Clovertown 5335 vs Nehalem 5504
Posted by Dr_Michael, 04-19-2009, 02:00 PM Can you tell me which CPU architecture is better? Clovertown 5335 or Nehalem 5504? Both are running on 2 GHz (8 cores).
Posted by RBBOT, 04-19-2009, 02:12 PM Nehalem by a country mile. The performance gains over equivalent clock speed 54xx processors are around 100% in server applications, so a 53xx doesn't stand a chance. Have a look at the 2nd table on the article below - the 5450 has a higher clock speed and less cache than the 5570 but still gets its ass kicked. http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3536&p=16
Posted by Dr_Michael, 04-19-2009, 02:16 PM Thank you for your answer, its clear now. I thought the more cache of Clovertown was advantage.
Posted by RBBOT, 04-19-2009, 02:22 PM It's more than offset by the hyperthreading on the Nehalem doubling the number of cores.
Posted by CiscoMike, 04-19-2009, 04:53 PM The high cache numbers on C2D Intel processors was a band-aid to deal with higher memory latency then comparable Opterons. With the i7 line of chips, now that there is an integrated memory controller, there isn't a need for as much of cache, especially at the L2 and L3 levels. However keep in mind that while the i7 stuff smokes any of the later generation c2d hardware in memory bandwidth, they pretty neck and neck for CPU bound processes. Point being, unless you have something that is extremely memory bandwidth hungry or something that can actually take legitimate advantage of 4 cores + the HT cores, you can save a lot of cash sticking with some of the legacy hardware for now. This isn't a dig against the i7 stuff, it's pretty sweet but the price of CPU + motherboard + DDR3 memory is still significantly higher than some of the older stuff.
Posted by Dr_Michael, 04-20-2009, 05:47 AM Sorry I didnt understand it. Can you explain it further please? I currently have Clovertown and I have a good offer for Nehalem for free. Should I do it or not?
Posted by CiscoMike, 04-20-2009, 11:26 AM CPU cycle effenciency, clock for clock, is not really improved between the Penryn derivatives (aka the C2D Xeon family) and the i7 family. So a 2.8Ghz Clovertown will perform identical (or nearly) to an i7 965 running at 2.8Ghz when looking strictly at CPU clock cycles. In otherwords, if you are drag racing, you'll see no benefit to the i7. However, if what is important to you is memory access time, then there's no comparison and the i7 will crush any other Intel CPU due to the integrated memory controller. It has a 2x or better performance. The HT piece is a toss-up. Many multi-threaded apps can and will take advantage of the HT piece if they are aware of it and can scale above 4 threads. On the flip side, there are some apps and some operations that do not work well at all with HT. It's a nice marketing feature by intel, it can improve performance but it's not a given in all circumstances. If you are getting a free i7 upgrade, then take it, if anything for the free socket upgrade and additional memory bandwidth from DDR3. You may or may not get a speed increase depending on your application. The i7 is a great platform but it's not an end-all solution for most people due to the significant cost increase or the platform.
Posted by Dr_Michael, 04-20-2009, 12:14 PM You were very clear!
Posted by barry[CoffeeSprout], 04-21-2009, 09:05 AM Good points. The Nehalem is much faster, but unless you need it the old hardware can save you some money. Given the Clovertowns are now two "generations" behind you might get a good price on those