Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Woodcrest on the desktop

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 28, 2006 6:45:58 PM

[Only serious posts please]

So the woodcrest is based on the same architecture as Conroe, but it will have the 1333 FSB. The prices seem similar as well (Thanks to opteron). I understand the differences between desktop and server architecture, but I wonder if the woodcrest would be a competitor in the enthusiest market considering the large increase memory bandwith.

Besides, the woodcrest is slated to be on shelves sooner than Conroe.

Are there any real-world woodcrest benches out yet for Woodcrest?

More about : woodcrest desktop

May 28, 2006 7:13:22 PM

Theres no way you could use Woodcrest on a desktop Motherboard.
- Woodcrest uses the LGA771 Socket
- Woodcrest uses FB-DIMMs
May 29, 2006 10:21:38 PM

Quote:
Theres no way you could use Woodcrest on a desktop Motherboard.
- Woodcrest uses the LGA771 Socket
- Woodcrest uses FB-DIMMs


Of this I am aware. I'm talking about building a desktop based on the Woodcrest platform.

FB-DIMMs and SAS over PCIe. Sounds nice... I'd like to see some F.E.A.R. benches or something.
Related resources
May 29, 2006 11:13:13 PM

I am thinking about building a woodcrest based desktop but at the moment, there is no pci-e on the ATX sized boards and the prices are way too high ~600 for a board
May 30, 2006 12:47:20 AM

Woodcrest boards are meant for heavy duty industrial use. The die for the server mobo's are far tougher and more resistant to evil than desktop boards.

You don't need one of those in a desktop setup. . . that would be like buying an F-350 to cruise around town. Sure it's nice and all, but thats really not what it's meant for..
May 30, 2006 1:10:03 AM

Quote:
The die for the server mobo's are far tougher and more resistant to evil than desktop boards.
evil... :lol: 
May 30, 2006 8:36:21 AM

Quote:
So the woodcrest is based on the same architecture as Conroe, but it will have the 1333 FSB. The prices seem similar as well (Thanks to opteron). I understand the differences between desktop and server architecture, but I wonder if the woodcrest would be a competitor in the enthusiest market considering the large increase memory bandwith.


It won't necessarily be better for PC apps. The chipsets and motherboards on PCs are superior in performance to the workstation chipsets. I'd say you may not even see the FSB advantage. FB-DIMM should add to the disadvantage.

Remember, this is comparing FB-DIMM Woodcrest against NORMAL latency DDR2 RAM, meaning DDR2-667 at say, 5-5-5-15 latencies. Those people using 3-3-3-8 DDR2-800 are gonna take even greater hit.
a c 99 à CPUs
May 30, 2006 3:46:23 PM

I have seen a couple of LGA771 Woodcrest/Dempsey boards and they were both dual-socket and about $700. Dempsey processors are pretty inexpensive- you can get a DC Dempsey for a bit less than a single-core 90nm Irwindale of the same clock speed. I think that Intel will keep the price of the chipsets for Woodcrest high to keep the enthusiasts using the "Extreme Edition" type gear instead of heavy-duty server stuff.

Personally, my next computer will likely be a dual-proc workstation as that's the kind of work I do. I would have built one this time around except I had to buy a monitor and other stuff that I wouldn't need to when I upgrade as I went from a laptop to a desktop and I wanted not to kill the bank. The professional-level gear demands professional prices, unfortunately, and I hope that in a few of years that I can get a pair of fast quad-core chips, enough RAM, and a motherboard for $1200-1500 or so. THAT would certainly make a formidable workstation for me to use and speed up the compiles immensely as I can easily get gcc to peg both cores on my dual-core CPU today.
May 30, 2006 4:06:58 PM

Quote:
I have seen a couple of LGA771 Woodcrest/Dempsey boards and they were both dual-socket and about $700. Dempsey processors are pretty inexpensive- you can get a DC Dempsey for a bit less than a single-core 90nm Irwindale of the same clock speed. I think that Intel will keep the price of the chipsets for Woodcrest high to keep the enthusiasts using the "Extreme Edition" type gear instead of heavy-duty server stuff.


For CPU pricing, Woodcrest is actually lower in price than the Core Extreme. Woodcrest is $851 at 3.0GHz/1333MHz FSB, while Core Extreme is said to be $999 at 2.93GHz/1066MHz FSB.

That doesn't mean Woodcrest will be so much faster, since platform on Core 2 and Core Extreme is superior.

And yea, the boards cost more. Still, and intriguing option to those wanting SMP system based on Core.
May 30, 2006 7:29:55 PM

Quote:
That doesn't mean Woodcrest will be so much faster, since platform on Core 2 and Core Extreme is superior.


Woodcrest is based on the Core 2 platform, as far as I know. That's why I thought that the Woodcrest pricing was interesting. THe high-end woodcrest has specs a lot closer to what we originally thought the Core 2 EE was going to be, AND it's cheaper.

I bet the trade-off in 1066 vs 1333 FSB will more than compensate for longer latencies. That's a 25% boost in bandwidth. In fact, FB-DIMMs can read and write simultaneously, so they're not even playing in the same field.

As much as people scream over the Raptor series, you can get a 15k RPM SAS drive for $200 that would beat the pants off of a raptor. Granted it's only 36GB, but in a RAID 0 config, 70 GB is more than enough for the OS and your most intense games. Pro configs will have a seperate storage array for archives anyway.

PLUS, you can MP Woodcrest. Blackford will also support Clovertown, so once games go full-force SMP support, The extra core or 3 could really pay off in dividends. You could go Woodcrest now, and drop a clovertown in later. Now that's an upgrade path :-D

Woodcrest has the makings of a true champ. I'd really like to see how it performs in gaming...
May 30, 2006 8:57:44 PM

Quote:
It is not Intel's general style to let the higher end server parts circulate around the enthusiast circles -- it dilutes the brand and puts some downward pressure on the prices.

AMD is actually diverging it's server socket from the DT socket - but appears to be ready to support single socket workstations with AM2, so expect rev F opterons to again find their way into the hands of the MMM's of the world :)  ...

Reprinted from an earlier post:

The current data to date:

Knockout: Intel’s Woodcrest 3.0 GHz outclasses AMD’s Opteron
Intel Woodcrest Performance Preview
Core Microarchitecture Performance: Woodcrest Preview

Quotes

Given all this information, Woodcrest should outperform competing F-stepping Opterons (which should hit 2.8GHz, or maybe even 3.0GHz) by around 10-30% in most applications, when it arrives in June. The icing on the cake is a subject we have not even discussed: power and energy.
- Realworld Tech Linked Above


Quote:
AMD really can claim that, at least today, they have the best performance-per-watt in the workstation and server space. Apparently that really bothered Intel, and you can see that when Woodcrest hits the streets in a few months, things will all change.
- 2CPU.Com Linked Above

Quote:
In February 2006, Intel boasted that its upcoming processors with core architecture would be 20% faster than competitive products from its rival AMD. What seemed at the time to be a somewhat presumptuous claim has turned out to be true.
- Techchannel Linked above

Quote:
The reputed CPU2000 benchmark demonstrated that the 3.0 GHz Woodcrest is between 35% and 77% (base and rate) faster than the 3.46 GHz Xeon 5070. The Woodcrest’s superiority is impressive – not only for the CPU2000 benchmark suite. In other comparisons with cache-based rendering programs, audio decoding, or the extremely compute-intensive Linpack tests, the Woodcrest processor was 20% to 50% ahead of the next best competitor.
- Techchannel Linked above

The woodcrest will have a different socket, so if you were to build around this a system based on Woodcrest you would need big dollars for the MB.



HAs anyone else noticed that there are NO server tests for Woodcrest? I'm sure IT people aren't going to run Cinebench or 3DS Max all day. The last Xeon/Opteron article I saw was really embarassing for Intel and Woodcrest is NOT 200% faster at Apache than the Paxville.

Woocrest will not dominate Opteron like Conroe does X2/FX. I'm just waiting to see Apache tests before I give Woodcrest any pats on the back. I woul dhave to say that that was one of Dells reaosns for picking up 4Way. I don't see the 2Way doing much for them based on Apache/MySQL tests of Paxville.
!