Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why hasn't Tom's put out a Woodcrest review?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 6, 2006 5:10:41 PM

They appear to have their hands on silicon based on their Woodcrest article from 6/26. Given this is a highly anticipated review, why would they be holding it back for so long?

Maybe I missed something. I've been checking the forums since the 26th and I haven't seen much except AMD vs. Intel banter.
July 6, 2006 5:54:03 PM

Quote:
They appear to have their hands on silicon based on their Woodcreat article from 6/26. Given this is a highly anticipated review, why would they be holding it back for so long?

Maybe I missed something. I've been checking the forums since the 26th and I haven't seen much except AMD vs. Intel banter.


This would be Shakaribooba's version: The Woodcrest is a very, very, very, very, very bad processor; performs worse than a K5, consumes 200W of power when idle, and cause BSODs frequently. And, the Tom's is a paid pumper of Intel's, and Intel is paying Toms a hundred thousand dollars every week to suppress the information. So, no review.

In reality, I think it could have something to do with some NDA. Or, lack availability of some parts.
July 6, 2006 6:43:00 PM

I am sick of reading about people mocking other people. This topic had nothing to do with Intel vs. AMD, it's about Woodcrest. We dont all come here to read the completely idiotic banter that has been going around. I've got nothing against you, mjp1618, or BaronMatrix, or anyone else; but can we please all act as if we at least know what professionalism is? If I want to hear namecalling I can go to any grade-school playground. Please just stop it all!!!

wade_44,
I've read that the NDA ended on June 4, 26, or 30 so I'm not exactly sure when the NDA expired. I believe the chips began selling June 26-27 and can be purchased today from several places. I too am wondering where the benchmarks are. I'd really like to see some, especially since the chips are available and we'd all like to know which chip works best. Usually every review site has a slew of benchmarks for the day the NDA ends and every forum is full of people commenting on the benchmarks. There have been a few "preview" benchmarks made, but since they are preview benchmarks I'm not sure if the chips and motherboards were shipping revisions or if the reviews were accurate. I assume they are, but it'd be nice to see a few articles with comparable benchmarks.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
July 6, 2006 6:55:27 PM

Quote:
I am sick of reading about people mocking other people. This topic had nothing to do with Intel vs. AMD, it's about Woodcrest. We dont all come here to read the completely idiotic banter that has been going around. I've got nothing against you, mjp1618, or Barometric, or anyone else; but can we please all act as if we at least know what professionalism is? If I want to hear namecalling I can go to any grade-school playground. Please just stop it all!!!


Could not agree more... but in truth, this post you are referring to is pretty benign, more in line with lighthearted humor... then last sentence is back on track closer to the truth...
So you obviously are referring to other posts at other times... so by posting this here and now, you are doing just what you are complaining about... If you dislike content of a post, best to ignore it, and not let it get under your skin, since often you end up victimizing yourself...
July 6, 2006 8:25:41 PM

Grimmy,
Thanks for your response. I had read that review, but I was disappointed because there were no direct becnhmark comparisons with Opteron.

The link to the discussion thread was helpful though.
July 6, 2006 11:53:23 PM

Quote:
Grimmy,
Thanks for your response. I had read that review, but I was disappointed because there were no direct becnhmark comparisons with Opteron.

The link to the discussion thread was helpful though.


They saw all the stupid post that happened on their forum about conroe, so they did not want to create another mess with Woodcrest.
July 7, 2006 12:17:36 AM

Go ask aaron he knows whats going on.
July 7, 2006 12:55:53 AM

How did I get in this conversation? All I do is post CPU news and people do exactly what you said.

I guess I should just turn the other cheek.
July 7, 2006 1:00:58 AM

Quote:
They appear to have their hands on silicon based on their Woodcrest article from 6/26. Given this is a highly anticipated review, why would they be holding it back for so long?

Maybe I missed something. I've been checking the forums since the 26th and I haven't seen much except AMD vs. Intel banter.



That's a good question. The NDA should be up as the chip has been officially released to OEMs. They can't - don't usually - keep an NDA on a released product.

I want 51xx to be a great product that gives Opteron a run for it's money. There was just so much hype and hatred flying because Intel finally released something good - not a barb, I will be glad when Merom comes out so that it's all over.

It doesn't matter who has bragging rights. I'm happy with my 4400+. I was happy with my 3200+. I only upgraded because I had 754.
July 7, 2006 2:58:54 AM

This might be a bit off-topic (sorry), but I've read like 2 reviews and a thread in this forum about what might be Woodcrest's performance. Has anyone come across through any review (official or non) of its performance against the top of the line Core2Duo, Opts, using different types of power hungry applications?
July 7, 2006 2:29:51 PM

Toms is doing a very bad job at this review that doesnt finish..
its really hurting the site's respect.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 7, 2006 2:48:29 PM

My best guess is they saw all the sh*** that went on with Anand's review, so they read all the forums and sharikou's blog to see what these guys are complaining about and are preparing a good un-biased review (I hope...)

Also keep in mind that running server benchmark is much more complicated than running desktop benchmark. If you saw the repercution of previous anandtech review of Opteron Vs Xeon, you'll understand, all the flavor of linux available, all the patches optimized for certain flavor, etc. Even the switches you use optimised or/not for intel, might hurt AMd etc. Then you have those fanboys, taking what guru's of this particular application said and spinning it, and it goes on and on

I beleive it's much better for the site credibility to wait and release something good than hurry up and put up some BS. Especially since there aint that many(any?) solid reviews out there!
July 7, 2006 3:23:35 PM

Im also amazed at how few WC reviews there are. Come on Tom get on with it :lol: 

Intel have nothing to hide all the sample WC benches Ive seen look awesome. Easily beating the Opterons.
July 7, 2006 3:42:00 PM

Quote:
This might be a bit off-topic (sorry), but I've read like 2 reviews and a thread in this forum about what might be Woodcrest's performance. Has anyone come across through any review (official or non) of its performance against the top of the line Core2Duo, Opts, using different types of power hungry applications?


I have yet to see an extensive review anywhere. There are small ones floating around with WKSTA benches(encoding, etc) but no real server marks.
July 8, 2006 12:07:13 PM

I tend to agree, usally they provide a complete head to head comparison much earlier than this.
:oops: 
!