Is woodcrest better than A64 venice for server?

[OcHungry]

yeah, I just read the "new king born" article (wonder how much it cost Intel for the sale pitch) and just wondering which system make a better server for my client.
He is interested in woodcrest after reading the "KING" review and he just wonders if A64 3000 Venice can compete w/ woodcrest.
Your thoughts, and advise on how much it would cost to make A64 3000 just a "baby king"
TIM

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: OcHungry
yeah, I just read the "new king born" article (wonder how much it cost Intel for the sale pitch) and just wondering which system make a better server for my client.
He is interested in woodcrest after reading the "KING" review and he just wonders if A64 3000 Venice can compete w/ woodcrest.
Your thoughts, and advise on how much it would cost to make A64 3000 just a "baby king"
TIM

"Is woodcrest better than A64 venice for server?" --Just a tad.
Honestly though, it depends entirely on what the server is to be used for.
If its just a file server for a small office, a Pentium II/III system would suffice.
If its going to be a monster database web app server with high volume usage,
then you may want to consider some bigger guns. So, what is the server to be
used for? The A64 venice might be just fine for all we know.

 

[dexvx]

Venice isnt even a server chip. So I'm going to assume its for personal use, and therefore it wouldnt even matter because a Pentium-II class cpu is enough for most "personal servers".

 

[Soulkeeper]

the article didn't state what socket the woddcrest will use
but judgeing from the fact that they stated dual 1333mhz fsb i would assume it would need atleast a new chipset
what's the deal with this ?

 

[Furen]

Am I the only one who has serious misgivings about AT naming Woodcrest "the king" based on only two benchmarks... they didn't even do Apache, for god's sake! I must say that powerdraw is very nice though, with a 10-25W CPU power advantage over the 280 and 285 (times two since there are two chips, of course).

 

[Dubb]

Originally posted by: Furen
Am I the only one who has serious misgivings about AT naming Woodcrest "the king" based on only two benchmarks... they didn't even do Apache, for god's sake! I must say that powerdraw is very nice though, with a 10-25W CPU power advantage over the 280 and 285 (times two since there are two chips, of course).

it might have something to do with the benchmarks they have run in the past (the linux article), not to mention the consensus of all the other review sites. it seems like most folks consider it not really even up for debate anymore.

 

[Furen]

It's not up for debate, for the most part, but you dont just make claims without actually backing them up. By the title I expected to get a good deal more benchmarks than they put in...

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: Furen
It's not up for debate, for the most part, but you dont just make claims without actually backing them up. By the title I expected to get a good deal more benchmarks than they put in...

Yes, like how the raids do particularly raid 5.
This thread was made as a sarcasm and how AT is used as a marketing agent for Intel.
God I hope Intel did not buy the article. It would be an integrity break down here.
Showing 3 or for useless benchmarks and calling it the "King"? how absurd.
And no mention of raid issues. Liabilities here it comes.
Sorry guys if the thread title is misleading. But it kind of gets your attention about how I feel about the ?King? advertising..

 

[Duvie]

Hey when is AT going to bench games on the woodcrest!!!! (sarcasm)

Besides games their reviews usually suck for th emost part!!! Been that way in desktop reviews for awhile now...Go to TechReprt.com for better reviews...

I also think 2cpu.com linked a nice article on the woodcrest a few weeks back...

 

[coldpower27]

IS this really even fair? Your at least suppose to use 2 comparable cores from the correct brands.

AMD Opteron 2xx Italy would probably be the most direct competior to the Xeon Woodcrest 51xx Series.