cupholder2.0
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2006
- Messages
- 260
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Woodcrest on newegg :)
- Thread starter cupholder2.0
- Start date
InorganicMatter
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 15,461
They've had the processors and memory for forever. It's the motherboards we are waiting on.
Ouch, $761 for the 2.66GHz OEM version (10K tray pricing is $690).
Not a bad price for a dual Dempsey/Woodcrest server board ($349.99): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813151161
Not a bad price for a dual Dempsey/Woodcrest server board ($349.99): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813151161
Intel must stand behind every product with one of its chips in it!!!!!1ponePoncho said:Yea, that's the "value server" line and it's a Tyan board... yea, PASS!!@!@!.
Yeaaaaa, we're going to need you to do some Tyan technical support tonight. And tomorrow. Yeah.
newls1
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,628
Can some PLEASE explain to me what is so special about this woodcrest chip? I see that it has a 1333MHz FSB , but are these as good as the conroes? MHz to MHz are they the same performance to a conroe?
, but are these as good as the conroes? MHz to MHz are they the same performance to a conroe?Better since they have a higher FSB.newls1 said:
Woodcrest (Xeon 5100 series) can go in a 2 socket motherboard, Conroe can not. The biggest negative about the Woodcrest is that the motherboards require expensive FB DIMM memory. But the memory in a 5000 chipset motherboard can have a lot more bandwidth than dual channel memory on a 965/975 Conroe board.
newls1
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,628
UMM.... Would this be a better "GAMING" processor then the X6800 I plan on buying? It is a little cheaper, but I think the problem i'll run into is finding a mobo on this platform that will allow OCing, and SLi.....
chrisf6969
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2003
- Messages
- 9,011
2 of these: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819117085 @ $390 = $780
+ $390 motherboard + FB Dimms. Still cheaper than an XE + mobo + ram.
And you'll have 4 cores. That would be a serious work horse machine if you do some type of encoding that could actually use all of that CPU power.
+ $390 motherboard + FB Dimms. Still cheaper than an XE + mobo + ram.
And you'll have 4 cores. That would be a serious work horse machine if you do some type of encoding that could actually use all of that CPU power.
chrisf6969 said:
It's $360 for 2GB of DDR2-533 FB DIMM memory @ newegg ($15 more each for 667MHz), the cheapest price I could find. Unless you want 4GB of DDR2-533 FB DIMMs for $664. Poncho: You need at least 4 FB DIMMs to get the full bandwidth on the 5000 chipset, right?
chrisf6969 said:
Therein lies the problem. Some benchmarks have shown that certain applications don't deal properly with quad cores and actually run slower. For example in the benchmarks linked, the following items ran slower on quad cores than on dual single cores:
Alias Maya 6.0 (1 version back)
Photoshop CS (1 version back)
Macromedia Flash MX 2004 (at least 1 version back)
Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 9.0 (still current)
LAME 3.97 (3.98 relnotes don't mention threading fixes)
Sciencemark 2.0 (still current)
Half-Life 2
DOOM 3
...so I wouldn't run out and go quad-core just yet, it seems like a broad spectrum of software just runs slower on quad. Maybe some of the newer versions resolve this, maybe they don't.
KC
huh? I think you're reading the benchmarks wrong. The fastest dual core chip in that test is 2.2GHz (275). The slowest single core Opteron tested was 2.2GHz (248). You would compare 4x2.2GHz cores against 2x2.2GHz cores since many of the apps clearly don't scale by n threads. In every case 4x2.2GHz beats 2x2.2GHz.KCComp said:
So the results were:
Maya 6 (lower is better)
2 x 275 43s
2 x 248 49s
Photoshop CS (lower is better)
2 x 275 130.7s
2 x 248 145.9s
FlashMX 2004 (lower is better)
2 x 275 35s
2 x 248 37s
WME9.0 (lower is better)
2 x 275 119s
2 x 248 125s
LAME 3.97 (lower is better)
2 x 275 67s
2 x 248 69s
Sciencemark 2.0 (lower is better) MD/Primordia
2 x 275 66.5s/311.4s
2 x 248 71.9s/315.9s
Half-Life 2 (not MP enabled)
2 x 275 95.9fps
2 x 248 95.3fps
DOOM 3 (not MP enabled)
2 x 275 165.9fps
2 x 248 163.9fps
No one is expecting single threaded games to get any benefit from 4 cores. Even 2 core gains are very small from the little benefit in multithreaded drivers. Excluding the synthetic SM, it's possible to run other tasks in parallel (e.g. 2 or 4 instances of WME or Lame). Some Photoshop CS/CS2 filters aren't even multi-threaded. Maya 7 is optimized for multi-core. Flash MX isn't something that can benefit linearly from multiple cores. If you can open multiple instances of Flash, it would be possible to output more than one project at a time.
You seem to have created a narrow view that if it doesn't benefit everything it's worthless. It's true that not everyone needs 4 cores, but it's also very possible to take advantage of it if you do have it.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2005
- Messages
- 2,096
That would be greeeat.pxc said: