The really hard part for me is that I understand how performance works in the windoze world but not mac. In other words, the windows/linux community is well beyond 2.6G processors (we are buying 3.0G for blades--sometimes 3.2 but that is rare).
Ian, it depends on what processors you're looking at. A 2.66 GHz Xeon "Woodcrest" processor is substantially faster for a "market basket" of benchmarks than a 3.8 GHz Pentium 4. Intel made a marked shift from cranking up the MHz to more balanced, multi-core CPUs about 18 months ago. Since then, they have been absolutely pummeling AMD on performance in every benchmark. In fact it's not even close right now -- AND Intel is leading the wattage game as well.
So those CPUs you're using in your blades, who knows how fast they really are, and if they're multiple core (without knowing specifics I can't tell). But one of the main things about blades is that they are VERY high density, and they have REAL challenges with heat. Often they use slower CPUs, so a 3 GHz chip there is actually pretty aggressive.
Also, the 2.66 GHz Xeons that Sid is talking about aren't the fastest ones you can get in a Mac Pro. You can get them up to 3 GHz, and in fact you can get 3 GHz Quad Core CPUs (see my post that started this thread ;-) I have 8 CPU cores running at 3 GHz in this machine... if you used simple math I'm running with 24 GHz of computing power (it's not that simple though). The Woodcrest and (or Clovertown, which is the 4-core variant of same) are the fastest server CPUs that Intel offers at the moment. Most of the chips the Intel vendors are using for desktops (Dell, Alienware, Falcon Northwest, etc.) actually Conroe chips, which have a slower bus speed and which can only handle a single package on a motherboard.
Anyway back to your note... Apple offers 3 GHz versions of the Mac Pro, but they're more expensive than the 2.66 GHz chips. Sid is trying to optimize not just for performance, but for price/performance. Me, I'm a "damn the torpedoes!" kind of guy
Comments
Ian, it depends on what processors you're looking at. A 2.66 GHz Xeon "Woodcrest" processor is substantially faster for a "market basket" of benchmarks than a 3.8 GHz Pentium 4. Intel made a marked shift from cranking up the MHz to more balanced, multi-core CPUs about 18 months ago. Since then, they have been absolutely pummeling AMD on performance in every benchmark. In fact it's not even close right now -- AND Intel is leading the wattage game as well.
So those CPUs you're using in your blades, who knows how fast they really are, and if they're multiple core (without knowing specifics I can't tell). But one of the main things about blades is that they are VERY high density, and they have REAL challenges with heat. Often they use slower CPUs, so a 3 GHz chip there is actually pretty aggressive.
Also, the 2.66 GHz Xeons that Sid is talking about aren't the fastest ones you can get in a Mac Pro. You can get them up to 3 GHz, and in fact you can get 3 GHz Quad Core CPUs (see my post that started this thread ;-) I have 8 CPU cores running at 3 GHz in this machine... if you used simple math I'm running with 24 GHz of computing power (it's not that simple though). The Woodcrest and (or Clovertown, which is the 4-core variant of same) are the fastest server CPUs that Intel offers at the moment. Most of the chips the Intel vendors are using for desktops (Dell, Alienware, Falcon Northwest, etc.) actually Conroe chips, which have a slower bus speed and which can only handle a single package on a motherboard.
Anyway back to your note... Apple offers 3 GHz versions of the Mac Pro, but they're more expensive than the 2.66 GHz chips. Sid is trying to optimize not just for performance, but for price/performance. Me, I'm a "damn the torpedoes!" kind of guy
dual core to dual core).