Visit with Intel

For the past two years Intel has been holding workshops in Oregon, where they invite a few of the hardware sites to view their upcoming technology. In May of this year, AnandTech made their way up to Oregon to have a look at Woodcrest. While we were there we were presented with the normal marketing hoorah, what product launch is without that? But we also had some quite interesting presentations like Virtualization, and where Intel sees that market going (it's going sky-high for those that haven't been keeping up with it).

While in Oregon, we also took a look at a running Clovertown machine. Clovertown is the code name for Intel's quad-core chip, which is coming out in early 2007. It will be a drop-in part to most Woodcrest systems, running at 1066MHz FSB. How's that for upgradeability: 4-way to 8-way in under 20 minutes (your mileage may vary).

The Birth of a New King

Out with the old, and in with the new (or so they say). In April of 2003, AMD launched their Opteron enterprise microprocessor. Since then, Opteron has been steadily chewing into Intel's server market share. To think that Intel was not going to re-tool would have been naïve, although it did take Intel a long time. Not only did they produce what we think is the best two socket server processor on the market today, but they have quad-core up their sleeve and it will most likely release before AMD has an answer to Woodcrest. We already took a look at Woodcrest running on Linux, and we're ready to follow up with some analysis of Windows Server performance.

Woodcrest will share the Bensley platform with Dempsey, although we suspect Dempsey will fade away once Woodcrest parts are shipping in volume. Dempsey may have competed in terms of performance, but power consumption was not even in the same ball-park thanks to Woodcrest's new Core micro-architecture. The new processor features a 4MB L2 cache shared between each of its two cores and a 1333MHz Dual-Independent Bus architecture. Clock speeds for the Woodcrest launch will start at 1.6GHz and top out at 3.0GHz, and power consumption for the parts will range from 65W to 85W for the top bin part (3.0Ghz). The lower clocked 1.6GHz & 1.86GHz parts will run at 1066MHz FSB while the 2.0-3.0GHz parts will run at 1333MHz FSB. Intel also plans to ship a 40W version of the chip later this year that will run at 2.33GHz.



Architecture Summary
POST A COMMENT

59 Comments

View All Comments

  • Viditor - Thursday, July 13, 2006 - link

    quote:

    We'll ensure we include power measurement information in future articles. We use the same procedure as we've used in previous articles with power, an extech device and we log power througout the test duration

    Thanks Jason...it's just that the power draw is such a central theme to the review, it would be nice to know exactly what and how things were being tested. Could you let us know what features and chipset were on the OEM Woodcrest system?

    Cheers
    Reply
  • FesterOZ - Thursday, July 13, 2006 - link

    Jason

    Based on your own Extech tests, the 280 you previously tested here http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2644&p...">http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2644&p... was drawing a max of 265 watts for that database forum test at max load. Now the same CPU seems to be drawing 300+ Watts.

    Can you please explain this variation?
    Reply
  • johnsonx - Thursday, July 13, 2006 - link

    Between the two platforms, the motherboards (Tyan 2882 vs 2891) are different with different chipsets (AMD+AMD vs NVidia+AMD), the software load is different (I presume even at apparent 100% load, there will be small power consumption differences depending on what the software actually does), and there is probably a power supply difference.

    Those factors combined could easily account for 40 or so watts.
    Reply
  • FesterOZ - Thursday, July 13, 2006 - link

    Sorry but I really have to disagree here. 40 Watts in a south bridge? Both tests the CPUS were maxed out. Reply
  • Viditor - Thursday, July 13, 2006 - link

    Could you be more specific on the Intel OEM system specs? (we can look up the Tyan of course)
    I assume you used the same PSU for both systems...
    Did you measure power draw at the wall?
    Reply
  • MrKaz - Thursday, July 13, 2006 - link

    Was this review/preview made by Intel?

    I mean:

    -Charts have blue background (a la Intel). (There is one Anandtech symbol in the charts but could be Intel no difference).
    -Charts with performance/watts, since when Anandtech review CPU based on those parameters? Never. Why now?
    -.90nm CPU vs .65nm CPU - .65nm CPU wins, higher clock, lower consuming. No big surprise here, especially if this processor is derivates from a mobile one.

    When AMD releases one socket F Opteron will be interesting, especially if = Intel with just half the cache size and 3 years "old" design on .90nm process.
    Reply
  • fitten - Thursday, July 13, 2006 - link

    quote:

    -.90nm CPU vs .65nm CPU - .65nm CPU wins, higher clock, lower consuming. No big surprise here, especially if this processor is derivates from a mobile one.


    Heh, by your standards then, the Pentium4s should have been faster than all since they are higher clock.
    Reply
  • MrKaz - Thursday, July 13, 2006 - link

    Intel.

    http://www.intel.com/performance/server/xeon/intth...">http://www.intel.com/performance/server/xeon/intth...
    Reply
  • sprockkets - Thursday, July 13, 2006 - link

    65nm smaller than 90nm, I would hope they consume less power. Still, Intel has always been good with power with the P6 derivatives. Reply
  • berat556 - Thursday, July 13, 2006 - link

    I am not impressed with this latest review especially when you take into consideration how the intel is a 3.0GHZ processor while the opteron 285 is 2.6GHZ processor. I was so exited about Conroe but this latest benchmark made put my pre-order order on hold to see if Conroe will do what they said it would a 2.67GHZ win vs. a 2.8GHZ. Major bumper, it looks like woodcrest is still behing the opteron, maybe that is why dell still decided to go with AMD after Intel announced the core architecture. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now