Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Woodcrest Fails to Impress

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 24, 2006 1:07:50 AM

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
May 24, 2006 1:12:23 AM

The review has already been posted. How can it fail to impress when it actually wins with ease, unlike the dual core turion. :wink:
May 24, 2006 1:23:54 AM

Quote:
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_powe...
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
May 24, 2006 1:27:19 AM

Does guiness have some kind of world record for ignorance? If so, I nominate 9-inch.
May 24, 2006 1:29:42 AM

Quote:
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:
May 24, 2006 1:30:16 AM

Damn 9-inch....share some psychedelic drugs with us.... :cry: 
May 24, 2006 2:03:31 AM

Quote:
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_powe...


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:
May 24, 2006 2:24:40 AM

Quote:
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.
May 24, 2006 2:27:02 AM

Quote:
Yikes. Very impressive.


I rest my case.
May 24, 2006 2:36:30 AM

Quote:
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:
May 24, 2006 2:37:32 AM

Quote:
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:  .
May 24, 2006 2:42:55 AM

Quote:
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.
May 24, 2006 2:55:35 AM

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:
May 24, 2006 3:14:53 AM

haha and check this out:


woodcrest fails to impress. right on, buddy.
May 24, 2006 3:25:04 AM

Quote:
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.

May 24, 2006 3:28:26 AM

Quote:
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_powe...

:o 
May 24, 2006 3:34:17 AM

Quote:
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_powe...


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.
May 24, 2006 3:35:07 AM

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.
May 24, 2006 3:38:12 AM

Quote:
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.



Word.
a c 478 à CPUs
a c 117 å Intel
May 24, 2006 3:43:41 AM

Quote:
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.
May 24, 2006 3:48:00 AM

Notice 9-Inch doesn't have anything left to say...
May 24, 2006 6:07:09 AM

Quote:
9-inch has been hacked down to 3-inch
:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  pwnt by someone with 2 posts. Sorry 9inch read the material twice before sticking your :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  foot on your keyboard
May 24, 2006 6:32:41 AM

Thank you for your rare insight on this issue 9nm. How come you didn't post it as rettihsllub?
May 24, 2006 6:38:01 AM

If I was going to post a picture it'd be a sock puppet. It seems to be pissing off everyone so yeah.
May 24, 2006 6:42:45 AM

Quote:
If I was going to post a picture it'd be a sock puppet. It seems to be pissing off everyone so yeah.


I was thinking more along the lines of a picture of a Wingnut. :wink:
May 24, 2006 6:46:20 AM

I dont understand!
So, they say the opty is using 4 gigs of ram, in 8 dimms. How do they do that on that board? Imean it only has six slots
May 24, 2006 6:54:14 AM

if there was any doubt 9-inch wasn't horribly biased and completely ignorant, those doubt can now be cast aside with this amazing topic. the only thing missing is the caps (thank goodness that's gone).

when he himself posts a link to woodcrest beating an opteron system in basically every test (or is it every test?), and then claims it "struggles" to "keep up", that's just.. incredible.

on the other hand.

this woodcrest system is 400mhz faster than the opteron, and considering how much it beat the opteron system by, some things don't seem quite right.

why does conroe beat out athlon x2 systems by so much at lower clocks when woodcrest doesn't seem to be as impressive? why is intel making such bold statements (woodcrest is 60% faster than opteron) when if those numbers don't match up when woodcrest is released they'll be making fools of themselves.

the power consumption levels are the most impressive thing imo. very impressive actually. but other than that, even though it's faster, it's not as fast as I would have expected. on the other hand, I'm somewhat still waiting for an anandtech review to see somthing more in-depth.
May 24, 2006 6:58:03 AM

Quote:
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 a wanker.
What a shame? What sort of pathetic call is that.
Who gives 2 shits about who makes the CPU, as long as its decent.
The more pressure intel put on AMD and vice versa the better we can expect our CPUs to be, even if you hate intel, you should be hoping that they create high quality cpus. Without decent competition technoogy will stagnate.
May 24, 2006 7:24:45 AM

You should also remember that the power usage numbers for the 285 are on AMD's old process. They are releasing chips on the new process as we type. I'm pretty sure the socket F 285s will have a lower power usage than the woodcrest. Still, the Intel chip is running 400 mhz faster.
While I doubt the soon to be released 290 will catch the 3ghz woodcrest in single socket setups, it looks to pass it in many smp benches, when 2 chips are used.
May 24, 2006 12:02:50 PM

Quote:
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.



Word.

May 24, 2006 12:48:50 PM

Your life is pathetic, just die so that I can have more oxygen to breathe :lol: 

Actually... I really would like to see you one day, just to know what kind of person you must be. A pretty sick one I guess.

Just on a sidenote: Interpreting benchmarks clearly won by Intel as a "struggling to keep up with AMD" is the next state of your disease, consult a doctor for help.
May 24, 2006 12:58:33 PM

Quote:
Your life is pathetic, just die so that I can have more oxygen to breathe :lol: 

Actually... I really would like to see you one day, just to know what kind of person you must be. A pretty sick one I guess.

Just on a sidenote: Interpreting benchmarks clearly won by Intel as a "struggling to keep up with AMD" is the next state of your disease, consult a doctor for help.
Ycon how about when amd was winning server benchmarks and you were doing the same spitting your intel bull all over the place the forumz stink cause of your posts you know that everytime i read one of your pro intel posts you make me sick physically and mentally sick. You could'nt accept that k8 was owning prescott and cedarmill now that intel has conroe you think they will be on top always no they wont wait till k10 lets see what happens.Ycon one last word for you why do you come here and diss amd and everyone here who likes amd k8 huh why?
May 24, 2006 1:09:27 PM

Quote:

Ycon one last word for you why do you come here and diss amd and everyone here who likes amd k8 huh why?


Talk about dissing...Look at your Location:Beating up an Intel Fanboy

Right Now.

Occupation:beating up Intel fanboys.

Interests: Beating up Intel fanboys.

pic.....AMD Fanboys Unite.

And you really have the Gall to ask that. Your sig page is the most

immature on this whole site, what are you 15 years old?
May 24, 2006 1:12:26 PM

Fine i'll go change it to beating up mindless prescott fanboy's who can't accept that intel had it's as served to it on a platter by amd and it's k8.
May 24, 2006 1:54:48 PM

You guys went off the topic again... :lol: 
May 24, 2006 2:09:26 PM

Show me 1 post in which I said that Xeons kill Opterons and you will get a... err... cookie.
Youre also just wasting my oxygen :roll:
May 24, 2006 2:38:25 PM

Quote:
You guys went off the topic again... :lol: 
Sorry but he pisses me off!

Quote:
Show me 1 post in which I said that Xeons kill Opterons and you will get a... err... cookie.
Youre also just wasting my oxygen :roll:
I'll find it!
May 24, 2006 3:15:58 PM

I'm going back to my porn tree.... it's nearly mature, the moon laser is coming along a bit slower though.
May 24, 2006 5:10:41 PM

Quote:
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.



Word.





Then someone is lying because the TechReport article has Dual Opteron at 197W idle. Check it out. That's what I looked at.
May 24, 2006 6:37:08 PM

Quote:
Your life is pathetic, just die so that I can have more oxygen to breathe :lol: 

Actually... I really would like to see you one day, just to know what kind of person you must be. A pretty sick one I guess.

Just on a sidenote: Interpreting benchmarks clearly won by Intel as a "struggling to keep up with AMD" is the next state of your disease, consult a doctor for help.
Ycon how about when amd was winning server benchmarks and you were doing the same spitting your intel bull all over the place the forumz stink cause of your posts you know that everytime i read one of your pro intel posts you make me sick physically and mentally sick. You could'nt accept that k8 was owning prescott and cedarmill now that intel has conroe you think they will be on top always no they wont wait till k10 lets see what happens.Ycon one last word for you why do you come here and diss amd and everyone here who likes amd k8 huh why? Christ, it BURNS! Oh the pain of grammar so bad that you can hardly understand the message.
May 24, 2006 6:43:09 PM

Quote:
Your life is pathetic, just die so that I can have more oxygen to breathe :lol: 

Actually... I really would like to see you one day, just to know what kind of person you must be. A pretty sick one I guess.

Just on a sidenote: Interpreting benchmarks clearly won by Intel as a "struggling to keep up with AMD" is the next state of your disease, consult a doctor for help.
Ycon how about when amd was winning server benchmarks and you were doing the same spitting your intel bull all over the place the forumz stink cause of your posts you know that everytime i read one of your pro intel posts you make me sick physically and mentally sick. You could'nt accept that k8 was owning prescott and cedarmill now that intel has conroe you think they will be on top always no they wont wait till k10 lets see what happens.Ycon one last word for you why do you come here and diss amd and everyone here who likes amd k8 huh why? Christ, it BURNS! Oh the pain of grammar so bad that you can hardly understand the message. Caboose shut up before you get hurt.














Not by me but by someone else someone worse. :twisted:
May 24, 2006 9:58:38 PM

Quote:
Fine i'll go change it to beating up mindless prescott fanboy's who can't accept that intel had it's as served to it on a platter by amd and it's k8.
Geez....Thank you. I feel so honoured. A
reference to....ME? See, i'm not naive, i do have a prescott, and i DO
realize that INTEL dropped the ball with it. What i'm NOT is arrogant, and
immature. You have the nerve to rant about Fanboys, BUT you display
your Fanboyism for all to see. I doubt if you're "old" enough to know this
saying, but..."It's like the pot calling the kettle black". Maybe, when you
finish high school, get out in the REAL world, and start interacting with
non-hormone driven people, you may learn to settle down, grow up and
see that your "I AM GOD" attitude was realll silly. All it does is give you
a reason to post against every thought presented in here, to get a huge
post count, so that you can have an "ego building" saying like...eternal
poster, above your name....really.....4000 posts in 4 months. You are
either the father of technology, or more appropriately, you are like
another guy that got banned from here...MMM.... ring a bell? I hate to
have to be the one to tell you this, but....Your sh*t DOES stink.
May 24, 2006 10:05:39 PM

Quote:
Fine i'll go change it to beating up mindless prescott fanboy's who can't accept that intel had it's as served to it on a platter by amd and it's k8.
Geez....Thank you. I feel so honoured. A
reference to....ME? See, i'm not naive, i do have a prescott, and i DO
realize that INTEL dropped the ball with it. What i'm NOT is arrogant, and
immature. You have the nerve to rant about Fanboys, BUT you display
your Fanboyism for all to see. I doubt if you're "old" enough to know this
saying, but..."It's like the pot calling the kettle black". Maybe, when you
finish high school, get out in the REAL world, and start interacting with
non-hormone driven people, you may learn to settle down, grow up and
see that your "I AM GOD" attitude was realll silly. All it does is give you
a reason to post against every thought presented in here, to get a huge
post count, so that you can have an "ego building" saying like...eternal
poster, above your name....really.....4000 posts in 4 months. You are
either the father of technology, or more appropriately, you are like
another guy that got banned from here...MMM.... ring a bell? I hate to
have to be the one to tell you this, but....Your sh*t DOES stink. No not you i am talkin about Ycon!
May 25, 2006 12:08:53 AM

Quote:
If I was going to post a picture it'd be a sock puppet. It seems to be pissing off everyone so yeah.


It doesn't make me mad isn't that all that matters? :wink:
May 25, 2006 12:12:07 AM

Quote:
If I was going to post a picture it'd be a sock puppet. It seems to be pissing off everyone so yeah.


It doesn't make me mad isn't that all that matters? :wink:


Word :wink:
May 25, 2006 2:57:32 AM

Quote:
on the other hand.

this woodcrest system is 400mhz faster than the opteron, and considering how much it beat the opteron system by, some things don't seem quite right.

why does conroe beat out athlon x2 systems by so much at lower clocks when woodcrest doesn't seem to be as impressive?


Thank the Lord that someone got the message. 8)
May 25, 2006 3:07:12 AM

Quote:
Fine i'll go change it to beating up mindless prescott fanboy's who can't accept that intel had it's as served to it on a platter by amd and it's k8.
Geez....Thank you. I feel so honoured. A
reference to....ME? See, i'm not naive, i do have a prescott, and i DO
realize that INTEL dropped the ball with it. What i'm NOT is arrogant, and
immature. You have the nerve to rant about Fanboys, BUT you display
your Fanboyism for all to see. I doubt if you're "old" enough to know this
saying, but..."It's like the pot calling the kettle black". Maybe, when you
finish high school, get out in the REAL world, and start interacting with
non-hormone driven people, you may learn to settle down, grow up and
see that your "I AM GOD" attitude was realll silly. All it does is give you
a reason to post against every thought presented in here, to get a huge
post count, so that you can have an "ego building" saying like...eternal
poster, above your name....really.....4000 posts in 4 months. You are
either the father of technology, or more appropriately, you are like
another guy that got banned from here...MMM.... ring a bell? I hate to
have to be the one to tell you this, but....Your sh*t DOES stink. No not you i am talkin about Ycon! Hey piddy, you dumbass, YOU MADE OVER 200 GOD DAMNED POSTS TODAY, get a fcuking life.
May 25, 2006 4:32:18 AM

Quote:
Then someone is lying because the TechReport article has Dual Opteron at 197W idle. Check it out. That's what I looked at.


Nobody is lying. Comparing anything between two articles from two different sites are stupid.

Even the programs used to stress the system could be different. The systems may use slightly different components. Load, doesn't mean its at full load possible, I am sure none of the reviews out there is not even going close to the power virus, which is the real limit.
May 25, 2006 4:46:32 AM

In regards to power consumption, there is something clearly wrong with the Opteron numbers. Most likely it is just an honest mistake, but it can't be right. Unless we are to assume that (minus PS inefficiencies) the Opteron takes 113 watts idle? That's more than the AMD-reported TDP under load.

Obviously the Woodcrest is more power efficient, but the 2x Opteron idle load is just wrong.

Clearly, a mistake was somehow made. There is no other logical explanation for it.
May 25, 2006 5:43:56 AM

Quote:
on the other hand.

this woodcrest system is 400mhz faster than the opteron, and considering how much it beat the opteron system by, some things don't seem quite right.

why does conroe beat out athlon x2 systems by so much at lower clocks when woodcrest doesn't seem to be as impressive?


Thank the Lord that someone got the message. 8)

I'm not agreeing with your garbage comments. I'm simply stating that although it's a good chip, and better by the looks of it than the opteron's (minus the hypertransport), it's not as impressive as I think it was made out to be.
!