backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 62 comment(s) - last by masher2.. on Mar 8 at 1:52 PM

System benchmarks

Woodcrest using FB-DIMM
Intel claims that it can outperform AMD by up to 33% on performance-per-watt

Intel is making a big push into performance-per-watt this year and Apple was touting Core Duo's performance in that realm when it announced its new Intel based Macs earlier this year. During Intel's keynote this morning, it demonstrated one of its next-generation cores, codenamed Woodcrest, against an AMD-based Sun server and claimed that core for core, Woodcrest outperformed AMD's offering by up to 33%.

Interestingly enough, the Woodcrest platform was using FB-DIMM technology while the AMD platform was running on existing DDR1 technology, which leaves a significant disadvantage for AMD.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
fair comparison?
By Homerboy on 3/7/2006 3:24:43 PM , Rating: 1
so Intel's next-gen versus AMD's current gen?
Am I wrong?




RE: fair comparison?
By GrammatonJP on 3/7/2006 3:28:07 PM , Rating: 5
they're trying to catch up to the current gen :)


RE: fair comparison?
By Questar on 3/7/2006 3:32:20 PM , Rating: 2
It's a comparison of what you will be able to buy when Woodcrest ships. AMD will not have another generation out at that time.


RE: fair comparison?
By JazzMang on 3/7/2006 3:34:36 PM , Rating: 2
Call me crazy, but I think DDR2 will be used by AMD at that point, no?


RE: fair comparison?
By Robertk20 on 3/7/2006 3:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
DDR2 doesnt even help amds performance as shown in the AM2 reviews.


RE: fair comparison?
By Griswold on 3/7/2006 3:45:52 PM , Rating: 3
AM2 reviews? Where? Oh you meant the pre-production sample previews.


RE: fair comparison?
By the eric conspiracy on 3/7/2006 4:05:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, single channel DDR2-667 with 4-4-4-12 CAS didn't help over dual channel DDR400 2-2-2-5 CAS on an early rev CPU.



RE: fair comparison?
By DarthPierce on 3/7/2006 4:32:14 PM , Rating: 2
please help me find 2-2-2-5 CAS DDR2-667.
I can't seem to find really low latency DDR2.....


RE: fair comparison?
By robg1701 on 3/7/2006 3:41:54 PM , Rating: 2
And the Opteron 285 is already out now...


RE: fair comparison?
By JackPack on 3/7/2006 3:48:22 PM , Rating: 2
Which was paper launched yesterday....


RE: fair comparison?
By Doormat on 3/7/2006 4:02:44 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant2/merchant....

Paper launched? That looks like it says in stock to me.


RE: fair comparison?
By JackPack on 3/7/2006 3:46:04 PM , Rating: 2
So somehow, Intel is supposed to procure an NDA Socket F system and reveal it publicly?

I think the slower performance of FBD and the fact that it's running only at 667 MHz make up for DDR400.


RE: fair comparison?
By gamara on 3/7/2006 6:28:41 PM , Rating: 2
ECC DDR 400? ECC memory is notoriously slow as well.


RE: fair comparison?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/7/2006 11:27:32 PM , Rating: 2
ECC is only a couple percent slower. And, since FB-Dimms are purportedly far more reliable than even ECC RAM, I think its a more apt choice for a comparison than non-ECC RAM.



RE: fair comparison?
By Griswold on 3/7/2006 3:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
So what makes you think AMD wont have anything else to offer than that when Intel can ship an FD-DIMM platform? Nothing, you're just yapping.


RE: fair comparison?
By Questar on 3/7/2006 3:51:12 PM , Rating: 2
Really?

Please go ahead and tell me K9 (or K10) is shipping this year.

Please, say it and make a bigger fool of yourself.


RE: fair comparison?
By Duwelon on 3/7/2006 4:25:40 PM , Rating: 2
Gee, why would you bring this up?


performance-per-watt
By kattanna on 3/7/2006 4:50:55 PM , Rating: 2
all that i have seen claimed in this article is that PER WATT intel will have UPTO 33% more performance

theres nothing there about it actually performing faster then the opteron though





RE: performance-per-watt
By masher2 (blog) on 3/7/2006 4:57:22 PM , Rating: 2
According to TheInquirer today, Intel is claiming an 80% performance boost and 35% drop in power consumption for Woodcrest.


RE: performance-per-watt
By Questar on 3/7/2006 4:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
Please, don't quote that trash.


RE: performance-per-watt
By masher2 (blog) on 3/7/2006 5:02:17 PM , Rating: 2
> "Please, don't quote that trash..."

Hey, they got a fact right once just last year..give them a break.


RE: performance-per-watt
By Spoelie on 3/7/2006 6:01:22 PM , Rating: 2
Do you guys have your heads up your asses? The story was a direct quote of the intel guys at IDF. Go look on the slides that anand posted earlier, it says the exact same thing; and it is relative to a 2.8ghz xeon, no AMD Opteron.