Xeon vs Opteron...reviews trust em or not....

[kiku]

confusing...

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2897&p=1
{BIG apple vs small apple vs small old apple}

says ...woodcrest > Clovertown (in terms of scaling)
other than that performance wise clovertown > wood crest > opteron(940 based)

To the financial analysts, CRM, ERP and Java server people, the new quad core Xeon E53xx is close to irresistible. You can get four cores for the price of two, or up to eight (!) cores in a relatively cheap dual socket server. We observed at least a 40% performance increase compared to probably the best dual core CPU of today: the Xeon 5160.

The past 6 months have been excellent for Intel: after regaining the performance crown in the dual socket server market, there is also now a very viable and lowly priced alternative for the more expensive quad Opteron based systems.

AMD Socket-F Opteron vs. Intel Woodcrest

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2892&p=1

close to apples vs apples

All things considered, the Opterons are holding their own and doing very well for an architecture which is 3.5 years old. Only companies that are routinely running their servers near capacity are likely to truly benefit from an upgrade at this point in time.

* Since AMD supplied for previous review so the review was....??

* Or they already favored AMD past..so this time tilting to Intel.....??

* Can i say.... its sssome thing, why AMD supplied last time why not know.. ?? (honestly directed to AMD not to anyone)

* ahahaha which performs better ..... ?

---> As always, "read reviews for time pass but dont trust em " ???..... problem is these came from respectable site...

 

[jstall]

AMD Quad Opteron Platform

* Advantages:
o Still the best performing FP platform: highest rendering performance
o Scales better than comparable Intel platform


I find the article to be informative and accurate, 4 sockets and up the Opteron's are still way ahead of intel.

 

[levicki]

I would say that the article is amateurish.

Look at the memory module counts, sizes and speeds. They all differ.

First:
16GB (8x 2048MB) Micron FB-DIMM Registered DDR2-533 CAS 4, ECC enabled

Everyone knows that with FB-DIMM you have to use 4 modules for best results because you have 4 channels. Everything more or less than 4 modules hurts the bandwidth seriously.

Then:
16GB (16x1024MB) Crucial Registered DDR-333 CAS 2.5, ECC enabled

Honestly is DDR-333 the fastest they could find and put there? I bet on "no".

I wouldn't rely too much on such tests.