Talk:Xeon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does the language in this page seen a little weird to you? --

I hoped to find floating-point performance information. In particular what FP operations are pipelined + no. of cycles per operation, no. of FP units operating concurrently. From this page you wouldn't even know the damn thing had floating-point units... --Gantlord 01:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Next Dual core DP Xeon : I think the most probable name is Clovertown (not Cloverton) I got the info from The Inquirer (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27192) and other Intel IDF info: > DP Xeon Processors : > Dempsey launch Q1’06 > - 2 core, HT, 3/4 GHz > Woodcrest launch Q4’06 > - 2 core, no HT, 3+GHz > Clovertown launch in 1H’07 > - 4 core, no HT, Frequency TBD User:ABACA 19:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] What's "MP"?

Sorry, perhaps I'm too silly, but I can't work out what "MP" stands for. Multi Processor? ie. more than two ("DP" seems to stand for dual-processor). I've been reading the page over and over and it's actually not explained. Also www.intel.com don't explain what the MP is, everyone talks about it, but no one explains the acronym. All the boards I saw had two sockets, so how do you run more than two?

you run a quad xeon system using a quad xeon board e.g. http://www.excaliberpc.com/Supermicro_P4QH8_Quad_Xeon_Motherboard/P4QH8/partinfo-id-550111.html they are pretty specilist item though and afaict also require a specialist case.
look here for an explanation of MP: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/277/

[edit] more general info please

Hi everyone. The current article is pretty heavy on technical details. That's certainly a good thing, but I think it could do with some more general information, which can be readily understood by more people. I'm thinking along the lines of: "What are advantages/disadvantages of the Xeon processor compared to other architectures?" "Why use a Xeon, and not a P4/Athlon/whatever, for a certain task?" "What are Xeons usually used for, and why?"
--BjKa 15:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Most is actually covered in the intro though it could possiblly be made more clear. Basically they are used in high end servers where either more processors are required than normal CPUs will support (i belive the standard desktop P4 doesn't even support dual proccesor setups!) or where the extra cache is considered a significant enough advantage to make the price premium worthwhile. And finally ofc i'm sure they get used a lot in situations where the customer has more money than sense. Plugwash 01:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sossaman *NOT* based on Yonah

Intel themselves [1] states that Sossaman is based on the Pentium 4 M, *NOT* the Pentium M, which means that Sossaman is a NetBurst part, not a P6 part. I'm changing this, based on the above reference. Ehurtley 07:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, slap a dog and call me silly. Apparently Sossaman is indeed based on Yonah. [2] [3]. After reverting back to my own edit, I've gone and re-reverted it to state it Yonah-ness. Ehurtley 20:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sossaman is NOT the only Xeon to be released as Xeon LV

Other Xeons are also released as Xeon LV. Why should Sossaman have special treatment? Jgp 16:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

To elaborate, there are LV versions of the Prestonia, Nocona, and Irwindale Xeons, as well as an MV Irwindale. Their is no column on the table for voltage. Marking Sossaman as LV while ignoring the LV/MV Prestonia, Nocona, and Irwindales creates a glaring inconsistency. Jgp 17:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Because it's the first and only Xeon with a Pentium M microarchitecture. Its section says "Dual-Core Xeon LV" to give it a name to distinguish it from other Xeons (that's the Intel name, without the "Intel", "processor", and "(R)" symbols); it is the first dual-core low-voltage Xeon, at least as I read the note on the Intel home page. Guy Harris 18:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Very well. However, for consistency's sake, I will also add the LV and MV single-core Xeons and I will change the names of the Paxville processors to "Dual-Core Xeon", which is what they are referred to on Intel's Xeon comparison page. Jgp 07:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I'm not angry at you over this issue or anything. The clipped tone of my first message was due to the fact that I had just woken up when I posted it, and didn't feel like typing something longer (which was probably a mistake, which is why I elaborated later). If there's anyone I'm angry at, it's Intel with their annoying and capricious naming schemes. Jgp 07:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Intel Xeon microprocessors

I've recently created a List of Intel Xeon microprocessors page in the same vein as the lists of AMD processors. I think there are enough Xeons that a list page is justified, and I've never been comfortable with the idea that AMD processors get list pages and Intel processors don't. Right now, it's a subpage of my user page as I'm considering it a work in progress. I'd also like to hear any thoughts/comments/concerns before I move it into the main namespace. Jgp 23:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything in the table on this page that's not also in the tables in List of Intel Xeon microprocessors? If not, perhaps the table here can be eliminated, as this page already points to List of Intel Xeon microprocessors; if so, should the stuff in this table that's not in List of Intel Xeon microprocessors be added to List of Intel Xeon microprocessors, and the table here eliminated? Guy Harris 23:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the MiB ?

MiB is for what ? For MegaByte? So it could be MeB. Or is it for "Million Byte"? MegaByte isn't equal to MillionByte. It is binary code. It means 2^20 which is 1024*1024. Usually writes MB for MegaByte, KB for KiloByte, GB for GigaByte ... etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.179.3.171 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 8 May 2006.

Mega means one million but in computer world it's 1024x1024 so it's Mebibyte (MiB). Similar with kilo (=1000) but computer likes to have 1024 so KiB. --Denniss 12:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a very confusing and pedantic way of expressing values derived from a base-2 system. It was invented by people who can't grasp that the same word can have different meanings in different contexts. jgp 15:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how it's confusing or pedantic—it's important to differentiate between 1000 bytes and 1024 bytes, especially as storage capacity increases. Saying, "Oh, this thing might mean this, and it might mean that, just figure out which one for yourself" is ridiculous. Mega means 1 million and mebi means 1 048 576. Not difficult, and certainly far less confusing than having the same scientific term mean two different things in two different contexts. After all, hard drive capacities use the decimal prefixes as a matter of convention. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Amazing how easily this problem is solved if the reader kindly clicks the linked text: MiB... -- uberpenguin @ 2006-05-19 16:21Z
To be fair, at the time it wasn't wikilinked. [4] —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing the table

Since List of Intel Xeon microprocessors exists, I'd like to propose deleting the huge table on this page, due to the redundancy of it and the fact that the list page is better-organised. Since it's a pretty big section, I'd like to get some consensus before I remove the table. Does anyone else think removing the table is a good idea? jgp 20:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea (and, in fact, thought so back in April - see above under "List of Intel Xeon microprocessors"). Guy Harris 21:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...must have missed that. I might as well be bold and get rid of the table... jgp 21:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3.0 GHz quad-core early?

Well, all speculation had the 3.0 GHz quad-core Xeon (5365) scheduled for release in June. Yet today Apple released an update of their Mac Pro with dual quad-core Xeons at 3.0 GHz. No other manufacturer shows this speed, and Intel doesn't show it anywhere. Is this an early special-to-Apple OEM release, or is it just Apple overclocking a 2.66 GHz chip? Ehurtley 21:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a special release. Apple got the goods. --71.36.251.182 17:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../x/e/o/Talk%7EXeon_8e55.html"