OT: Non Mac - Budget Quad Clovertown

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by chelsel, Jun 19, 2007.

  1. chelsel macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    #1
    I was in the market for a mac pro but I was disappointed there was no update at WWDC... I will still get a Mac Pro sometime after it is inevitably updated... having said that, I was still in the market for a new workhorse... and this quad system met my needs perfectly (hardware raid, 2GB FB-DIMMs, E5310 quad core upgradeable with dual socket MB)... of course, this isn't a Mac... but for others that were drawn to the Mac Pro for its budget quad processing capabilities then take a look at this AMAZING Dell offer:

    http://www.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/pedge_sc1430?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd

    In case the offer is no longer available, it was a Quad Core Intel Xeon E5310 (Clovertown) 2x4MB Cache, 1.6GHz, 2GB RAM, 250GBx2 RAID-1 Hardware, crappy graphics, no firewire... for only $$$$$ 849.00+tax $$$$$$$

    I purchased one for use as a VMWare server and file server system and to give myself a taste of quad power while I wait for a Mac Pro update.

    Anyway, just thought I'd share this deal for others who might be in the market for a budget quad.

    Cliff
     
  2. Zwhaler macrumors 603

    Zwhaler

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    #2
    Wow, that is a very good price. But, it is a very wimpy clovertown :p Nice find though. I would buy one if I... wanted a PC. It is quite stripped down though, it doesn't even come with a CD drive. But those can be bought later cheaply.
     
  3. chelsel thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    #3
    From the horses mouth

    Check out page 6 of this PDF:

    http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reseller/asmo-na/eng/358131.htm

    The chart clearly shows the 1.6GHz quad-core E5310 beating the dual-core xeon 5160 & 5150...

    I grabbed the above PDF link from Intels processor comparison tool webpage at:

    http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reseller/asmo-na/eng/345648.htm

    Me thinks this indicates the Mac Pro line-up will go directly to Clovertown at the next update... and they'll probably keep the 4-core and 8-core but implement 4-core as a single chip...

    Anyway... I will be enjoying this quad-core goodness (on Windows/Linux) until Apple updates the Mac Pro :)

    Cliff.
     
  4. brandon6684 Guest

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    #4
    Those are certainly some good prices if you need a server or a no frills workstation, though not that great as a desktop.
     
  5. thagomizer macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    USA
    #5
    The chart shows a quad-core 1.6GHz processor beating a single dual-core 3.0GHz processor on a multithreaded app. However, all the Mac Pros have double dual-core 2.0, 2.66, or 3.0 processors. (or, of course, the double-quad 3.0). The chart doesn't show these, but the results for dual dual-core will be similar to a quad at the same speed.

    This is a multithreaded SPEC benchmark; it bears little resemblance to real-world performance on desktop applications. On any single or dual-threaded application, that quad-core 1.6 is going to be much slower than even a base model MacBook or iMac. Just wanted to point this out to anyone who might be thinking a Mac Pro is a bad deal -- it isn't.

    But yes, the machine you describe will make a decent multi-user server, and you can't beat the price.
     
  6. chelsel thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    #6
    Just to further clarify and educate on the differences between Woodcrest (current Mac Pro) and Clovertown (the future).

    These are PER chip comparisons... a single E5310 has 4 cores and is more powerful than a single 5150 or single 5160 which has 2 cores.

    Also, the single thread performance of Clovertown (E5310) can not be directly compared with Woodcrest because Clovertown executes FOUR instructions per clock cycle vs. THREE on Woodcrest. This is a 30% increase in performance right there (never mind the 2x bigger cache)... 30% makes a 1.6GHz work like a 2.0GHz... and that is PER core.

    Anyway, I think that Apple will do a better job convincing customers of the performance benefits... but only as soon as these chips appear in the Mac Pro :)
     

Share This Page