What's the difference between Xeon DP and MP?
douq
for 4-way or higer servers. But besides this, is there any other
difference between them ? And does Itanium has DP and MP version ?
If I have a 4-way Xeon server which only has 2 Xeon MP installed,
can I install 2 Xeon DP processors in this system ?
Thanks!
John Dallman
do...@sina.com (douq) wrote:
> And does Itanium has DP and MP version ?
Not at present.
---
John Dallman j...@cix.co.uk
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a
well-rigged demo"
Wes Felter
do...@sina.com wrote on 7/20/03 12:39 AM:
> I know Xeon DP is for 2-way servers and workstations, and Xeon MP is
> for 4-way or higer servers. But besides this, is there any other
> difference between them ?
The Xeon MP has more cache (2MB vs. 1MB), a slower bus (400MHz vs. 533MHz)
and costs about $2000 more.
> If I have a 4-way Xeon server which only has 2 Xeon MP installed,
> can I install 2 Xeon DP processors in this system ?
Of course not; that would defeat the whole purpose of Intel's artificial
market segmentation.
Wes Felter - wes...@felter.org - http://felter.org/wesley/
douq
> in article 90f97c55.03071...@posting.google.com, douq at
> do...@sina.com wrote on 7/20/03 12:39 AM:
>
> > I know Xeon DP is for 2-way servers and workstations, and Xeon MP is
> > for 4-way or higer servers. But besides this, is there any other
> > difference between them ?
>
> The Xeon MP has more cache (2MB vs. 1MB), a slower bus (400MHz vs. 533MHz)
> and costs about $2000 more.
then why does MP cost too more than DP?
John Dallman
do...@sina.com (douq) wrote:
> > The Xeon MP has more cache (2MB vs. 1MB), a slower bus (400MHz vs.
> > 533MHz) and costs about $2000 more.
>
> then why does MP cost too more than DP?
It's called "Market Segmentation". The innards of the chips are very
similar. But the Xeon MP has extra pins (or pins connected up) so that it
can handle more than two-way multiprocessing, and since customers seem
willing to pay more per CPU for four- or eight-way multiprocessors, Intel
are willing to take their money.
The slower bus and larger cache are, to be fair, better for many-way
multi-processing. But the costs of production of the chips are only very
distantly related to their prices. Before you get upset, that's the case
for almost all chips. The development costs are huge, but the incremental
costs of making more copies are quite small. So chip companies are forced
to use some degree of "artificial" pricing to stay in business.
I preferred Intel's approach in the Pentium II/III days, when all chips
would do two-way SMP, and there was only one level of "Xeon", which did
many-way multiprocessing. But very few people bought dual-processor
machines, and those that were sold were almost all servers, so Intel
decided - as far as I can see - to make multiprocessing a differentiator
for "server" processors, for which they charge more money.
douq
Now I see. Thank you for all your replies.