Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Opteron benchmarks faster than Woodcrest?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 6, 2007 8:11:07 AM

http://www.worlds-fastest.com/wfz995.html

This benchmark seems fishy to me. It seems like this person was paid by AMD. Since the SQL database is mostly an I/O benchmark, I wonder why the author would say that Opteron is faster than Woodcrest. Clearly a faster hard drive will give you better results more than a better CPU. I don't even think these tests stress the CPU that much. What were the loads? Was CPU maxed at 100%? If it's not than Woodcrest is at a disadvantage because FB-DIMM is slower than DDR.

Surely, there are better tests to determine CPU speed. Anandtech did a very good review of Woodcrest vs Opteron.

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

At low load points, Opteron is competitive with Woodcrest. But at high CPU utilization, Woodcrest pulls away.

I hate it when someone claims to be independent does a "fair" benchmark. If you're biased, say so.
May 6, 2007 9:32:37 AM

Quote:
its totally correct
only problem all of the tests were run with netburst xeons.
i am fairly sure new C2D based xeons are what i would do the tests with
you can buy them at the store

According to the testers, the Xeon was indeed Woodcrest (5160)
May 6, 2007 9:44:59 AM

Here's a good Opteron vs. Woodcrest benchmark. Woodcrest is indeed a good deal faster than Opteron across a wide variety of workloads.
Related resources
a c 108 à CPUs
May 7, 2007 1:42:32 PM

Quote:
Here's a good Opteron vs. Woodcrest benchmark. Woodcrest is indeed a good deal faster than Opteron across a wide variety of workloads.
Tech Report is pretty consistent but they need to follow up with a more level comparison. Tossing in the dual Clovertowns kinda smacked of Intel bias when benched against the 4-core of 2218's. For a better head-to-head Opteron/Clovertown bench the SuperMicro H8QM8-2+-O Quad Socket F would be a better choice for an **8 on 8** core vs core comparison. And the Opty rig with 4-way 8218's would be a closer price comparison with the Clovertown rig . . . ANYWAY . . . .

I was also a little disappointed that they benched the 3.0GHz Woodcrests against the 2.6GHz 2218's - especially when there is a $1,000 price difference between the cpu/mobo's. The Opty 2220's @ 2.8GHz would still be $700 cheaper than the Woodcrest rig.

BTW did you check out the Quad FX - Core2 comparison (and cross reference the Xeon - Opty benchies) ??? Kinda raised an eyebrow across the board . . .




Bet the Intel / AMD boards of directors don't want to see too many of these benchies . . . :lol: 
May 7, 2007 2:34:51 PM

Roflmao. This should be renamed Opteron vs. Netburst.
a c 108 à CPUs
May 7, 2007 5:49:52 PM

I know I'll get this wrong but here goes . . .

Xeon "Nacona" = Netburst
Xeon "Conroe" 30xx = Core2
Xeon "Kentsfield" 32xx = Core2 Quad
Xeon "Dempsey" 50xx = Netburst
Xeon "Woodcrest" 51xx = Core2
Xeon "Clovertown" 53xx = Core2 Quad (Woodcrest x 2)
Xeon "Paxville" 70xx = Netburst
Xeon "Tulsa" 71xx = Netburst

(mid-2007)
"Tigerton" 73xx = Core2 native Quad

I'll leave the chipsets (and headaches) up to someone else . . .
May 7, 2007 7:43:44 PM

Xeon (Woodcrest) 5160 and the Opteron 8222 server; clocked both at 3.0GHz
Conclusion:
The test results presented in this document appear to support the position that large and complex applications, like Relational Database Management Systems, run as fast or faster on an Opteron based server as on a Xeon (Woodcrest) server with a virtually identical configuration and processor clock speed.
May 8, 2007 12:48:36 AM

Quote:
This benchmark seems fishy to me. It seems like this person was paid by AMD. Since the SQL database is mostly an I/O benchmark, I wonder why the author would say that Opteron is faster than Woodcrest. Clearly a faster hard drive will give you better results more than a better CPU. I don't even think these tests stress the CPU that much. What were the loads? Was CPU maxed at 100%? If it's not than Woodcrest is at a disadvantage because FB-DIMM is slower than DDR.


It's not fishy. SpecFP_Rate benchmarks show single to low double digit performance gains for Opteron vs Woodcrest at same core. Server/workstation is where Opteron shows its prowess with its platform.
May 8, 2007 1:45:41 AM

Quote:
not according to the test configurations
click a little deeper


Maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me. I'm diggin' deeper and I still only see Woodcrest vs Opteron.

On second thought maybe it is your eyes.

http://download.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/dc51kprodbrief.pdf


Quote:

Roflmao. This should be renamed Opteron vs. Netburst.


And why is that? :lol: 
May 8, 2007 4:34:41 AM

Quote:
here is a link to the standard configuration
http://www.worlds-fastest.com/wf6100.html
notice the cpu model collumn


Ahhh... I see the confusion...

The particular benchmark in question is not included within the standard configuration that you linked to.

Here is a link to their white paper that I believe the OP was referencing:

http://www.worlds-fastest.com/d.pdf/x3o3sql2.pdf

Yes, the one you and OP are posting is the latest with Woodcrest and Rev F. The one beer is posting is not.

http://www.worlds-fastest.com/wfz995.html

It clearly states in the header "Woodcrest".
!