Athlon MP 2000+ 와 Xeon 2200 듀얼시스템 BMT

서원택   
   조회 3636   추천 39    

The_Dual_Trap_AMD_MP_vs_Intel_XEON.doc (0byte), Down : 75, 0000-00

아래 BMT 자료의 출처는 http://www.tomshardware.com 입니다... 링크주소: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/200203131/index.html <목   차> 1. Athlon MP 2000+: AMD Mixes In The Dual Market 2. Dual Platform From AMD: Athlon MP 2000+ With The 760MPX Chipset 3. Dual Platform From Intel: Xeon 2200 With The 860 Chipset 4. Hyperthreading: A BIOS Option 5. Test Setup And Details 6. Benchmarks Under Windows XP     .Audio/Video Benchmarks     .Synthetic Benchmarks     .Applications Benchmarks 7. Conclusion: It Only Works With Optimized Software <본 문> 1. Athlon MP 2000+: AMD Mixes In The Dual Market \"If you give me a VOB file, I\'ll thrash you to the ground!\" - the messages sometimes get pretty hot at the Tom\'s Hardware Community, emotional reactions included. This quote had to do with the topic of \"MPEG-4 Encoding,\" which is currently one of the true \"killer apps.\" The fact is, in practice, only a select few applications are able to keep the CPU load at a high level. For this reason, Intel called upon software providers to develop programs that finally take full advantage of hardware resources. Ultimately, it\'s no secret that software helps to sell hardware, and vice versa. Dual Intel Xeon with 2200 MHz. Dual AMD Athlon MP 2000+. In combination with the Divx codec (MPEG-4), the tool XFlask, the direct successor to FlaskMpeg, is one of the few applications that utilizes 100% of the processing power from two CPUs. So it\'s only in this specialized segment that buying a dual CPU platform pays off. In the past, Intel was the only one to offer processors with dual capability, namely with its Pentium II/III and Xeon CPUs. Recently, AMD has begun mixing in the dual market with its Athlon MP, which, like the XP model, is based on the Palomino core. Maximum memory timing with the AMD platform. Naturally, we\'d want to compare the Athlon MP 2000+ against the Intel Xeon 2200. Here, a critical evaluation of rivals AMD and Intel will show you who\'s ahead in the game. Performance in practice and price-performance ratio are two aspects that play a decisive roll. Still, before you run out and buy a dual system, it should be made clear from the start that only special software has the capability of utilizing both processors simultaneously. 2. Dual Platform From AMD: Athlon MP 2000+ With The 760MPX Chipset The MSI K7D Master provides the basis for the two Athlon MP 2000+ processors. It has integrated the AMD 760MPX chipset. 3. Dual Platform From Intel: Xeon 2200 With The 860 Chipset The Tyan Thunder S2603 provides the platform for the two Intel Xeon 2200 CPUs. The Northbridge of the Intel 860 chipset. Socket 603 for Intel Xeon. Intel chip for the memory interface (dual channel RDRAM). The well-known Intel Southbridge 82801BA. Special power supply from NMB for dual Xeon. A special board that contains the memory slots along with the modules. 4. Hyperthreading: A BIOS Option The Hyperthreading function, which can be activated through BIOS. Four virtual processors are made visible in the system monitor via Hyperthreading. 5. Test Setup And Details ============================================================================================= Intel Hardware (Socket 603) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Processors                           100 MHz FSB -                     400 MHz Memory Clock       .Xeon 2200 (2200 MHz) .Xeon 1700 (1700 MHz) -Motherboard .Tyan Thunder S2603 (Intel i860 Chipset) -Memory .4x 128 MB RDRAM, PC800, 400 MHz, Samsung --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Hardware (Socket 478) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -Processors 100 MHz FSB - 400 MHz Memory Clock .Pentium 4/2200A (2200 MHz) -Motherboard . ABIT TH7II (Intel i850 Chipset) Revision: 1.0 -Memory . 2x 256 MB RDRAM, 400 MHz, Samsung ============================================================================================ AMD Hardware (Socket 462) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -Processors 1 133 MHz FSB - 166 MHz Memory Clock . Athlon XP 2000+ (1666 MHz) -Processors 2 133 MHz FSB - 133 MHz Memory Clock . Athlon MP 2000+ (1600 MHz) . Athlon MP 1900+ (1533 MHz) -Motherboard 1 .GIGABYTE GA-7VRXP (KT333A Chipset) Rev.: 1.0 -Motherboard 2 . MSI K7D Master MS-6501 (AMD 760 MPX Chipset) -Memory 1 . 2x 256 MB DDR-SDRAM, CL2.0, 166 MHz, PC2700, Corsair -Memory 2 . 512 MB DDR-SDRAM, CL2.0, 133 MHz, PC2100, Samsung ============================================================================================= General Hardware --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -Graphics Card . GeForce 3 Ti 500 (MSI MS-8854) .Memory: 64 MB DDR-SDRAM .Memory clock: 500 MHz .Chip clock: 240 MHz -Hard Drive . 40 GB, 5T040H4, Maxtor .UDMA100 7200 rpm 2 MB Cache -Drivers & Software -Graphics Driver . Detonator 4 Series V23.11 -VIA KT333A Chipset . 4 in 1 Version: 4.37 Final -AMD 760 MPX Chipset .AMD AGP 5.22s, IDE 1.41g, PowerMGMT -Intel 860 Chipset . Version 3.20.1008 -Intel IDE . Intel Application Accelerator Version 2.0.0.2093 -DirectX Version . 8.1 -Intel 850 Driver . v 3.20.1008 -OS . Windows XP, Build 2600 ============================================================================================= Benchmarks & Settings --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -SiSoft Sandra 2002 . Professional Version 2001.3.7.50 -Newtek Lightwave . Version 7b .Rendering Bench SKULL_HEAD_NEWEST.LWS -mpeg4 encoding . Xmpeg 4.2a .DivX 4.12 .Compression: 100 .Data Rate: 1500 Kbit .Format: 720x576 Pixel@25 fps .150 MB VOB-Datei, no Audio -Studio 7 . Version 7.02.7 (MPEG 2) -Sysmark 2002 . no Patch -mp3Maker . 3.03 D 178 MB Wave -Cinema 4D XL R7 . Version V7.303 Rendering: 1024x768 -3D Studio Max . Version 4.2 .Rendering of the scene \"Rabbit\" .800x600 10 Images 6 . Benchmarks Under Windows XP -3D Rendering . Lightwave 7b -3D Rendering .3D Studio Max 4.2 -3D Rendering .Cinema 4D XL 7.303 -MP3 Audio Encoding .MP3 Maker -MPEG-2 Video Encoding .Pinnacle Studio 7 -MPEG 4 Video Encoding .XMpeg 4.2a and Divx 4.12 -Office Performance .Sysmark 2002 -Archiving .WinACE 2.1 -SiSoft Sandra 2002 Pro .CPU and Multimedia Bench We performed a total of 12 different benchmark tests in order to obtain the most complete, well-balanced view of how the two dual systems perform. You can get a clear overall picture from the benchmark results for a total of six different processors. The different MPEG-encoding benchmarks provide a comprehensive testing environment - MP3 Maker was used to encode a 178 MB WAV file into MPEG-1 Layer 3 format. Still an established standard, our MPEG-4 test converts a file from a commercial DVD-ROM into MPEG-4 format using Xmpeg 4.2a and the Divx 4.12 codec. We also created an MPEG-2 film using the video-editing software \"Pinnacle Studio 7.\" A regular in our list of benchmarks is determining rendering performance using Newtek\'s Lightwave (version 7b). In order to determine office performance, we used the Sysmark 2002 benchmark. 3D Studio Max 4.2 and Cinema 4D XL R7 provide a comprehensive suite of 3D benchmarks. <MP3-Audio-Encoding: Mp3 Maker> MP3 Maker was used under Windows XP to convert a 178 MB sound file from a WAV format to the MPEG-1 Layer 3 format. The chart shows that dual processing only allows for only a slight increase in performance. <MPEG-4 Video Encoding: Xmpeg 4.2a And Divx 4.12> MPEG-4 encoding is one of the best practical applications: the Intel Xeon 2200 is ahead of the AMD Athlon MP 2000+ by 5 fps. Despite dual Rambus technology and SSE2 optimization, Intel is not able to make a more significant leap ahead of the Athlon, which is not as powerful but nevertheless more efficient. The disadvantages of the AMD platform are its weaker memory performance and slower clock speed. <SiSoft Sandra 2002 Benchmarks: CPU Und Multimedia > In the SiSoft Sandra Pro Benchmark 2002, the activated Hyperthreading of the Intel Xeon 2200 makes itself evident: the CPU performance increases by a respectable amount, while the data overhead decreases through the memory performance. Otherwise, the results do not say much about practical use. <3D-Rendering: Newtek Lightwave 7b > In the Lightwave benchmark, which is optimized for Intel architecture, the dual Xeon takes top position. The AMD Athlon MP comes up significantly shorter, due to the lack of optimization. <3D Rendering: Cinema 4D XL 7.303 > The Cinema benchmark reveals a different picture: it\'s a very close race between the two rivals. However, Intel is working on an optimization that is supposed to give both the Pentium 4 and the Xeon a significant boost. <3D Rendering: 3D Studio Max 4.2 > With the continuing launch of new versions, the increase in fps has slowed. With the AMD Athlon MP 2000+, the performance just barely manages to increase by 12.9%. With the Xeon 2200, it\'s 23.9% <Office-/Internet-Performance: Sysmark 2002 > The Office benchmark shows that Intel is ahead of AMD, although the increase with dual-processing is quite small. 7. Conclusion: It Only Works With Optimized Software Our comparison doesn\'t reveal anything terribly new: the Intel Xeon 2200 architecture is nothing more than a \"normal\" Pentium 4/2200 based on the Northwood core. The only difference is in the CPU platform - Intel provides the Xeon with Socket 603 and the Pentium 4/2200 with Socket 478. What\'s new is the dual capability as well as the Hyperthreading function, which, technically, is also integrated in the Pentium 4. It\'s a similar picture with the AMD Athlon MP 2000+, whose architecture is identical to the XP version - they are both based on the Palomino core. To enable dual operation, AMD only changed the coding on the L-Bridge at the top of the processor. This comparison between the two workstation platforms from AMD and Intel clearly shows that dual operation does not necessarily mean increased speed for all applications. Rather, you need software that has been specially adapted to multiprocessor operation, so that the load is equally distributed between the two CPUs. With its Athlon MP 2000+, AMD has added a high-performance processor to its portfolio. And what\'s more - it certainly holds its own against the Intel Xeon 2200. The AMD 760MPX platform is interesting in that two processors with varying clock rates can be used. This makes it possible for parallel operation of an Athlon MP 1200 along with an Athlon MP 2000+. However, with this variation of multiprocessing, the performance increase tends to be limited. Both manufacturers propagate the use of their processors specifically in workstations. Our selected benchmarks, chosen specifically for dual-processing, show that using two CPUs makes sense only with 3D rendering and MPEG encoding (MPEG-4, Divx). However, there\'s not much more to say about this topic, considering the state of technology at the moment. A few final thoughts on Intel\'s Hyperthreading technology, which virtually doubles the number of processors: when using typical applications that are optimized for dual processing, Hyperthreading brings no advantages with it. Rather, the overhead on data slows down the application. Only software that is specially adapted for Hyperthreading enables an increase in performance. In addition, when Hyperthreading is activated, the memory performance decreases drastically, which is partially reflected by the memory benchmark.
짧은글 일수록 신중하게.
로그인 하시면 댓글을 남길 수 있습니다


hardware
쓰기
제목Page 105/170
2014-05   4999926   1 정은준1
2015-12   1535795   1  백메가
2005-03   3147   1 안성현
2005-03   2538   1 김재경
2005-03   3034   1 오재호
2005-03   3118   1 박정원
2005-03   18214   1 서원택
2005-03   3675   1 박문형
2005-03   3298   1 박문형
2005-03   3200   1 박문형
2005-03   3283   1 박문형
2005-03   2618   1 박문형
2005-03   3637   1 서원택
2005-03   4606   1 하승윤
2005-03   2453   1 박문형
2005-03   3528   1 이종혁
2005-03   2617   1 오권섭
2005-03   4093   1 정은준
2005-03   4176   1 정은준
2005-03   2773   1 손석훈
2005-03   2705   1 이상백
2005-03   3176   1 유용수
목록
쓰기