Talk:Xeon

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)

Ambiguous, confusing or condradictory language

Intel claims the 7300 series Xeons offer more than twice the performance and more than three times the performance per watt as Intel's previous generation 7100 series.

More than twice and more than three times? please can someone clarify this, or just remove it entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.17.220 (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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/

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)

In additional to all the biblical beget, beget...
Is the CPU model the same a Intel X86? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGerman (talk • contribs) 00:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:IntelXeonMac.png

Image:IntelXeonMac.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:XeonpIII.PNG

Image:XeonpIII.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Xeon logo.gif

Image:Xeon logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

TDP - Thermal Design Power

I think ist already has become quite important how much energy a CPU consumes. So let us add this information to the article.

Harpertown is Quad-Core

The old source table from Toms Hardware is obviously incorrect and obsolete, Harpertowns are quad-core Xeons. The intro part http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeon#Harpertown should be rewritten.

Ambiguous language

Under Conroe "Unlike most Xeon processors, they only support single-CPU operation" and Kentsfield "Like the 3000-series, these models only support single-CPU operation"

This is highly ambiguous: whats "a single CPU" Is it half of a dual core die? A dual core die (in a quad core package)? All four processors in a quad processor package? Could someone who knows what is what please disambiguate. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.21.6 (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It means they can only be used with one processor in the system; they do not support multi-socket usage. It has nothing to do with the number of dies. — Aluvus t/c 07:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Harpertown" performance discrepancy

The technology website TG Daily claims that the X5355 (2.66 GHz "Clovertown") can sustain 50-60 GFLOPS, and Intel's official site indeed confirms that the X5355 can perform up to 63.5 GFLOPS. (FLOPS ratings are often meaningless since the processor's actual performance depends on the application, so we can assume that these values are theoretical peaks.) Since none of these sources mention dual-processor systems, it would be safe to assume that these figures refer to single processors. However, AMD's "Barcelona" series is supposedly faster than the "Clovertown" series, although slower than Intel's 45 nm "Harpertown" processors.

The Inquirer reports that two X5482 (3.2 GHz "Harpertown") processors are able to perform 80-100 GFLOPS, implying that each X5482 can only sustain about 50 GFLOPS at most. The X5482 is supposed to be much faster than the X5355, but the results show otherwise.

But then again, the benchmarks were done on pre-production processors, which may not have been fully optimized. More details will probably become available once the "Harpertown" series is officially launched in about seven weeks from now.

In any case, should we note this discrepancy in the article? --Ixfd64 21:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've learned that the 63.5 GFLOPS figure was referring to dual-processor systems. I guess that this question is now redundant. --Ixfd64 10:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:IntelXeonMac.png

Image:IntelXeonMac.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Quad core

On some of the newest xeon models, like the 45 nm versions, the article doesn't say if these are true quad-core processors or 2x2 packaging. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonPMitchell (talk • contribs) 00:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Intel even makes a single die more-than-2-core processor. I had a quick look trying to find such info on their site and Google, but nothing definite yet. (I don't think they do... well, except for that 80-core monster)  ;) Does anyone know for sure either way? UnRheal (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Intel's first "true" quad-core parts will be part of the Nehalem line. Until then, their quad-core processors are multi-core module (MCM) parts. — Aluvus t/c 03:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Xeon 7400 Series RAM Discrepancy

Someone added that the Dunnington chips will support DDR2-1066 and then put (266 MHz) afterwards. I am a little confused by this though as DDR stands for DOUBLE Data Rate and is not Quad Pumped like the Processors are for their FSB So if it truly supports DDR2-1066 that would be (533 MHz) and if it is truly 266 MHz that would be DDR2-533.

also, Penryn-based chips don't use an onboard memory controller like the upcoming Nehalem will, so to say the Processor supports a certain RAM speed seems to me to be wrong. In this case it would be the chipset (Caneland) that either supports that speed or doesn't. However the RAM Speed should be faster than the Proc speed (or 1:1 at least) so we wouldn't even NEED DDR2-1066 (533x2) unless the processor was running at 1600Mhz FSB or faster (400x4)

Would someone please research (namely the author) and correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.240.243.170 (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Xbox emulator?

As far as i know Xeon is the name of X-Box emulator for PC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.200.175.237 (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You must be thinking of Xenon (processor) 195.212.29.171 (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No, there actually is an Xbox emulator called (confusingly enough) "Xeon" [5]. Letdorf (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC).

Bloomfield Xeons and non-ECC-memory

I read, that the bloomfield-Xeons support ECC-memory. But do they also support non-ECC-memory? --MrBurns (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

New Xeon 2009 logo

I think the logos here will be better than the corrent 2009 logo on this page: http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/xeon/5500series/index.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenh123 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Duplication of Lists, Infobox consistency

Most of the sections in Xeon have a list of processors that contains a subset of the data from List of Intel Xeon microprocessors, but often that information is out of sync. I'd suggest removing the Lists in this article and adding pointers to the respective sections in the more detailed article.

On a related topic, some processors in here have their own Infoboxes, while older ones don't. I think each one should have an infobox for consistency, except for those that need separate articles that come with their own infoboxes, e.g. Lynnfield (microprocessor).

This would look something like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xeon&oldid=313193790#Dual-Core_Xeon, which renders a bit funny because of all the Infoboxes. Should we do that anyway? Any better ideas? Arndbergmann (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

ordering

right now afaict the core 2 based xeons and the Nehalem based ones are mixed in together, should we seperate them out as for each previous major generation?