Linux and EM64T; Intel's 64-bit Suggestion
by Kristopher Kubicki on August 9, 2004 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Linux
Audio Encoding
Lame was compiled from source without optimizations. We only ran ./configure and make, without any flags. We realize that some people would like to verify our binaries and sample files for their own benchmarks. In order to save bandwidth and prevent copyright infractions, we will provide our test files and binaries under limited circumstances to serious inquiries. We ran lame on a 700MB .wav file using the command equivalent to the one below:# lame sample.wav -b 192 -m s -h >/dev/null
Encoding time, lower is better.
POV-RAY
Although POV-RAY is limited in application (particularly when compared against Mental Ray), it does provide a free open source solution for basic rendering. POV-Ray 3.50c was our choice of render engine for this benchmark. For benchmark specifics, we run the exact benchmark as specified by the POV-Ray official site. We use the precompiled RPM for this test.Render Time in Seconds, less is better.
POV-Ray does not have multithread support, so we were not surprised to see the HyperThreading configuration slowing down to the configuration without HT. We see the Athlon 64 processor pull way ahead; render tasks are extremely CPU and memory dependant. With the memory controller on the CPU, Athlon 64 becomes the stronger offering in this situation.
GZip
To throw in some rudimentary tests for GZip, we used the included GZip 1.3.5 to compress the .wav file from the benchmark above. We do not want to limit our I/O on writing to the hard drive, so the operation is performed as below:# time gzip -c sample.wav > /dev/null
Intel wins their first bout of the analysis, albeit not by much. We will find a recurring pattern later on with integer based calculations and the Nocona Xeon processor. The entire Prescott family of Intel CPUs received a dedicated integer multiplier rather than continually using the floating point multiplier. This becomes extremely useful in some of our other benchmarks.
Database Performance
We will run the standard SQL-bench suite included with RPM MySQL 4.0.20d.
Of all our benchmarks, the SQL-bench becomes the most baffling. The extremely threaded database application performs particularly poorly with HyperThreading enabled. The Althon 64 outperforms Intel again in this benchmark, and a lot of it is almost certainly accredited to the on die memory controller again.
Update: We copied the 32-bit marks from our benchmark in previous testing instead of the 64-bit. You can view the previous articles here from a month ago. The graphs have also been updated.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
275 Comments
View All Comments
Accord99 - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
The hardware IOMMU is for devices that do not natively support 64-bit addressing, typically these are EIDE controllers, sound cards, USB controllers. So if you do a lot of I/O and have >4GB of memory you may see performance degradation. However, 64-bit SCSI cards, gigabit network controllers do support 64-bit addressing and the issue does not affect them at all. The latest SATA controller may also avoid the problem.And it is a chipset issue, not a CPU one. Intel could release a new chipset with a hardware IOMMU.
DrMrLordX - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
That's cool. I'd like to see how the Opteron 150 does. Heck, even the 3800+ would be interesting. Either way, it'll be a good competition.xlax - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
Not a big deal on the choice of hardware; it was just in there for reference anyway. Derek and I are working on an Opteron test as we speak. Gonna work some of the other little changes in the new review as well.Kristopher
hopefully some benchmarx.....and a lot less bs synthetix....
KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
Not a big deal on the choice of hardware; it was just in there for reference anyway. Derek and I are working on an Opteron test as we speak. Gonna work some of the other little changes in the new review as well.Kristopher
DrMrLordX - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
Agreed, the 3.6F P4 is not marketed against the 3500+. It's marketted against the 3800+.Kristopher, why are you so dismayed by people complaining about your choice in hardware? You picked the wrong AMD CPU. All the other flaws of your article aside, that flaw caught my eye first and affected my view of the entire article. The remarks in the conclusion clinched it.
I don't want you to think you're being "flamed" when I, or others, complain about the CPU comparison. If you want the AMD cpu poised to compete with the 3.6F, you want the 3800+, not the 3500+. If you want the competitor for the 3.6 Nocona, it's the Opteron 150/250/850. The competitor for the top-of-the-line EE cpu(which I believe is currently the 3.4, and will later be the 3.73) is the FX-53.
The 3500+ is the "cheap" CPU for socket 939 and nothing more.
xlax - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
Hmmmmm, usually dont see this much action on ur reviews. Typically most of us like to see real benchies, not synthetics. Somebody get me a cold beer....thanx...anyways, we all know how sythetics can be optimized for a desired result. Lets see some real benchies. I usually like to read ur reviews cuz they have a balanced feel to them. This one smells.....I think maybe all these luv letters reflect the same and perhaps that is y u have been getting so much feedback. Pleased dont turn into THG, give us the real stuff, not the fluff.ps, synthetics dont mean @#!% to gamers and u know that.
Drayvn - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
When i hear that the 3500+ is a good comparison to the 3.6f, i think that is wrong, in fact shouldnt it be that u should find what Intel are aiming the 3.6f at AMDs line.3500+ cant be very well compared to something that has come out after itself....
maybe the 3.6f was comparing itself to some other cheap maybe?
fifi - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
what I objected to are sentiments such as"Again Thanks for the early release, it really and truly helped. I hope these fanboy's don't affect you decision to post early numbers in the future."
what did it "really and truly" help? creating more flame bait in a quiet neighbourhood?
if AMD is as much a litigious bast*rd like SCO (see SCO vs IBM/Red Hat/Novell/Daimler-Chrysler/Autozone) or Intel (see Intel vs 7intel and other tidbits with "intel" and "intel inside" trademarks) or Microsoft (see MS vs mikerowesoft.com), then they would be sending out CAD to AT for publishing bogus numbers, not to mention threats of libel and so on. And in this case, AT is not even in the right, eventhough it's clear it was just some mix up of the numbers (except that stupid conclusion...).
sure, if he ends up correcting it and does it properly, then he deserves the commendations. But it doesn't change the fact that it was screwed up in the first place, and to release numbers that looked strange even to a layman like me, without checking it thoroughly first is not a good thing for AT's reputation.
It just seemed like it was done in a hurry as if trying to rush out of the doors before anybody else does.
tfranzese - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
Too little has been done to correct the matter to deserve much thanks IMO.fifi is spot on. There are times it's polite to say thank you for a job well done, but this isn't the time.
Viditor - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
fifi - "But he screws up major and we are supposed to THANK him for screwing up?"No. We thank him for dealing with the inumerable flames over a mistake and being professional enough to correct them.
We also thank him because he works hard at this and probably gets paid substantially less than that garbage collector you alluded to!