Intel Frauds Woodcrest Performance Over Opteron 64

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
M

MaGiC_MaN

Distinguished
May 17, 2006
40
0
18,530
I changed this a little, hopefully to shut up a few more Intel Fanboys from making pointless posts.

http://www.intel.com/performance/server/xeon/database.htm

That is straight from Intel.com, and they said this about the 2 systems:

Woodcrest - 64-Bit Windows & 64-Bit SQL Server

Opteron - 64-Bit Windows & 64-Bit SQL Server

Intel also linked to this website (The system they referenced of the Opteron) - http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=106032001

That website says it's an Opteron w/ 32-Bit Windows & 32-Bit SQL Server, not 64-Bit. It appears Intel has changed the data and says it is comparing 2 64-Bit Platforms when in reality, they are comparing a 64-Bit Platform to a 32-Bit Platform and saying it's 2 64-Bit Platforms.

This coincides with Intel's previous lies, where it claims the Xeon Lindenhurst performs above AMD Opteron's when they used 10K HDD's vs. 7.2K HDD's in the Opteron's.

Opteron 64 is typically 20-40% faster in 64-Bit, and those show the Xeon is 33% faster in 64-Bit than the Opteron in 32-Bit, so if you adjust for Tru64 performance, it's really 7% Slower than the Opteron 64's. Remember, this is 20GB/s Bandwidth vs. 9GB/s Bandwidth in the Opteron and it is still winning, just wait until 4P Tests and 64-Bit Socket 1207.

Woodcrest is also known *from Daily Tech and Tech Report* that in Multi-Threaded apps, it is on par with an Opteron 64 while the Opteron 64 has half the bandwidth.

More Intel FUD to throw in the mix.
 
Intel compared a 32-bit Opteron to a 64-Bit Woodcrest, even though they say it's a 64-bit Opteron. If you have doubts (Intel Fanboys), check out the .PDF of Full Disclosure, it displays that it is running x86 versions of OS and SQL Server 2005 as it was referenced from, while Intel says referenced from there was 64-bit, even though it says multiple times it is x86.

I am waiting for defendence from Intel Fanboys as to why their great, honorable company lied and manipulated data to better sell a product inferior to the Hammer64.
 
If you compare the costs, $2.99 for the Opteron vs. $2.93 for the Woodcrest, it shows Woodcrest in 64-Bit is 2% better in Price/Performance compared to AMD's Opteron 64 in 32-Bit.

No Intel Fanboys on this one? Come on guys, show your support for the fraudalent company!
 
I already told you; it's all Al Gore's fault. Because he's Senator Lieberman's clone. The bastard.


There's a fine line between good marketing and bare-faced lies. That's all I'm going to say for now, since it could just as easily be something along the lines of a typo. Also, I heard The Furniture Guy(TM) is having a sale on queen-sized pillows, that guy is the bomb. Paperclips (gotta be pink) are cooler though.
 
I already told you; it's all Al Gore's fault. Because he's Senator Lieberman's clone. The bastard.


There's a fine line between good marketing and bare-faced lies. That's all I'm going to say for now, since it could just as easily be something along the lines of a typo. Also, I heard The Furniture Guy(TM) is having a sale on queen-sized pillows, that guy is the bomb. Paperclips (gotta be pink) are cooler though.
Click to expand...

From Intel:

Dual-Core AMD Opteron* Processor Model 285 based platform details: HP Proliant DL385 G1* server platform with two Dual-Core AMD Opteron* processor 2.60GHz, 32GB memory, Microsoft Windows Server* 2003 Enterprise x64 Edition, Microsoft SQL Server* 2005 Enterprise x64 Edition. Referenced as published at 113,628 tpmC; $2.99/tpmC; Availability Date as listed in the submitted report is May 5, 2006. Results at http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=106032001

On that website, not to mention the documents, it says BLATENTLY, that it is 32-Bit. So, either 1) Intel Lied, or 2) They are a bad company because they do not clsoely look at data and just put what they think it is.
 
Intel compared a 32-bit Opteron to a 64-Bit Woodcrest, even though they say it's a 64-bit Opteron. If you have doubts (Intel Fanboys), check out the .PDF of Full Disclosure, it displays that it is running x86 versions of OS and SQL Server 2005 as it was referenced from, while Intel says referenced from there was 64-bit, even though it says multiple times it is x86.

I am waiting for defendence from Intel Fanboys as to why their great, honorable company lied and manipulated data to better sell a product inferior to the Hammer64.
Click to expand...

Opteron runs 32bit code just as well as 64bit code as does Woodcrest there isnt a 32bit only Opteron... Now if you mean the OS they had installed and drivers where 32bit on the Opteron side and the OS and Drivers where 64Bit on the Woodcrest side I would agree something is VERY fishy.
 
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!)
 
Intel compared a 32-bit Opteron to a 64-Bit Woodcrest, even though they say it's a 64-bit Opteron. If you have doubts (Intel Fanboys), check out the .PDF of Full Disclosure, it displays that it is running x86 versions of OS and SQL Server 2005 as it was referenced from, while Intel says referenced from there was 64-bit, even though it says multiple times it is x86.

I am waiting for defendence from Intel Fanboys as to why their great, honorable company lied and manipulated data to better sell a product inferior to the Hammer64.
Click to expand...

Opteron runs 32bit code just as well as 64bit code as does Woodcrest there isnt a 32bit only Opteron... Now if you mean the OS they had installed and drivers where 32bit on the Opteron side and the OS and Drivers where 64Bit on the Woodcrest side I would agree something is VERY fishy.

By 32-bit, I meant it is an Opteron 64 w/ 32-Bit Windows Server and 32-Bit SQL Server vs. a Woodcrest w/ 64-Bit Windows and 64-Bit SQL Server, but Intel says it's Opteron 64 w/ 64-Bit and it isn't.

Intel has lied, knowingly.
 
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 !!!
 
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.
 
So at worst either Intel made a typo or HP improperly reported their OS. Both scores are genuine, and the HP DL385 still has the highest TPC-C score for an Opteron based 2S system and Woodcrest easily beats it.
 
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.
 
You're saying it's fair to compare 32-Bit to 64-Bit and say "64-Bit is better" but at the same time, lie and say it's 64-Bit vs. 64-Bit when it ISN'T? You're also saying it's impossible for HP to put on a 64-Bit OS? Wow Itty, you're a genious!
 
You're saying it's fair to compare 32-Bit to 64-Bit and say "64-Bit is better" but at the same time, lie and say it's 64-Bit vs. 64-Bit when it ISN'T? You're also saying it's impossible for HP to put on a 64-Bit OS? Wow Itty, you're a genious!
Click to expand...
what would intel gain from that(falsifying a comparative test)???honestly? amd is going to be behind for a while magic.i think its just a typing error.

You are truly an Intel Fanboy who is ignorant.

Intel has plenty gain, such as market share!

AMD is already ahead of NGMA and will never be behind, sorry.

This is not a typo, it proves 1 of 2 things:

1) Intel lied (more likely)

2) Intel did not read the website about the data and assumed it was 64-Bit and just took the numbers

Either way, Intel is not honest (wow, something new).
 
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 !!! I heard that they struck a deal with the telco's in order to make us pay more money! All i can say is



THOSE COMMIE BASTARDS!
 
I give accordance to Mistakes, not Competance.

Intel is incompetant and this proves it. Nobody is this stupid and cannot read X86 and puts down X64 and thinks it's a mistake, if they had read the entier documents that gave the numbers, or even looked 10" down on their screens and saw X86, they'd know the truth.

The truth is: Intel lied....Again.
 
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 own AMD and plan to upgrade to AMD sooo,i think i am bieng pretty realistic,and giving consideration for human err,if intel used a 32bit amd in the test vs a 64bit intel,wouldnt that anger investors and accomplish the reverse of generating sales exitement?????????
Click to expand...
The tests were done by the manufacturer, in this case HP.
 
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.
 
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:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom