Woodcrest Fails to Impress

iterations

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2006
428
0
18,780
Tech Report was able to preview the Woodcrest chip vs an Opteron 285 processor. Intel's processor struggles to keep up with AMD's 2.6GHz dual core processor. What a shame. :roll:
Still, I'm clueless why some people do still believe that Intel will regain the 2-way server space since it will face socket F with DDR-2 memory and higher speeds.

http://www.techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=2

you are tough to impress, considering in the link you provided Woodcrest wins every single benchmark by a large amount and the dual socket Woodcrest server uses less energy under full load than the dual socket Opteron system does at idle.

http://www.2cpu.com/images/review/052306_woodcrest_power.gif
 

9-inch

Distinguished
Feb 15, 2006
722
0
18,980
Tech Report was able to preview the Woodcrest chip vs an Opteron 285 processor. Intel's processor struggles to keep up with AMD's 2.6GHz dual core processor. What a shame. :roll:
Still, I'm clueless why some people do still believe that Intel will regain the 2-way server space since it will face socket F with DDR-2 memory and higher speeds.

http://www.techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=2

you are tough to impress, considering in the link you provided Woodcrest wins every single benchmark by a large amount and the dual socket Woodcrest server uses less energy under full load than the dual socket Operton system does at idle.

Yeah, sure. 3GHz wodcrest vs a 2.6GHs Opteron. What a great victory considering that the margin is considerably small between all the benchmarks. :roll:
 

BaronMatrix

Splendid
Dec 14, 2005
6,655
0
25,790
Tech Report was able to preview the Woodcrest chip vs an Opteron 285 processor. Intel's processor struggles to keep up with AMD's 2.6GHz dual core processor. What a shame. :roll:
Still, I'm clueless why some people do still believe that Intel will regain the 2-way server space since it will face socket F with DDR-2 memory and higher speeds.

http://www.techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=2

you are tough to impress, considering in the link you provided Woodcrest wins every single benchmark by a large amount and the dual socket Woodcrest server uses less energy under full load than the dual socket Opteron system does at idle.

http://www.2cpu.com/images/review/052306_woodcrest_power.gif


OK, the win but your statment about power is false. At idle w/no power mgmt Opteron is at 197. Your comparing load with ONE Woodcrest at 189. They don't show single Opteron power.

Some of those wins are staggering, though. And they are ONLY 400 MHz faster. Impressive. I'd like to see MySql and Apache though. That's where the Opteron shows even bigger distances between Xeon.

Anyway, everybody whip out the lotion. :wink:
 

DavidC1

Distinguished
May 18, 2006
493
67
18,860
OK, the win but your statment about power is false. At idle w/no power mgmt Opteron is at 197. Your comparing load with ONE Woodcrest at 189. They don't show single Opteron power.

Woodcrest on the review don't even have DBS enabled. EIST on the 6xx series, which were actually a crappy version of the Pentium M's EIST, enabled significant power reduction over the 5xx with no EIST. Woodcrest, being derived from the CPU with best power management, will have SUBSTANTIAL reductions with DBS. Making his assumptions, true.
 

1Tanker

Splendid
Apr 28, 2006
4,645
1
22,780
Tech Report was able to preview the Woodcrest chip vs an Opteron 285 processor. Intel's processor struggles to keep up with AMD's 2.6GHz dual core processor. What a shame. :roll:
Still, I'm clueless why some people do still believe that Intel will regain the 2-way server space since it will face socket F with DDR-2 memory and higher speeds.

http://www.techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=2


Can you say." Thick As A Brick". :roll:
 

Caboose-1

Distinguished
Mar 5, 2006
1,864
0
19,780
Tech Report was able to preview the Woodcrest chip vs an Opteron 285 processor. Intel's processor struggles to keep up with AMD's 2.6GHz dual core processor. What a shame. :roll:
Still, I'm clueless why some people do still believe that Intel will regain the 2-way server space since it will face socket F with DDR-2 memory and higher speeds.

http://www.techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=2

you are tough to impress, considering in the link you provided Woodcrest wins every single benchmark by a large amount and the dual socket Woodcrest server uses less energy under full load than the dual socket Operton system does at idle.

Yeah, sure. 3GHz wodcrest vs a 2.6GHs Opteron. What a great victory considering that the margin is considerably small between all the benchmarks. :roll: I find it odd that you bring up clock speed, since all of the AMD fanboys were touting their processors with lower clocks pounding Intel chips. Oh and are you blind? That Opteron got a spanking. It's not the margin, its the fact that it won out in almost all the tests. Sad day for the Opteron in my high end system :cry: .
 

qurious69ss

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2006
474
0
18,780
Tech Report was able to preview the Woodcrest chip vs an Opteron 285 processor. Intel's processor struggles to keep up with AMD's 2.6GHz dual core processor. What a shame. :roll:
Still, I'm clueless why some people do still believe that Intel will regain the 2-way server space since it will face socket F with DDR-2 memory and higher speeds.

http://www.techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=2

WTF? are you talking about. Congratulations....dumbass, you win the IDIOT OF THE BOARD award.
 

custompcz

Distinguished
Mar 3, 2006
158
0
18,680
Wow, another post by the fool who has the "Fails to Impress" Turdion X2 as an avatar. Unbelievable.
Do you really believe the propoganda bull$hit you post?
Does AMD pay you for your idiocy or reward you with CPU's?
Your PATHETIC. :roll:
 

djkrypplephite

Distinguished
May 15, 2006
302
0
18,780
haha and check this out:
052306_woodcrest_ss_cpu_mm.gif


woodcrest fails to impress. right on, buddy.
 

iterations

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2006
428
0
18,780
OK, the win but your statment about power is false. At idle w/no power mgmt Opteron is at 197. Your comparing load with ONE Woodcrest at 189. They don't show single Opteron power.
I appreciate that you will revise your stance in the face of direct evidence, which is better than many folks who post on this forum, but I think you misunderstood my statement about power.

I provided a direct link to the chart showing the data I was refering to. I assumed you looked at it since you quoted it. I'll expand it to a real image below for your review.

Dual Woodcrest Power Usage at full load x2: 248W
Dual Opteron Power Usage at idle x2: 255W

As I said, the Woodcrest system uses less power under full load than the Opteron system at idle.

052306_woodcrest_power.gif
 

spud

Distinguished
Feb 17, 2001
3,406
0
20,780
Tech Report was able to preview the Woodcrest chip vs an Opteron 285 processor. Intel's processor struggles to keep up with AMD's 2.6GHz dual core processor. What a shame. :roll:
Still, I'm clueless why some people do still believe that Intel will regain the 2-way server space since it will face socket F with DDR-2 memory and higher speeds.

http://www.techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=2

you are tough to impress, considering in the link you provided Woodcrest wins every single benchmark by a large amount and the dual socket Woodcrest server uses less energy under full load than the dual socket Opteron system does at idle.

http://www.2cpu.com/images/review/052306_woodcrest_power.gif

:eek:
 

spud

Distinguished
Feb 17, 2001
3,406
0
20,780
Tech Report was able to preview the Woodcrest chip vs an Opteron 285 processor. Intel's processor struggles to keep up with AMD's 2.6GHz dual core processor. What a shame. :roll:
Still, I'm clueless why some people do still believe that Intel will regain the 2-way server space since it will face socket F with DDR-2 memory and higher speeds.

http://www.techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=2

you are tough to impress, considering in the link you provided Woodcrest wins every single benchmark by a large amount and the dual socket Woodcrest server uses less energy under full load than the dual socket Opteron system does at idle.

http://www.2cpu.com/images/review/052306_woodcrest_power.gif


OK, the win but your statment about power is false. At idle w/no power mgmt Opteron is at 197. Your comparing load with ONE Woodcrest at 189. They don't show single Opteron power.

Some of those wins are staggering, though. And they are ONLY 400 MHz faster. Impressive. I'd like to see MySql and Apache though. That's where the Opteron shows even bigger distances between Xeon.

Anyway, everybody whip out the lotion. :wink:

Yes Netburst Xeon's were shameful, I would have to assume based off current Core2 machines seen to date the Xeon eqivilent will most likely be a repeat performance baseing it off current high end K8 machines.
 

the_vorlon

Distinguished
May 3, 2006
365
0
18,780
I hate to quote actual numbers, but there were 16 benchmarks in the quoted article..

Two of these (synthetic benchmarks) Woodcrest won by (obviously) absurd amount of 400+% and 200+%, but even after we toss these out, the Conroe won by an AVERAGE of 29%.

Sorry, but if 29% across the board is not a "clean kill" I don't know what is.
 

spud

Distinguished
Feb 17, 2001
3,406
0
20,780
OK, the win but your statment about power is false. At idle w/no power mgmt Opteron is at 197. Your comparing load with ONE Woodcrest at 189. They don't show single Opteron power.
I appreciate that you will revise your stance in the face of direct evidence, which is better than many folks who post on this forum, but I think you misunderstood my statement about power.

I provided a direct link to the chart showing the data I was refering to. I assumed you looked at it since you quoted it. I'll expand it to a real image below for your review.

Dual Woodcrest Power Usage at full load x2: 248W
Dual Opteron Power Usage at idle x2: 255W

As I said, the Woodcrest system uses less power under full load than the Opteron system at idle.

052306_woodcrest_power.gif


Word.
 
Tech Report was able to preview the Woodcrest chip vs an Opteron 285 processor. Intel's processor struggles to keep up with AMD's 2.6GHz dual core processor. What a shame. :roll:
Still, I'm clueless why some people do still believe that Intel will regain the 2-way server space since it will face socket F with DDR-2 memory and higher speeds.

http://www.techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=2

I fail to see why you are misrepresent data that clearly shows Woodcrest to be the better of the two CPUs.

I guess that is a weakness of any fanboy whether AMD or Intel, they fail so see the obvious, or cannot come to grips with reality and must lie to themselves and to other people so that the tiny little glass house they live in will not shatter all around them.