Depends on what xeon models you are talking about, they can have varied
architectures.
The 3/5/7000 series xeons are based on the same architecture as the core 2
with more cache.
The 3.2Ghz xeon noncona's i use on my fixed dynamips system at home are
essentially 64 bit prescott
P4s with more cache (I havent been home since november, so no point in
upgrading)
I use a 2.33 core 2 in my laptop and run dynamips on that.
Really there are so many generations and varients of xeon that there is
little i can say that would be
applicable to your question.
There are some generalisations i can make.
Xeons are always based on a consumer architecture (e.g. Xeon Noncona = P4
Prescott,
Xeon Paxville = PD Smithfield, Xeon Woodcrest = Core 2 Duo (Conroe) ) and
they inherit
mostly the performance and characteristics of the consumer arch on which
they are based.
Modern Xeons are basically dual/multi processor intact (on the consumer
versions this is forced disabled)
with extra cache (cache is expensive) and maybe a different pinout to help
(force) you to buy a
new motherboard with one of the expensive intel workstation chipsets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeon should explain the
differences best.
As to the choice.... your quad core consumer chip is really two core 2 duos
packaged together.
It will be cheaper, use less power, be more reliable, not force you to buy a
chipset/motherboard combo
you dont want or need for 5 times the price of a consumer board with the
same features as far as your use goes,
run at a higher fsb speed than any but the quad core xeon due to it being a
kentsfield chip giving a slight bump in performance.
In short there are plenty of reasons to go quad-core instead of xeon, and
unless you are building a dual
quad-core xeon rig (if you are tell me who pays you that much so i can
replace you ;) ) there is really
no reason to go xeon unless you like the logo and big bills.
Regards,
Noel
On 6/11/07, Niche <jackyliu419@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Noel,
>
> Just asking,
>
> 1. Intel Quad Core CPU
> 2. Dual-Core Xeon x 2
>
> I know it's hard to do a direct comparison but let pick the closest
> match for clock rate of the CPU for both setup. Which one will going
> to provide the best performance? I was told by one of my friend that
> Setup 2 will win.
>
> Cheers~
> Jacky
>
> > Quoting Noel Bourke <cros13@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > Core 2, no question. I'm simplifying a bit here
> > with my explanation of why, and glossing over
> > quite a few issues.
> >
> > Core 2 is a "four wide" architecture, meaning that
> > it can issue four instructions per clock cycle.
> > All of AMD's products are "3 wide". Predictability
> > of instructions is crucial here to gain maximum
> > benefit.
> >
> > Also due to the that emulation generates quite
> > predictable instructions, dynamips benefits from a
> > longer pipeline. This gives the core 2's 14-stage
> > an advantage over the AMD 12-stage. Its also the
> > reason why the 31-stage p4 (netburst) did so well
> > with binary patching (e.g. VMware) and
> > architecture emulation (e.g. PearPC).
> >
> > The Core2's dynamically allocated shared cache
> > also helps. More cache can be used by a core
> > running a dynamips process which is under greater
> > load (e.g. emulating say a hub router, or a router
> > running more protocols than the others). AMD has
> > the hypertransport bus and onboard memory
> > controller which is not as decisive an advantage
> > as the core 2 cache.
> >
> > A dynamips can also be aware of data loaded to the
> > cache by a process running on the other core which
> > with a static image file like the ios image You
> > are using with dynamips can reduce the amount of
> > times the process has to access the drastically
> > slower main memory.
> >
> > So to simplify a bit further, say your dynamips
> > process on one core is running though the section
> > of the ios image to send an ospf hello. 1.3
> > seconds later another dynamips process running on
> > the other core has to send a hello too, your AMD
> > has to take a comparatively long commute to the
> > memory controller (yes even though the memory
> > controller is onboard its still further then the
> > cache), and then an epic transcontinental journey
> > to main memory. For all it cares your other cpu
> > cores cache could be in siberia instead of right
> > beside it on the die, its not even aware of its
> > existence let alone contents. The AMD will
> > probably have half or less cache then the core 2
> > regardless.
> >
> > OK enough on the CPU. Core 2 it is then.
> >
> > RAM....uhuh....ok....go for the fastest you can
> > get (PC5200+). no manufacturer or retailer i know
> > of tells you any more specifics, such as timings
> > so ignore the rest.
> >
> > As to amount of RAM....errr i'm going to say this
> > later but any 32 bit OS is limited to 4GB of
> > memory (excluding PAE but that isent relevant as 4
> > GB 'aint the major barrier. On windows memory is
> > handled pretty awfully. what happen when you have4
> > gigs of memory is say for example on 32bit XP,
> > each process is essentially limited to 1.8 gb.
> >
> > Last point, don't run dynamips on windows. Its
> > running not quite natively on an architecture
> > which bears little resemblence to the robust unix
> > box it was designed for, which happens to have
> > awful memory management, a bolted on network
> > stack, pitiful management of multiple processors
> > and multithreading that grinds to a halt when
> > under load. thats not microsoft-bashing, windows
> > is severely structurally flawed due to the bolting
> > on of not just features but entire concepts (like
> > multi-user and networking), both apply to
> > dynamips.
> >
> > Linux will run daynamips with the same configs
> > 10-20% faster on any processor. and it won't
> > become unusable at 100% cpu usage because
> > processes are pretty much forced to play nice.
> >
> > If you are voluntarily using dynamips on vista i'd
> > call the nice doctors in the white coats or you
> > could get a job far enough away from computers
> > that you cant hurt them anymore.
> >
> > Do
> > - use any 64bit distro of linux,
> > - do download the source code from the dynamips site,
> > - do compile using
> > gcc 3.2+ using cpu specific optimisation
> > and the -O3 option for threading,
> > - do set your idle-pc correctly.
> >
> > I emulate up to 24 7200s simultaneously here on my
> > laptop (2.33Ghz Core 2, 4GB Ram).
> >
> > Apologies for the quasi-religous ferver.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Noel Bourke
> >
> > On 6/9/07, Con Spathas <con@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Check out http://7200emu.hacki.at/
> > >
> > > This question has been asked many times there!
> > >
> > > Cheers...
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of
> > > lalit gupta
> > > Sent: Saturday, 9 June 2007 08:19
> > > To: Cisco certification
> > > Subject: Maximum number of instances on dynamips/dynagen.u
> > > I am planning to buy a laptop for running maximum number of
instances on
> > > dynamips/dynagen.
> > >
> > > Which configuration will you geniuses recommend.
> > >
> > > 1) AMD 64-bit process 2GHz
> > > 2 GB RAM
> > > or
> > > 2) Core 2 Duo processor 2 GHz
> > > 2 GB RAM
> > >
> > > Also will it help if I increase the RAM further more.
> > >
> > > Please if you can given any more information which will be
useful please
> > > don't hesitate to reply.....
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > lalit
> > >
> > >
_______________________________________________________________________
> > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> > >
> > >
_______________________________________________________________________
> > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> >
_______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> >
_______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
