8-Core Intel Xeon 'V8" Sneak Peek - Dual Quads - HotHardware
8-Core Intel Xeon 'V8" Sneak Peek - Dual Quads

8-Core Intel Xeon 'V8" Sneak Peek - Dual Quads

Back in January at this year's Consumer Electronics Show, Intel was showing off a rig in their booth dubbed the "V8". It was essentially a dual-socket workstation platform outfitted with a pair of quad-core Xeon processors for a total of eight cores - hence the 'V8'. In their demo, Intel ran the CPU benchmark built into 3DMark06 and as was evident in the signage over the rig, proudly boasted that it was capable of a CPU score of 6,089 points.  Today we've actually got the parts in house to assemble a similar rig, but ours is configured with considerably more powerful hardware... 

  small_xeons_5.JPG  small_xeons_6.JPG

small_xeons_7.JPG   small_xeons_9.JPG  small_xeon_setup.jpg

What you're looking at here is one of Intel's workstation-class S5000XVN dual-socket motherboards, coupled to a pair of Xeon X5365 processors, 4GB of Samsung DDR2-667 FBDIMMs, and a GeForce 8800 GTX. The motherboard is based on Intel's 5000X chipset and the processors are clocked at 3.0GHz a piece, riding on a 1.33GHz front side bus. We did some preliminary testing on this rig and wanted to share some of the juicy details with you before our full article is complete.  These tests were run on Windows XP Professional SP2, with the latest Intel chipset and NVIDIA Forceware graphics drivers installed.

small_san_cpu.jpg    small_san_mm.jpg   small_san_mem.jpg
SiSoft SANDRA XI SP1 - CPU, Multimedia, and Memory Bandwidth Benchmarks
Quad-Core Intel Xeon X5365 x 2, 4GB FBDIMM 667, GeForce 8800 GTX



If you flip through the SiSoft SANDRA screenshots above you see just how much raw horsepower is lurking under this rig's hood. The Processor Arithmetic and Multimedia benchmark scores are more than double those of a Core 2 Duo QX6800.  And the Memory Bandwidth benchmark reported maximum bandwidth scores in the neighborhood of 4GB/s, which is low by today's standards and about 1GB/s off the mark set by the QX6800.

We also ran a default 3DMark06 test and a multi-threaded Cinebench v9.5 benchmark on this rig and were thoroughly impressed. The overall 3Dmark06 score was 13,002 (SM2.0=5,104 / HDR & SM3.0=4,932); the CPU score was 6,556 - almost 500 points higher than the rig Intel was showing off at CES.  And the rig completed the Cinebench rendering pass in only 10 seconds, which is about 4-5 seconds faster then a quad-core Core 2 Extreme QX6800.

We'll be doing more extensive testing in our full evaluation, but couldn't resist putting up some of these images and benchmark scores to whet all of your appetites. A rig like this is probably outside the realm of what most enthusiasts think about when designing their own systems, but Content Creation and Multimedia Production professionals would be chomping at the bit for this puppy. 

+ -

dayum! i'm looking forward to the article! 8-)

+ -

OK this thing is fast, no doubt, but what's going to sepperate this from just building a dually xeon?

Also, with the growing trend of people moving towards laptops as a complete replacement for desktops, do you see multiple CPU sockets as having a permanent place in high-end rigs from here on out; Chances are good laptops won't be going dual socket any time soon :D

+ -

In the future, do not link to images using a weird script, it prevents people from middle clicking to open the images in new tabs. Thanks!

+ -

I am having a MacPro modified to run Vista. So far the testing suggests no problem with installing Vista and eliminating the Mac OS entirely.

We are still testing it.

Only minor issue so far is that the DVD drive does not have a button on it to open and close the drive. So we added an icon on the screen to do that. (Needed to do this since we are tossing out the Apple keyboard.)

It will be interesting to see if the speed varies from the test bench marks in this article.

+ -

Hello, yes great stuff ... looking into it for my own company, yet:

couldn't help but gawk at the third test (third picture) for the memory ... it seems the results for this Beast is maybe half of some other AMD platform.

what's up with that?

I mean, would this mean that maybe with 16GB of memory this XeonBeast would have better results thant this other AMD??

Also with many programs being able to manipulate the data directly from RAM, doesn't this mean that the other AMD would actually perform comparable/maybe-better??

When I say AMD I mean the second option for the SiSoft third test, for memory the one in GB/s where the Xeon seems to fall short. It's a bit of a mystery to me ... can someone care to enlight??

many thanks,

Login or Register to Comment
Post a Comment