems to have a lot to offer. The price scares me though, if it's anything like the Kentsfield when it finally hits the stores. The QX6700 retails for $1,499 at NewEgg, so I am interested to see if the Xeon will be any better.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Williams View Post
    Thanks for the in-depth look Michael, the 5300 really seems to have a lot to offer. The price scares me though, if it's anything like the Kentsfield when it finally hits the stores. The QX6700 retails for $1,499 at NewEgg, so I am interested to see if the Xeon will be any better.
    Prices range from about $450 to $1200 per processor. The slowest Xeon processor at 1.6GHz will set you back only ~ $450 USD.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    4

    Default

    What is your policy about overclocking of Xeon Server boards?

    If anybody care about Clovertown OC, visit the
    http://forums.2cpu.com/showthread.php?t=77937 thread at 2cpu.com

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cronos View Post
    What is your policy about overclocking of Xeon Server boards?

    If anybody care about Clovertown OC, visit the
    http://forums.2cpu.com/showthread.php?t=77937 thread at 2cpu.com
    Sounds like fun, may have to try it out

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Sounds like fun, may have to try it out
    Any success?

    According to Intel,
    E5320 Core Voltage is 1.5V http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SL9MV

    If this is really true, it may indicate that Intel uses lowest-quality parts for E5310 and E5320. Definitely not recommended for overclocking.

    Can you please verify this with your E5320? Either in BIOS,
    or under Windows cpu-z 1.37, rmclock, CrystallCPUID. msr under Linux.

    I cant find this information anywhere, please help me!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Thanks for the nice review, Michael!

    I've noticed how the Phoronix reviews use the latest and greatest version of Fedora Core at a given point in time. For this review, FC6 is the latest. This is quite understandable given the time it takes for the Linux kernel to support new hardware.

    Here's my dilemma - at work, I get to suggest hardware purchases, hardware that is later to be used with Linux. The machines are either servers or workstation and both require the use of more "stable" distributions/releases - in other words RHEL 4 U4 or CentOS 4.4 instead of Fedora Core, or Ubuntu 6.06 LTS instead of the newer 6.10, Debian stable instead of testing and so on.

    You get the picture - many a time you buy a new piece of hardware and find out that distribution X doesn't support it, since this-or-that particular driver wasn't backported or supported at a particular point in time.

    I'd love to see the Phoronix reviews have compatibility tests with these "older"/enterprise-oriented/mature distributions. It could be something as simple as sticking the install CD of distribution X into the machine and see if it could start and even complete an installation.

    Me, I'm not too bothered with lack of support for whatever sound chip is on the motherboards, but I/O, including ethernet support, is crucial.

    Case in point - I'm trying to figure out if a 5000P or 5000X chipset motherboard, perhaps even the particular Tyan motherboard in this review, would work with any of the "enterprise class" distributions of today.

    Regards

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •