Intel Frauds Woodcrest Performance Over Opteron 64

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
As an Intel Fanboy, I blame Senator Lieberman.


huhuhu
Click to expand...
THAT BASTARD!

Is he such an ass**** that he even has to interfere with the last free area of geekdom?(He f'ed with us in videogames,music,movies,ete etc now he's going after computers!)

Hahahahaha !!! I heard he wants to team up with Al Gore to "invent" Internet 2 !!!


God Gates invented Internet 2 already!

I thought you'd have said Lord Linus :lol:


Oh no, God Gates is the one true god!
 
Hey MMM I thought since intel 64 bit was so inferior, does it really matter if the AMD system was 32bit? I guess it does since it got its ass kicked.
 
It is your post that is a fraud. I'm sorry you don't like the results, but thems the facts. There is a typo in one the descriptions but the scores for all of the systems are real, and the Woodcrest score and description in particular are quite accurate.

Regardless of server configuration, 113628 is the best TCP result AMD and HP have been able to produce... and Woodcrest decimates it with a 169360.

This whole thread is silly and should be locked.
Click to expand...
'

I'm sorry you are stupid, but let me fix you.

DL385 G1 - From Intel.com


Intel linked to this website: http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=106032001

Which is the SAME SYSTEM.

So, what it is YOU who is the idiot, and I am not trolling Jake, I am saying facts.
I know they are the same system.

As I said above, there is a typo in one of the descriptions. The scores are still correct. Woodcrest wins big time, I know it must really hurt your fanboy heart.

You're being too stubborn.

There is no typo, this is Comparing a 64-Bit to 32-Bit, so regardless of the numbers, and if you adjust for 64-bit in AMD, the AMD is 7% faster.

The only fanboy heart broke is yours, because you're so obsessed with Conroe's fake performance that it's blinding you. Open your eyes son, and see what the world is really about.
 
Hey MMM I thought since intel 64 bit was so inferior, does it really matter if the AMD system was 32bit? I guess it does since it got its ass kicked.
Click to expand...

The Opteron is 7% faster if they compare 64-bit to 64-bit from NGMA. Who's ass got kicked? Oh ya, your Intel Fanboy ass did.

Not sure why you're all defending Intel so much, aren't you the same genious's who said "I'm a fan of performance"? So why the hostility when I prove Intel wrong? Isn't this a good thing according to you people? Or is an AMD Innovation a bad thing?
 
and if you adjust for 64-bit in AMD, the AMD is 7% faster... [some other crap]
Click to expand...
LOL, what adjust it by doubling its score? You are seriously grasping at straws....

Woap! You got me Itty, your genious never fails to impress!
 
There is no typo, this is Comparing a 64-Bit to 32-Bit, so regardless of the numbers, and if you adjust for 64-bit in AMD, the AMD is 7% faster.
Click to expand...
How'd you get that figure? A 7% advantage would give the DL385 a score of around 180K tpcM, which is close to the scores obtained by the 4S/8P DL585. In reality for TPC-C 64-bit doesn't give a significant boost as we can see from HP's submission for the DL585.

http://tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=105042002
4 Opteron 2.2DC/64GB RAM/ SQL Server 2000/Windows 2003 x86

187,296 tpcM

http://tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=105110401
This DL585 uses faster 2.4DC Opterons, doubles the memory to 128GB and uses SQL Server 2005 x64/Windows 2003 x64. It scores:

206,181 tpcM.

An increase of roughly 10%.
 
I changed this a little, hopefully to shut up a few more Intel Fanboys from making pointless posts.
Click to expand...
Wazzzup MMM? When are you going to stop bullsh*ting around?
Hey, what do you think about my rig?
I am replacing it, whenever Conroe comes. Do you think it can fit in my old can?
 
If you compare AMD's 64-Bit performance, it can gain avg. 40% in 64-bit over 32-bit, and that Woodcrest in 64-bit is 33% faster than the Opteron 32-bit, and it's a 64-bit w/ 64GB RAM vs. 32-bit w/ 32GB RAM, running a benchmark that increases score w/ more RAM.

If you do simple math (you're all capable of that, right?) you see AMD w/ a 7% advantage.
 
Hey MMM I thought since intel 64 bit was so inferior, does it really matter if the AMD system was 32bit? I guess it does since it got its ass kicked.
Click to expand...

The Opteron is 7% faster if they compare 64-bit to 64-bit from NGMA. Who's ass got kicked? Oh ya, your Intel Fanboy ass did.

Not sure why you're all defending Intel so much, aren't you the same genious's who said "I'm a fan of performance"? So why the hostility when I prove Intel wrong? Isn't this a good thing according to you people? Or is an AMD Innovation a bad thing?


MMM I am a fan of performance, I just couldn't resist the urge to throw a little gasoline on your fire. I must admit, man, you are quite humorous getting so worked up, about to have some massive coronary over this stuff.

Just chill out man. If it works out that you are right, I will be the first in line to give you credit for your call. But seriously, why would intel knowingly falsify this kind of data ? They know somebody is gonna catch it. Even if it was a mistake, I would label it more than likely an honest mistake (Even though it nearly gave you a heart attack)
 
Funny thing is all you Intel fanboys ganging up on me (remind us of the old days?) and it's when I'M RIGHT (still can't find a time when I wasn't though). I bet if Intel said publicly they were wrong, you still would think "it's an honest mistake" when saying "honest" and "Intel" in the same sentence is as funny as Conroe being a good processor, LOL!

Accord, you're comparing SQL 2000 to SQL 2005 and 32-bit to 64-bit, something that should not be done.
 
Accord, you're comparing SQL 2000 to SQL 2005 and 32-bit to 64-bit, something that should not be done.
Click to expand...
Why not? The second DL585 gets faster CPU, more memory, faster DB and 64-bit and can barely muster a 10% increase and you still think the DL385 will be able to get a 40% increase in tpcM just from 64-bit.
 
How about the fact both those systems have PC2700 RAM and using 4GB Modules, which means slower bandwidth and higher latencies.
 
MMM if you haven't already done so, I would recommend that you report this misinformation to intel using the link below. This would at least give them an opportunity to fix their error.

http://www.intel.com/intel/report.htm


Secondly, I don't think it is fair of you to judge an entire company by what was most likely an honest mistake of a single individual (I could very easily see myself making this kind of error).

You act like intel has some great big conspiracy to ruin your life.
I bet Hector Ruiz didn't get half as worked up over this as you did.
 
Funny thing is all you Intel fanboys ganging up on me (remind us of the old days?) and it's when I'M RIGHT (still can't find a time when I wasn't though). I bet if Intel said publicly they were wrong, you still would think "it's an honest mistake" when saying "honest" and "Intel" in the same sentence is as funny as Conroe being a good processor, LOL!

Accord, you're comparing SQL 2000 to SQL 2005 and 32-bit to 64-bit, something that should not be done.
Click to expand...

Calm down man, I'm sure someone else has already got the benches for the opteron that you are looking for. It's a matter of comparing them to what intel got. This reminds of when intel setup a conroe against an OC FX60 at the IDF...every amd fan was claiming bloody murder and that the FX60 was given a disadvantage. :wink:
 
How about the fact both those systems have PC2700 RAM and using 4GB Modules, which means slower bandwidth and higher latencies.
Click to expand...
A limitation of Opterons. 16GB is about the max you can expect for PC3200, you want more memory/DIMMs you have to use slower speeds. For TPC-C, and most enterpise databases, memory capacity beats memory speeds.

Besides, it doesn't matter since you claim that Opteron should run 40% faster going into 64-bit mode. Why isn't the second DL585 40%, or even 25% faster?
 
You're trying to compare SQL 2000 32-Bit to SQL 2005 64-Bit....this tells me that SQL 2005 is 10% faster than SQL 2000, nothing for the CPU's.
 
You're trying to compare SQL 2000 32-Bit to SQL 2005 64-Bit....this tells me that SQL 2005 is 10% faster than SQL 2000, nothing for the CPU's.
Click to expand...
It tells me that for TPC-C, Opteron going from 32-bit to 64-bit has little impact and that it has no hope of catching Woodcrest at 2S.
 
You're trying to compare SQL 2000 32-Bit to SQL 2005 64-Bit....this tells me that SQL 2005 is 10% faster than SQL 2000, nothing for the CPU's.
Click to expand...
It tells me that for TPC-C, Opteron going from 32-bit to 64-bit has little impact and that it has no hope of catching Woodcrest at 2S.

And it tells you that because you're a moron.
 
It is your post that is a fraud. I'm sorry you don't like the results, but thems the facts. There is a typo in one the descriptions but the scores for all of the systems are real, and the Woodcrest score and description in particular are quite accurate.

Regardless of server configuration, 113628 is the best TCP result AMD and HP have been able to produce... and Woodcrest decimates it with a 169360.

This whole thread is silly and should be locked.
Click to expand...

How do you know that it is just an innocent typo? Furthermore, how do you know the results are valid? Who signs your pay check-Intel??? :roll:
 
You're trying to compare SQL 2000 32-Bit to SQL 2005 64-Bit....this tells me that SQL 2005 is 10% faster than SQL 2000, nothing for the CPU's.
Click to expand...
It tells me that for TPC-C, Opteron going from 32-bit to 64-bit has little impact and that it has no hope of catching Woodcrest at 2S.

I just found out more info to justify me saying you're a moron.

System 1:

32-Bit Opteron system shown at Intels website is servicing 4 clients and 8 Processors

System 2:

64-Bit Opteron system shown in your posts is servicing 8 clients and 16 processors

I should also note the 2.2GHz Quad-Socket system is using Version 5.3, the other Quad-Socket 2.4GHz is using Version 5.5 while the one Intel displays is using Version 5.6.

That's why there isn't a large increase.
 
And it tells you that because you're a moron.
Click to expand...
The moron would be the one who added 40% to the score of the DL385 because Opterons run 40% faster in every application while in 64-bit mode and proudly claimed that it would be 7% faster than the ML370 with no evidence whatsoever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom