Intel Woodcrest Performance Claim a Fraud

[9-inch]

HA HA. Once again Intel playing nasty with benchmarks.

Intel setup a web page showing TPC-C result of Woodcrest comparing to that of an Opteron. The 3GHZ Woodcrest server with 64GB FB-DIMM memory was running Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise x64 Edition, Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Enterprise x64 Edition. It achieved a score of 169,360 tpmC, $2.93/tpmC. The Woodcrest machine will be available by November 22, 2006.

In comparison, Intel gave the following details of an AMD system:
"Dual-Core AMD Opteron* Processor Model 285 based platform details: HP Proliant DL385 G1* server platform with two Dual-Core AMD Opteron* processor 2.60GHz, 32GB memory, Microsoft Windows Server* 2003 Enterprise x64 Edition, Microsoft SQL Server* 2005 Enterprise x64 Edition. Referenced as published at 113,628 tpmC; $2.99/tpmC; Availability Date as listed in the submitted report is May 5, 2006. Results at http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=106032001"

If you go to the executive summary of the HP DL385 at the TPC-C site, you can see that the Opteron machine was running Windows Server 2003 Enterprise x86 Edition SP1 and Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Enterprise (x86) Edition SP1. These are 32 bit versions of Windows Server 2003 and SQL server 2005. If you have any doubt on the OS and SQL server used, read the full disclosure of the DL385 TPC-C results. If it was a 64 bit OS, you would see information on WindowsSysWoW64, but on the HP DL385 page, you only find WindowsSystem32. So, the HP DL385 was running in very inefficient 32 bit PAE mode.

We all know that AMD beats intel in 64-bit performance. There's no need to repeat it again.

Woodcrest Performance a Fraud

 

[Action_Man]

That fanboy has already posted it.

 

[Caboose-1]

HA HA. Once again Intel playing nasty with benchmarks.

Intel setup a web page showing TPC-C result of Woodcrest comparing to that of an Opteron. The 3GHZ Woodcrest server with 64GB FB-DIMM memory was running Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise x64 Edition, Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Enterprise x64 Edition. It achieved a score of 169,360 tpmC, $2.93/tpmC. The Woodcrest machine will be available by November 22, 2006.

In comparison, Intel gave the following details of an AMD system:
"Dual-Core AMD Opteron* Processor Model 285 based platform details: HP Proliant DL385 G1* server platform with two Dual-Core AMD Opteron* processor 2.60GHz, 32GB memory, Microsoft Windows Server* 2003 Enterprise x64 Edition, Microsoft SQL Server* 2005 Enterprise x64 Edition. Referenced as published at 113,628 tpmC; $2.99/tpmC; Availability Date as listed in the submitted report is May 5, 2006. Results at http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=106032001"

If you go to the executive summary of the HP DL385 at the TPC-C site, you can see that the Opteron machine was running Windows Server 2003 Enterprise x86 Edition SP1 and Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Enterprise (x86) Edition SP1. These are 32 bit versions of Windows Server 2003 and SQL server 2005. If you have any doubt on the OS and SQL server used, read the full disclosure of the DL385 TPC-C results. If it was a 64 bit OS, you would see information on WindowsSysWoW64, but on the HP DL385 page, you only find WindowsSystem32. So, the HP DL385 was running in very inefficient 32 bit PAE mode.

We all know that AMD beats intel in 64-bit performance. There's no need to repeat it again.

Woodcrest Performance a Fraud If "we," know it already, why did you post it again? :?

 

[gr8mikey]

Ah damn! Not this sh!t again. :x

 

[sepheronx]

I see 9inch is grasping at straws here, so he is low enough to get detail from blogs. Ouch.

 

[Caboose-1]

Aye Jack, aye.

 

[7H4_D00D3]

Shiraoaboobbwbooooobbbooooo

Are you casting a curse upon someone?

BTW, do you notice that he has a link to MMM blogspot? xDxD

 

[7H4_D00D3]

MMM was odd indeed, he yelled (well....called you a troll) even if you agreed with him or tried to make a joke......

It's called alprazolam..........xD


BTW, what ever happenned to yur Intel Vs AMD comparison posts?

 

[luminaris]

Well, first of all, this Sharikou guy has already been proven to be nothing but extremely AMD biased which I don't agree with. That said, it's very obvious he 's going to do nothing but make false claims against Intel. If your gonna do for one, you gotta do for all. AMD hasn't been perfect by any means in their past and we're not harping on those facts. The thing is, Intel hasn't even released these processors yet which just absolutely amazes me that anyone would sit around and do nothing better than pick on a company for basically a "typo".

Secondly, although currently AMD may beat Intel in 64 bit mode, we don't know how well AMD will do in 64 bit mode against Intels new processors. It's all speculation so give it a rest.