The Intel Conroe is 49% faster than AMD FX60

Well, if you where wondering what to purchase when Intel's Conroe chip is released, have a read of this.... The first CPU being released on with the new Conroe core is the server product 'Woodcrest', aka Xeon 5100. Official benchmarks for this CPU have appeared on the net and they make for interesting reading tbh. The following results are direct from www.tpc.org...

Dual CPU Intel Conroe system (HP ML370 G5) scores 169,360 TPM

Dual CPU AMD Opteron 285 (aka Athlon FX60) (HP DL385) scores 113,628 TPM

So there you have it folks, in an official benchmark that’s recognised by the industry to be 100% pukka, the Conroe is 49% faster than the fastest currently available AMD CPU!!!!!

Anyone out there still thinking of purchasing an AMD CPU any time soon...

Troll. There are too many unknown factors like mem timings northbridge to cpu response time etc etc.

The Hyundai Sonata comes with a 10 year/100,000 mile warranty whereas the Volkswagen Golf only comes with a 4 year/48,000 mile warranty.

What does this have to do with the subject of this thread? Absolutely nothing. Why? Because this is another flame starting BS thread.

I know let's compare apples to oranges...or how about cats and dogs...maybe even smooth or chunky peanut butter...

huh what are you on... I post a hard fact base comparison of a 3GHz Conroe and an AMD FX60 and you all go bonkers! OK I admit memory etc may have some effect on the result, but not 49%... And if anything the Intel CPU is more castrated byt he memory it is using by being based on a super high latency FB DIMM system....

Yo fanboi

My mom told me that if I can't say something nice, i shouldn't say anything at all.

My dad told me that if I don't know what I'm talking about, to STFU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8O

I suggest you follow the second.

i like chunky peanut butter, apples are best and i think cats are better than dogs. The VW's are always a rip off and aren't as great as people think they are.

He was merely stating that the first post is inaccurate with the subject of his post.

How about when k7 crushed prescott?

K8l and z-ram.

Spoke to my HP reseller and he said I can have one delivered at the start of July, so the release date is wrong. As to the price, whenever they do the TPM benchmarks they go silly on disk IO thus making sure it is not a bottleneck, the end result is near pure CPU performance, so don't read anything into the price.

If they can't get the release date right and go spending three time as much on HDDs as the actual cost of the machine itself, why would the benchmarks and performance/price be an accurate representation of the CPU processing power under a standard use (what PCs and workstations are used for 99% of the time) ? Seems to me that they're benching ridiculously expensive storage systems here, not CPUs.

So, what you're saying boils down to : "Hey ! Look how fast this Woodcrest is when you spend 350K on 22 Petabytes worth of storage to run a test that simulate a workload that only an infinestimal fraction of computers will ever see", we're light years away from real world performance under typical loads and HDD configurations.

Regardless, I'm more impressed with the storage arrays here, it's obvious that the CPU/MEM/Mobo are not the focus as far as this test is concerned.

Yes my xp3200 can own my cuz's northwood up to 2.6 ghz and it can own a prescott up to 3.0ghz!(socket 478)

..or maybe a good politician :!:

TPC-H isn't that important, you can tell from the limited number of submissions. TPC-C is more important, and with Woodcrest, Intel-based systems will own 2S to go along with the lead that current Xeon MPs already have from 4S-16S.

The HP ML570 is a Netburst Xeon based platform. There aren't any Woodcrest scores for TPC-H, the OP was referring to TPC-C.

huh what are you on... I post a hard fact base comparison of a 3GHz Conroe and an AMD FX60 and you all go bonkers! OK I admit memory etc may have some effect on the result, but not 49%... And if anything the Intel CPU is more castrated byt he memory it is using by being based on a super high latency FB DIMM system....

I should be asking you what you're on...hard based facts...hahahahaha!!!! Your "hard based facts" have already been discussed in more than a few threads...that's okay tho, I don't mind beating a dead horse...

Are you an Idiot? "Woodcrest", aka Xeon 5100 This Is'nt Conroe. Woodcrest is "server " and Conroe is "desktop" and Memrom is "Mobile"
Their Different Products. And an Opteron 285 is'nt a FX-60 their chips have been manufactured differently for diffrent porpuses With same Core and Arctectures. God get your Woodcrest and Conroe facts straight. OMG! bump this post it's completely stating false information from "jamesgoddard"s part atleast and it's just Intel fan boy ignorance

They are all based off Core2 though.

So just whip out the lotion and leave us to our SLOW AMD chips. Everyone knows that Woodcrest may help in 1 and 2 way, but AMD still owns 4-8way TPC-H. MAybe you should look at the Netburst Xeon vs. Opteron in Apache and MySQL. Opteron won by 4X in alot of cases so I'll wait for all the server benchmarks before I applaud Intel.

In some cases it takes 4 Xeons to beat 2 Opterons. I hope Intel makes it interesting but you are one of Otellinis girlfriends the way you talk.

Read this and tell me if they really caught up.

Opteron Power

Who says Core2 can't be used in 4way-8way servers? Intel did'nt say it but cause of the bus it probably can't.

I finally went to tpc.org - you screwed up the url BTW. And it says that Woodcrest only wins at 100GB databases. The regular Xeon is barely winning at 300GB 8Way. I guess we'll see soon what the DDR2 can do for Opteron. Servers love bandwidth.

Problem is the K8 isn't bandwidth starved so neither is the Opteron.


If you check the comprehensive reviews at Toms and Anand you will see that The FX62 does scale with increased bandwidth. It doesn't matter if the chip is "starved" it matters what kind of bandwidth the application can generate a need for. You can easily see that the faster RAM (higher BW) does get a nice increase over lower speed.

QFT !

The dependance of this benchmark on storage systems is quite obvious, 15 to 20 Petabytes (400+ SCSI HDDs and countless RAID Controllers) worth half a million dollars, hard to see how TMPs can relate to real world use.

I think they are referring to servers.... not pc's.....

Yeah, I did read the topic.... the guy was a clown, the topic was about Conroe.... but the post was about woodcrest and opterons..... so.... yes I did read it... unless I am missing something else.

Even thought you were talking about Conroe, you are still right, in most cases. There are some very expensive servers which are sold in the world. But most don't spend that kind of money. I was just pointing out it was about Woodcrest and Opteron more than anything else. It's cool man.... no probs.

No problem at all.... I am really just here to learn things, so I normally only respond when I disagree or have something useful to add.... normally. We all make that mistake.... I know I have, hell, after your post, I thought I did it again.... it's all good.....

I think you will find that this is the benchmark fraud perpetrated by Intel, allegedly. If you read the "Full Disclosure Report", you will see that the AMD system was running 32bit OS and 32bit SQL!! The Intel system, by their own admission, was running 64bit OS and 64 bit SQL!! You can go to the Intel site and see that they have now AMENDED their disclosure to show the true configuration of the AMD system. You should also note that the Intel system had 64GB of RAM versus 32GB for the AMD system!!
In flagrante delicto!!!


http://www.intel.com/performance/s [...] tabase.htm

Shame on intel. :x

I think you will find that this is the benchmark fraud perpetrated by Intel, allegedly. If you read the "Full Disclosure Report", you will see that the AMD system was running 32bit OS and 32bit SQL!! The Intel system, by their own admission, was running 64bit OS and 64 bit SQL!! You can go to the Intel site and see that they have now AMENDED their disclosure to show the true configuration of the AMD system. You should also note that the Intel system had 64GB of RAM versus 32GB for the AMD system!!
In flagrante delicto!!!


http://www.intel.com/performance/s [...] tabase.htm

Shame on you Intel! You've truly sunk lower than *that B@stard Iago(from Othello)

Ohh the humanity....