Well, a rather lame effort by Intel on generating performance results for a new product,
(Good product => no funding for performance work?)

1 TPC-C result, 2 QC 3.16GHz X5460 at 273,666 tpm-C
(Oracle/Linux) vs 251,300 for 2x x5365 3.0GHz (SQL/Win)
Some SPEC CPU rates, no SPEC CPU, no TPC-H,
didn't check the other results on Intels web site

this is the X5460 on the old 5000P chipset, not the new 5400 Seaburg, forget the IPC gains, I would have expected more than 8.9% on 5% freq from the cache alone,

Joe Chang (jchang6@Xyahoo.com) on 11/11/07 wrote:
---------------------------
>Considering that between the Xeon X5355 2.66GHz, Xeon 7140 (3.4GHz NetBurst) and the Opteron DC 2.8GHz
>the Core 2 based X5355 has the best SPEC CPU 2006 int
>for 8 core TPC-C & H results (2xX5355, 4x7140, & 4x Opt)
>the 7140 has the best TPC-C (30% over Core2)
>the Opteron has the best TPC-H by about 10% over Core2
>
>Considering the TPC-C results aimed at best performance (as opposed to price-performance)
>typically run at 175-200 IOPS per data disk, then the 528 disks in the X5355 241K
>TPC-C result is probably on the order of 100K IOPS, at 8KB per IOP, makes for 800MB/s,
>which is not really heavy for the 5000P chipset.
>
>I am not sure what is limiting in TPC-H, as I do not have a recent generation perfmon log,
>but look at the HP ML370G5 result with X5355,
>6 P800 SAS RAID controllers, 25 SAS disk on each controller.
>You can get about 800MB/sec from a single first gen SAS RAID controller. There
>was an Intel/LSI Logic press announcement claiming 3GB/s IO from a system with the
>5000P chipset. I think the reference system has 1x8 and 3x4 PCI-E slots. The ML370G5
>with 6x4 PCI-E might be able to do more.
>
>The new Seaburg chipset is listed as capable of 44 PCI-E (gen 1) lanes, so this could allow for 10 x4 PCI-E slots,
>so I think this could benefit TPC-H
>
>It is clear that TPC-C is more influenced by cache size.
>Hence the weakest CPU (in terms of SPEC CPU int) had the best TPC-C by a huge amount with the help of the 16M L3,
>TPC-C is also helped by HT, which is not a factor in TPC-H or SPEC CPU
>
>Anyways, hopefully we will have published TPC-C & H results this coming week to scrutinize
>
>Marcin Dalecki (martin@dalecki.de) on 11/11/07 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>For a DB load the cache snoop handling should have no really noticable impact.
>>Those loads tend to pin tasks to particular CPUs anyway and tend to be IO bound
>>- and there you will gain the most from the huge improvement on PCI throughput availibity.
>>Depending on how you stuff your system with IO subsystems this could have an overallimpact
>>even on the order of hunderd of percents. And then of course remember that you can staff more RAM in to the system.
>