Intel VS Intel :)

[warlock110]

there is a huge debate over at other other place about people who bought a Mac Pro (you guys can google it)... the MAC cost 2500 dollars and is equippted with 2 woooping 2.66 woodcrest Xeon... and now they're saying it's the fastest dang thing out there, and there's no PC that can touch it.

Well. according to some of the stuff i heard. the woodcrest is essentially the conroe... so is it possible to built a PC that can woop that machine for less?

[Nandro]

The woodcrest in the apple is actually held back by the FB dimms it uses, so given the same setup with regular dimms the apple would lose. Aside from hearing that the FB dimms are energy hungry, they are very slow as far as latancy and I was last under the impresion that intell was going to abandont hem for all but servers where the actuall benefit may be worth it. I would wait on any machine that used FB dimms to change over as I think they want to change that rather quickly being as it holds their numbers down considerably from what they should be. FB Dimms in theory are a great idea, then again, so was rambus.

[greenmaji]

FS dimms is a requrement for all socket 771 woodcrest builds, its the only ram compatable.
And you can build a bigger and badder woodcrest machine, it just takes money.

As far as building a Conroe machine thats faster, it depends on what application your using the computer for.

If its for using applications that are multi-treaded for more then 2 cores (as far as I know this is pretty darn rare).. its going to take a considerble amount of clock speed on the C2D to keep up.

Gaming on the other hand, pretty much any C2D thats clocked higher then the woodcrest would be faster for that application.

[Psycogeec]

so say all of them :-)
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=136593
there is a photoshop test here, that mac and PC users have been doing for quite a while. It has insteresting results, hosting of the test images, has changed, and this might not be the original thread i was reading.
but the "overclockers" did pretty well in the testing.

The pony test is cpu and memory depenadant, and was relative to my needs.

[warlock110]

so say all of them :-)
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=136593
there is a photoshop test here, that mac and PC users have been doing for quite a while. It has insteresting results, hosting of the test images, has changed, and this might not be the original thread i was reading.
but the "overclockers" did pretty well in the testing.

The pony test is cpu and memory depenadant, and was relative to my needs.

the test is rediculous, they're pitting dual xeon vs single core 2 running at 2.6ghz. when we got people with dual 2 core running at over 4ghz.

[MadMan007]

I love mac fans ;) such a zealous group over hardware and they love to do one test and say 'look macs ooown.'

Anyway, it's 4 cores vs 2 in a 4-core capable program, of course it's going to whoop ass. The new macs are excellent workstations for 4-core capable programs no doubt but that does not carry over to the majority of other programs. What would be more interesting is a Core2Quad vs that 4-core Xeon system. ..but then there might be 4-core xeons :o anyone heard anything about that?

[rainless]

the test is rediculous, they're pitting dual xeon vs single core 2 running at 2.6ghz. when we got people with dual 2 core running at over 4ghz.

Typical mac tests. I got all kinds of crap about how an x86 machine could NEVER run MacOSx because the architecture is "blah, blah" and the cores are "blah,blah, blah." My reply was something along the lines of:

"Really. That's funny... I think I've seen it done somewhere before... I forget where it was. But it was very familiar. Looked a lot like my place... but then again there weren't any plants. Wait a minute... Do I have any plants?"

[Nandro]

I guess what it was now that I researched it is that intel is not supporting FB dimms on the desktop as its only benefits come in the server arena and actually slow the computer down when under normal desktop use. I believe they showed a c2d with a lower fsb and the same amount of memory as the higher speed higher fsb woodcrest and the c2d was fasrer due to the latency inherent in the fb dimms. If only rambus had stuck around for this.... Honestly they would have had a great server part if you look back on it.