Search Results

Search found 472 results on 19 pages for 'xeon'.

Page 2/19 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Upgrade Intel Xeon Prestonia to a 64-bit processor

    - by IDisposable
    In theory, could I upgrade a mPGA604-socket motherboard with a Prestonia processor to some Intel Xeon processor with 64-bit? I've got a Dell PowerEdge 1750 with dual 2.8GHz Xeon processors running my Windows Home Server machine. I want to upgrade to the upcoming Vail release, but it is 64-bit only. The processors are Prestonia-core, which is pre-64bit, but I was wondering if it was possible to swap in some pin-compatible later generation processor. According to wikipedia, the mPGA604-socket continues to be used for several later generations that do have same pinout. So, IN THEORY, could I swap in a 64-bit, like a Nocona-core?

    Read the article

  • Performance degrades for more than 2 threads on Xeon X5355

    - by zoolii
    Hi All, I am writing an application using boost threads and using boost barriers to synchronize the threads. I have two machines to test the application. Machine 1 is a core2 duo (T8300) cpu machine (windows XP professional - 4GB RAM) where I am getting following performance figures : Number of threads :1 , TPS :21 Number of threads :2 , TPS :35 (66 % improvement) further increase in number of threads decreases the TPS but that is understandable as the machine has only two cores. Machine 2 is a 2 quad core ( Xeon X5355) cpu machine (windows 2003 server with 4GB RAM) and has 8 effective cores. Number of threads :1 , TPS :21 Number of threads :2 , TPS :27 (28 % improvement) Number of threads :4 , TPS :25 Number of threads :8 , TPS :24 As you can see, performance is degrading after 2 threads (though it has 8 cores). If the program has some bottle neck , then for 2 thread also it should have degraded. Any idea? , Explanations ? , Does the OS has some role in performance ? - It seems like the Core2duo (2.4GHz) scales better than Xeon X5355 (2.66GHz) though it has better clock speed. Thank you -Zoolii

    Read the article

  • Xeon X5550 vs Six-core Opteron for database server

    - by gregmac
    I'm specing out a database server, and the price works out to be reasonably close between an Intel X5550 Quad-core and an AMD 2425HE (2.1Ghz) Six-core Opteron. I've been looking for some comparisons between the two, but the only thing useful I've found is an AnandTech Review of the 2435 which compares it to Intel Xeons, but concludes they both have their place. My load is MS SQL Server 2008, with an OLTP database that has about an equal amount of reading/writing (and it's a reasonably heavy load). So my question is, what is going to work better in this situation, assuming the drives are the same: Xeon X5550, with 16GB 1333Mhz RAM (Dell R510) or an Opteron 2425HE (2.1Ghz) or 2439SE (2.8Ghz) with 16GB of 800Mhz RAM? (Dell 2970) Note: the 2439 adds $500, but the overall pricing works out that it's not that much more than the R510. Using the 2425HE, the Dell 2970 server is slightly less than the similarly-equipped R510). If it adds a decent amount of performance, it's worthwhile to go faster. (single CPU, in both cases).

    Read the article

  • using i7 "gamer" cpu in a HPC cluster

    - by user1219721
    I'm running WRF weather model. That's a ram intensive, highly parallel application. I need to build a HPC cluster for that. I use 10GB infiniband interconnect. WRF doesn't depends of core count, but on memory bandwidth. That's why a core i7 3820 or 3930K performs better than high-grade xeons E5-2600 or E7 Seems like universities uses xeon E5-2670 for WRF. It costs about $1500. Spec2006 fp_rates WRF bench shows $580 i7 3930K performs the same with 1600MHz RAM. What's interesting is that i7 can handle up to 2400MHz ram, doing a great performance increase for WRF. Then it really outperforms the xeon. Power comsumption is a bit higher, but still less than 20€ a year. Even including additional part I'll need (PSU, infiniband, case), the i7 way is still 700 €/cpu cheaper than Xeon. So, is it ok to use "gamer" hardware in a HPC cluster ? or should I do it pro with xeon ? (This is not a critical application. I can handle downtime. I think I don't need ECC?)

    Read the article

  • Dual Xeon Server voltages are low

    - by Mindflux
    I've got a whitebox server running CentOS 5.7. It's a Dual Xeon 5620, 24GB of RAM. The mainboard is a SuperMicro X8DT6-F and the chassis is a SC825TQ-R720LPB. Dual 720W Power supplies. We had a big power outage a couple weeks back that took down everything, I don't have any pre-power outage figures for this server, and the only reason I noticed these is because when I was bringing up the servers I was checking them out with more scrutiny than usual. http://i.imgur.com/rSjiw.png (Image of voltage readings) As you can see, CPU1 DIMM is low, +3.3V is high, 3.3VSB is high, +5v is high, +12v is REAL LOW (out of normal 5% (plus/minus))... and VBAT is off the charts. With my whitebox VAR we've tried the following: Swap out PSU with another server I have with the same PSUs. Try different power cord Update BMC/IPMI firmware in case readings were wrong (They aren't) Update BIOS Try different PDU Try a different outlet and/or circuit Replaced Voltage Regulator Unit At this point, the only thing we haven't done, seemingly is replace the mainboard.. which is what the next step will be unless something else shines some light on the situation. I should mention the system is rock solid otherwise which is a surprise given the 12v voltage is that far off.

    Read the article

  • Impact of the L3 cache on performance - worth a dual-processor system?

    - by Dan Nissenbaum
    I will be purchasing a new high-end system, and I would like to have a better sense of whether a dual-processor Xeon system (I am looking at the new, high-end Xeon E5-2687W) might, realistically, provide a noticeable performance improvement due to the doubling of the L3 cache (20 MB per CPU). (This is in addition to the occasional added advantage due to the doubling of cores and RAM.) My usage scenario is, roughly, that I have many background applications running at any time - 3 or 4 data compression/backup applications, a low-impact web server, one or two virtual machines at any given time (usually fairly idle), and perhaps 20 utility programs that utilize a noticeable (but small) portion of the CPU cores. In total, when I am not actively using the computer, about 25% of the total CPU power is utilized in my current i7-970 6-core (12 thread) system. When I am doing routine work, the CPU utilization often exceeds 50%, and occasionally hits 75%-80%. The Xeon E5-2687W is not only a second-generation i7 (so should improve performance for that reason), but also has 8 cores (16 threads), rather than 6 cores. For this reason, I expect to run into the 75% CPU range even less frequently. Nonetheless, the ability to double the cores and the RAM is a consideration. However, in the end, I believe this decision comes down to whether the doubling of the L3 cache will provide a noticeable improvement. There are many benchmarks, and a lot of discussion, regarding CPU power. However, I find very little discussion of L3 cache utilization, and how increases in the L3 cache (such as doubling it with dual processors) affect performance. For example: If there are only two processes running, but each benefits from a large L3 cache (such as might be the case for background processes that frequently scan the file system), perhaps the overall system performance might noticeably improve with dual CPU's - even if only a single core is active on each CPU - due to each process having double the effective L3 cache. I am hoping that someone has a sense of the benefits of increasing (or doubling) the L3 cache size. Note: the CPU I am considering (the Xeon E5-2687W) has 20 MB L3 cache, so a system with dual CPU's would have 40 MB L3 cache.

    Read the article

  • Hyper-Threading comments

    - by jchang
    There seems to be significant confusion about Hyper-Threading. Part of the problem is that vendors like to tout every new feature as the greatest invention since the six-pack, and its follow-on the 12-pack. I used to think the 4-pack was a travesty, but now that I am older and can nolonger finish a 12-pack with each meal, suddenly the 4-pack is not such a travesty. But I digress. I do appluad innovation, and I do accept that the first generation is almost never perfect, thats why its the bleeding...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Performance degrades for more than 2 threads on Xeon X5355

    - by zoolii
    Hi All, I am writing an application using boost threads and using boost barriers to synchronize the threads. I have two machines to test the application. Machine 1 is a core2 duo (T8300) cpu machine (windows XP professional - 4GB RAM) where I am getting following performance figures : Number of threads :1 , TPS :21 Number of threads :2 , TPS :35 (66 % improvement) further increase in number of threads decreases the TPS but that is understandable as the machine has only two cores. Machine 2 is a 2 quad core ( Xeon X5355) cpu machine (windows 2003 server with 4GB RAM) and has 8 effective cores. Number of threads :1 , TPS :21 Number of threads :2 , TPS :27 (28 % improvement) Number of threads :4 , TPS :25 Number of threads :8 , TPS :24 As you can see, performance is degrading after 2 threads (though it has 8 cores). If the program has some bottle neck , then for 2 thread also it should have degraded. Any idea? , Explanations ? , Does the OS has some role in performance ? - It seems like the Core2duo (2.4GHz) scales better than Xeon X5355 (2.66GHz) though it has better clock speed. Thank you -Zoolii

    Read the article

  • Linux per-process resource limits - a deep Red Hat Mystery

    - by BobBanana
    I have my own multithreaded C program which scales in speed smoothly with the number of CPU cores.. I can run it with 1, 2, 3, etc threads and get linear speedup.. up to about 5.5x speed on a 6-core CPU on a Ubuntu Linux box. I had an opportunity to run the program on a very high end Sunfire x4450 with 4 quad-core Xeon processors, running Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I was eagerly anticipating seeing how fast the 16 cores could run my program with 16 threads.. But it runs at the same speed as just TWO threads! Much hair-pulling and debugging later, I see that my program really is creating all the threads, they really are running simultaneously, but the threads themselves are slower than they should be. 2 threads runs about 1.7x faster than 1, but 3, 4, 8, 10, 16 threads all run at just net 1.9x! I can see all the threads are running (not stalled or sleeping), they're just slow. To check that the HARDWARE wasn't at fault, I ran SIXTEEN copies of my program independently, simultaneously. They all ran at full speed. There really are 16 cores and they really do run at full speed and there really is enough RAM (in fact this machine has 64GB, and I only use 1GB per process). So, my question is if there's some OPERATING SYSTEM explanation, perhaps some per-process resource limit which automatically scales back thread scheduling to keep one process from hogging the machine. Clues are: My program does not access the disk or network. It's CPU limited. Its speed scales linearly on a single CPU box in Ubuntu Linux with a hexacore i7 for 1-6 threads. 6 threads is effectively 6x speedup. My program never runs faster than 2x speedup on this 16 core Sunfire Xeon box, for any number of threads from 2-16. Running 16 copies of my program single threaded runs perfectly, all 16 running at once at full speed. top shows 1600% of CPUs allocated. /proc/cpuinfo shows all 16 cores running at full 2.9GHz speed (not low frequency idle speed of 1.6GHz) There's 48GB of RAM free, it is not swapping. What's happening? Is there some process CPU limit policy? How could I measure it if so? What else could explain this behavior? Thanks for your ideas to solve this, the Great Xeon Slowdown Mystery of 2010!

    Read the article

  • S5000XVN Intel Motherboard - Only sees 12 out of 16GB of RAM

    - by Richie086
    So I have an older Intel S5000XVN motherboard, here are the specs CPU Arch : 2 CPU - 2 Cores - 2 Threads CPU PSN : Intel Xeon CPU 5160 @ 3.00GHz CPU EXT : MMX, SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S), EM64T, VT-x CPUID : 6.F.6 / Extended : 6.F CPU Cache : L1 : 2 x 32 / 2 x 32 KB - L2 : 4096 KB Core : Woodcrest (65 nm) / Stepping : B2 Freq : 2985.21 MHz (331.69 * 9) MB Brand : Intel MB Model : S5000XVN NB : Intel 5000X rev 31 SB : Intel 6321ESB rev 09 RAM : 16384 MB FB-DDR2 RAM Speed : 331.7 MHz (1:1) @ N/A Slot 1 : 2048MB (5300) Slot 1 Manufacturer : Kingston Slot 2 : 2048MB (5300) Slot 2 Manufacturer : Qimonda Slot 3 : 2048MB (5300) Slot 3 Manufacturer : Kingston Slot 4 : 2048MB (5300) Slot 4 Manufacturer : Qimonda Slot 5 : 2048MB (5300) Slot 5 Manufacturer : Kingston Slot 6 : 2048MB (5300) Slot 6 Manufacturer : Qimonda As you can clearly see, CPU-Z says I have 16GB of PC2-5300 RAM installed. For some reason in both BIOS and in Windows the maximum usable RAM is 12GB instead of 16GB. I have a dedicated video card connnected, so it can't be stealing RAM to use for the GPU (the S5000XVN does not have any onboard video). I am running Windows Server 2008 R2 x64 as the primary OS - so there should not be a memory limitation imposed on me from the OS. Has anyone experienced this before? Any ideas on how I can actually use all 16GB of RAM? I plan on using this machine to use for a Hyper-V server and have x2 Quad Core Xeon CPUs on the way as I write this post.

    Read the article

  • Cant install KB 980368 "The update is not applicable to your computer"

    - by JK01
    I'm trying to install KB 980368 A update is available that enables certain IIS 7.0 or IIS 7.5 handlers to handle requests whose URLs do not end with a period on a new Windows 2008 R2 server, but no matter which of the download packages I try, they all say "The update is not applicable to your computer" I have Windows 2008 R2 Standard on an Intel Xeon E5520. I need that KB to have extenstionless URLs in ASP.NET MVC2. How can I fix this?

    Read the article

  • Is it better to have more small ram chips or fewer large ones?

    - by Alex Andronov
    I am currently building a new server. I have options between say 32GB Memory for 2 CPUs, DDR3, 1066MHz (8x4GB Dual Ranked RDIMMs) and 36GB Memory for 2 CPUs, DDR3, 1066MHz (18x2GB Dual Ranked RDIMMs) Both at the same price. Should I go for the higher ram amount or the fewer chips? This will be for a Dell PowerEdge R710 with two Intel® Xeon® E5530, 2.4Ghz, 8MB Cache, 5.86 GT/s QPI, Turbo, HT Thanks

    Read the article

  • Does VMware ESX Fault Tolerance (FT) support depend on the CPU only?

    - by user71784
    I'm trying to find out whether VMware ESX 4.x Fault Tolerance (FT) is supported on a particular server and VMware's HCL is confusing me. It says that some servers with FT-supported processors (specifically the Xeon 3400 Lynnfield) do not support FT and some with almost identical specs (same chipset for instance) do support FT. Could this be a mistake on the HCL itself? To my understanding FT support is based only on the CPU. Thanks. RC

    Read the article

  • Solaris continuera à supporter les processeurs Xeon d'Intel, son responsable dévoile les premiers éléments du prochain update

    Solaris continuera à supporter les processeurs Xeon d'Intel Le responsable de la plateforme chez Oracle dévoile les premiers éléments du prochain update De passage à Paris, le responsable de Solaris chez Oracle - Joost Pronk - a confirmé que l'OS « au coeur de la stratégie des nouveaux systèmes intégrés (Exadata, Exalogic et SPARC SuperCluster...), en partant des disques jusqu'aux applications » continuerait à être développé pour être compatible aussi bien avec SPARC qu'avec les processeurs d'Intel. « Peu importe ce que l'on vous raconte, ou ce que vous lisez ou ce que vous entendrez ailleurs, moi je vous le dis, Solaris supportera SPARC et les Xeon d'Intel », assure le port...

    Read the article

  • Small web server hardware advice

    - by Dmitri
    We need to build a new web server for our organization. We have around 100 hundred small traffic web sites, so our hardware requirements are not too tough. We run CentOS 6, Varnish+Apache, PHP, MySQL, Typo3 CMS for most of websites. Here's a hardware we want to buy: SuperMicro X9SCA-F-O (we need to have a remote management capability) (or better X9SCM-F?) Intel Xeon E3-1220 v2 2*4Gb DDR-III 1600MHz Kingston ECC (KVR16E11/4) (currently we have 4gb, and it feels like enough, so no reason for 16gb yet). Procase EB140-B-0 (1 unit) PSU 350W Procase MG1350, Active PFC We already have: Intel 335 120GB SSD (for OS, databases and important websites). 2*2tb WD Green RAID1 (for other data and backups). Does it look like a reasonable choice for our needs? Any issues with hardware compatibility? Any other notes?

    Read the article

  • No dual cpu support for VirtualBox with a CPU that doesn't support multicore?

    - by djangofan
    With VMWare it works fine and I can run multiple cores on a VMWare image. With Sun VirtualBox I can only run 1 cpu on a image. Its annoying. Why does Sun Virtualbox not work the same as VMWare in this respect?? My CPU is: XEON 3.00GHz Intel 90nm 2MBCache QUAD CPU x14 Socket 604 mPGA Family 15 Model 4(04) Stepping 3 Revision 05 MMX SSE3 XD SIV.exe tells me: No virtual machine extensions x86 with 64-bit support NO IA64 support MPS but with NO MCP 2 physical processors, 2 cores, 4 logical processors

    Read the article

  • Intel Server Board S3420GP fails to boot with video connected

    - by Riley
    All, Building a new system using an Intel Server Board S3420GP motherboard and an Intel Xeon X3440 processor. Before installing this motherboard into the chassis we want to test that it will actually boot correctly. We have mounted the processor and RAM with no hard drives attached. The boot sequence differs between the next variable: 1) Connecting video results in the system fans ramp up and down, twice, and then the system beeps with the same behavior repeating; the system status light shows "Amber" 2) With no video, the system goes through POST and the diag LEDs show that the system is missing a bootable device Need some assistance identifying why the board would fail to POST with video connected. // Update // Using another Power Supply the system gets passed the fans ramping up and down twice. Video still does not display.

    Read the article

  • Buyers question: Have intel AES-NI already been integrated in IPSEC stacks?

    - by deploymonkey
    Dear serverfault, I need to decide between deploying Opteron 6100 and Xeon Westmere EP, so I regard this a platform question. If not, it may be moved to stackoverflow and I hereby declare that I am very sorry. Do any (F)OSS or proprietory IPSEC stacks already use the AES-NI functions of the Westmere-EP? Thanks a bundle! ps. If anyone would like to create the tag AES-NI, You're welcome. I couldn't due to lack of rep.

    Read the article

  • Windows XP + PAE + 6GB RAM: See more than 3.5GB?

    - by nonot1
    Firstly let me say I've seen a number of similar questions on SuperUser, and I don't think this is a duplicate. (Most address 4GB RAM installed. I have 6GB) I have Windows XP 32-bit running on a i7-based Xeon system with 6GB of RAM. I only see 3.5GB of RAM in Windows. Is there any way to squeeze more visible RAM out of this set up? Even an extra 1GB would be great. Does having 6GB (vs 4GB) of RAM installed help at all? (I.e Even if I loose the 3.5-4.0 GB region, can I use the area above it?) P.S. Will eventually move to Windows 7 64-bit, but can't for now.

    Read the article

  • Lenovo ThinkServer TS130 1105 - does 32/64 depend on RAM?

    - by Ecnerwal
    Just got in a Lenovo ThinkServer TS130 1105 (Xeon E3-1225V1) and a (new, sealed, holographed, looks legit) copy of Windows Server 2008 32/64 (standard) to run on it for a pretty lightweight job (currently handled, adequately, by a terrifyingly old Optima P4 running Windows 2000 server - really lightweight, but long-past-due for replacement, without any particular need or excuse for server 2012...) The 64 bit disc sits there and does nothing. The 32 bit disc boots. I haven't spotted any mention of this in the TS130 Manual (I have now combed it, and find no mention of a need to populate in pairs - a preferred order to populate in, yes, but no mention of pairs being required) but I begin to wonder if it's due to the fact that the 4GB RAM suppled with it was a single DIMM, rather than a pair. Better for upgrading, but perhaps requiring an upgrade (or sidegrade) right away to install the x64 version?? Anyone know? I tried the 64-bit DVD on a desktop with an AMD Athlon II X4 635 processor which normally runs Windows7 in 64 bit, and it booted up just fine.

    Read the article

  • why i7-860 is two times slower than E3-1220?

    - by javapowered
    I have financical trading software. It decodes fast/fix messages. I'm running same binaries on two different machines on very similar set of data. Software receive "messages" and decodes them. The general rule - longer message takes more time to decode: i7-860, Windows 7: Debug 18:23:48.8047325 count=51 decoding take microseconds = 300 Debug 18:23:49.7287854 count=53 decoding take microseconds = 349 Debug 18:23:49.7397860 count=110 decoding take microseconds = 516 Debug 18:23:49.7497866 count=92 decoding take microseconds = 512 Debug 18:23:49.7597872 count=49 decoding take microseconds = 267 Debug 18:23:49.7717878 count=194 decoding take microseconds = 823 Debug 18:23:49.7797883 count=49 decoding take microseconds = 296 Debug 18:23:49.7997894 count=50 decoding take microseconds = 299 Debug 18:23:50.7328428 count=101 decoding take microseconds = 583 Debug 18:23:50.7418433 count=42 decoding take microseconds = 281 Debug 18:23:50.7538440 count=151 decoding take microseconds = 764 Debug 18:23:50.7618445 count=57 decoding take microseconds = 279 Debug 18:23:50.7738452 count=122 decoding take microseconds = 712 Debug 18:23:50.8028468 count=52 decoding take microseconds = 281 Debug 18:23:51.7389004 count=137 decoding take microseconds = 696 Debug 18:23:51.7499010 count=100 decoding take microseconds = 485 Debug 18:23:51.7689021 count=185 decoding take microseconds = 872 Debug 18:23:51.8079043 count=49 decoding take microseconds = 315 Debug 18:23:52.7349573 count=90 decoding take microseconds = 532 Debug 18:23:52.7439578 count=53 decoding take microseconds = 277 Debug 18:23:52.7539584 count=134 decoding take microseconds = 623 Debug 18:23:52.7629589 count=47 decoding take microseconds = 294 Debug 18:23:52.7749596 count=198 decoding take microseconds = 868 Debug 18:23:52.8039613 count=52 decoding take microseconds = 291 Debug 18:23:53.7400148 count=132 decoding take microseconds = 666 Debug 18:23:53.7480153 count=81 decoding take microseconds = 430 Debug 18:23:53.7570158 count=49 decoding take microseconds = 301 Debug 18:23:53.7710166 count=156 decoding take microseconds = 752 Debug 18:23:53.7770169 count=45 decoding take microseconds = 270 Debug 18:23:54.7350717 count=108 decoding take microseconds = 578 Debug 18:23:54.7430722 count=52 decoding take microseconds = 286 Debug 18:23:54.7540728 count=138 decoding take microseconds = 567 Debug 18:23:54.7760741 count=160 decoding take microseconds = 753 Debug 18:23:54.8030756 count=53 decoding take microseconds = 292 Debug 18:23:55.7411293 count=110 decoding take microseconds = 629 Debug 18:23:55.7481297 count=48 decoding take microseconds = 294 Debug 18:23:55.7591303 count=84 decoding take microseconds = 386 Debug 18:23:55.7701309 count=90 decoding take microseconds = 484 Debug 18:23:55.7801315 count=120 decoding take microseconds = 527 Debug 18:23:55.8101332 count=53 decoding take microseconds = 290 Debug 18:23:56.7341861 count=121 decoding take microseconds = 667 Debug 18:23:56.7421865 count=53 decoding take microseconds = 293 Debug 18:23:56.7531872 count=127 decoding take microseconds = 586 Debug 18:23:56.7621877 count=58 decoding take microseconds = 306 Debug 18:23:56.7751884 count=138 decoding take microseconds = 649 Debug 18:23:56.8021900 count=53 decoding take microseconds = 288 Debug 18:23:57.7392436 count=139 decoding take microseconds = 699 Debug 18:23:57.7502442 count=121 decoding take microseconds = 548 Debug 18:23:57.7582446 count=61 decoding take microseconds = 301 Debug 18:23:57.7692453 count=98 decoding take microseconds = 500 Debug 18:23:57.7792458 count=94 decoding take microseconds = 460 Debug 18:23:57.8092476 count=41 decoding take microseconds = 274 Xeon E3-1220, Windows Server 2008 R2 foundation: Debug 18:28:57.5087967 count=117 decoding take microseconds = 255 Debug 18:28:57.5087967 count=85 decoding take microseconds = 187 Debug 18:28:57.5087967 count=55 decoding take microseconds = 155 Debug 18:28:57.5243967 count=86 decoding take microseconds = 189 Debug 18:28:57.5243967 count=53 decoding take microseconds = 139 Debug 18:28:57.5243967 count=52 decoding take microseconds = 153 Debug 18:28:57.5243967 count=55 decoding take microseconds = 146 Debug 18:28:57.5243967 count=103 decoding take microseconds = 239 Debug 18:28:57.5243967 count=83 decoding take microseconds = 182 Debug 18:28:57.5243967 count=85 decoding take microseconds = 180 Debug 18:28:57.5243967 count=80 decoding take microseconds = 202 Debug 18:28:57.5243967 count=58 decoding take microseconds = 135 Debug 18:28:57.5243967 count=55 decoding take microseconds = 140 Debug 18:28:57.5243967 count=81 decoding take microseconds = 183 Debug 18:28:57.5243967 count=74 decoding take microseconds = 172 Debug 18:28:57.5243967 count=80 decoding take microseconds = 174 Debug 18:28:57.5243967 count=88 decoding take microseconds = 175 Debug 18:28:57.5243967 count=55 decoding take microseconds = 131 Debug 18:28:57.5243967 count=80 decoding take microseconds = 182 Debug 18:28:57.5243967 count=80 decoding take microseconds = 183 Debug 18:28:57.5243967 count=101 decoding take microseconds = 231 Debug 18:28:57.5243967 count=58 decoding take microseconds = 134 Debug 18:28:57.5243967 count=57 decoding take microseconds = 126 Debug 18:28:57.5243967 count=57 decoding take microseconds = 134 Debug 18:28:57.5399967 count=115 decoding take microseconds = 234 Debug 18:28:57.5399967 count=106 decoding take microseconds = 225 Debug 18:28:57.5399967 count=108 decoding take microseconds = 241 Debug 18:28:57.5399967 count=84 decoding take microseconds = 177 Debug 18:28:57.5399967 count=54 decoding take microseconds = 141 Debug 18:28:57.5399967 count=84 decoding take microseconds = 186 Debug 18:28:57.5399967 count=82 decoding take microseconds = 184 Debug 18:28:57.5399967 count=82 decoding take microseconds = 179 Debug 18:28:57.5399967 count=56 decoding take microseconds = 133 Debug 18:28:57.5399967 count=57 decoding take microseconds = 127 Debug 18:28:57.5399967 count=82 decoding take microseconds = 185 Debug 18:28:57.5399967 count=76 decoding take microseconds = 178 Debug 18:28:57.5399967 count=82 decoding take microseconds = 184 Debug 18:28:57.5399967 count=54 decoding take microseconds = 139 Debug 18:28:57.5399967 count=54 decoding take microseconds = 137 Debug 18:28:57.5399967 count=81 decoding take microseconds = 184 Debug 18:28:57.5399967 count=136 decoding take microseconds = 275 Debug 18:28:57.5399967 count=55 decoding take microseconds = 138 Debug 18:28:57.5555968 count=52 decoding take microseconds = 140 Debug 18:28:57.5555968 count=53 decoding take microseconds = 136 Debug 18:28:57.5555968 count=54 decoding take microseconds = 139 Debug 18:28:57.5555968 count=55 decoding take microseconds = 138 Debug 18:28:57.5555968 count=57 decoding take microseconds = 134 Debug 18:28:57.5555968 count=53 decoding take microseconds = 136 Debug 18:28:57.5555968 count=80 decoding take microseconds = 174 Debug 18:28:57.5555968 count=74 decoding take microseconds = 175 Debug 18:28:57.5555968 count=57 decoding take microseconds = 133 Debug 18:28:57.5555968 count=57 decoding take microseconds = 149 Debug 18:28:57.5555968 count=100 decoding take microseconds = 262 Debug 18:28:57.5555968 count=56 decoding take microseconds = 156 Debug 18:28:57.5555968 count=55 decoding take microseconds = 165 From this test I see that E3-1220 is almost two times faster than i7-860. Is that possible? Because in the processors ratings these processors are about the same. Is it possible that this is because of cache or something? And if so which processor I better to buy to decode messages two more times faster?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >