Linux and EM64T; Intel's 64-bit Suggestion
by Kristopher Kubicki on August 9, 2004 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Linux
Conclusions
Although the Athlon 64 3500+ and the Xeon 3.6GHz EM64T processors were not necessarily designed to compete against each other, we found that comparing the two CPUs was more appropriate than anticipated, particularly in the light of Intel's newest move to bring EM64T to the Pentium 4 line. Once we obtain a sample of the Pentium 4 3.6F, we expect our benchmarks to produce very similar results to the 3.6 Xeon tested for this review.Without a doubt, the 3.6GHz Xeon trounces over the Athlon 64 3500+ in math-intensive synthetic benchmarks. Again, not that it is really a comparison between the two chips yet anyway, but perhaps something of a marker of things to come. However, real world benchmarks, with the exception of John the Ripper is where AMD came ahead instead. Even though John uses several different optimizations to generate hashes, in every case, the Athlon chip found itself at least 40% behind. Much of this is likely attributed to the additional math tweaking in the Prescott family core, and the lack of optimizations at compile time.
That's not to say that the Xeon CPU necessarily deserves excessive praise just yet. At time of publication, our Xeon processor retails for $850 and the Athlon 3500+ retails for about $500 less. The 3.6F processor the Xeon represents does not even exist in retail channels yet. Also, keep in mind that the AMD processor is clocked 1400MHz slower than the 3.6GHz Xeon. With only a few exceptions, synthetically the 3.6GHz Xeon outperformed our Athlon 64 3500+, whether or not the cost and thermal issues between these two processors are justifiable.
We will benchmark some SMP 3.6GHz Xeons against a pair of Opterons in the near future, so check back regularly for new benchmarks!
Update: We have addressed the issue with the -02 compile options in TSCP, the miscopy from previous benchmarks of the MySQL benchmark, and various other issues here and there in the testing of this processor. Expect a follow up article as soon as possible with an Opteron.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
275 Comments
View All Comments
fifi - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
oh blasted, can't edit!that post above was addressed to manno.
tfranzese - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
Edit buttons would be great, but anyway... I meant to say objective in place of subjective, but for anyone looking for someone's opinion there is also a link in there to a subjective view on Intel's implementation of AMD64.fifi - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
why is it that it MUST be AMD-fans versus Intel-fans? can we not complain when we see shoddy work done?It's shoddy work when there's no comparison between 32-bit and 64-bit on the P4.
It's shoddy work when the benchmarks posted are simply wrong (look to his earlier review on A3500+).
No, it's not AT being bought by Intel. It's just plain shoddy work.
I would have preferred if Kristopher took his time to run the benchmarks properly, and checked all the numbers are correct and ran all the control tests and present a complete picture, rather than just trying to be the first out of the door with a review on the EM64T.
it's just plain shoddy work.
So keep on the sarcasm and hopefully it will improve your mental abilities which are clearly being impaired by the background EM waves, you SHOULD have bought those aluminium hats like I told you to...
tfranzese - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
#55, 60, aka fanboy. Anandtech was no where the first to post Nocona benches. Not even the second, and probably not even the third.Here's some further Nocona reading which is far more informative and subjective for those interested that I've collected here: http://www.overclockersonline.com/index.php?page=w...
As for this review I can only say my respect for this site has been lowered a notch. Congrats Kris and Anand!
Viditor - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
About what you'd expect between these 2 chips...1. 512k cache vs 1 meg cache
2. 3.6 GHs vs 2.2 GHz
3. single CPU (Opteron and Athlon64 perform much better as you add CPUs because of Hypertransport)
I really feel that this review should have been held until some comparable chips could have been tested as it appears quite biased in it's present form...
Questions though...
1. Was the setting for the memory timing on the Athlon 64 set to 1T or 2T?
2. Since both CPUs are 64bit, why use only 1 Gig of Ram? (4 Gig would have been a better demonstration...) The reason this is interesting is that there is some confusion as to Xeon's ability in handling larger amounts of memory well.
manno - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
Oh cry me a river you poor poor souls."Alot of the benchmarks are incorrect due to setup errors. It's not just the scores that we're bitching about, but the SLOPPINESS of the review.."
Yeah it's got to be that, and not the fact that it doesn't paint AMD as the savior of the free world. Of course!! why didn't I see that the first time a lame fanboy posted?
God I feel so stupid!
You know what you're right I must of been crazy to think that Anand isn't in a secret Cabal with Intel to paint The A64 in the worst possible light. Thank you... no I truly mean it from the bottom of my heart thank you for showing me the error of my ways, and keeping evil Intel, and the even more devious Anantech.com out of my life. Well I'm going to head out now and buy myself one of those shiny aluminum hats to keep them from taking over my brain waves. Take care and have fun flaming me.
-manno
Xspringe - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
It'd be nice to see more balanced benchmark set in the next similar review with less synthetic benchmark and more benchmarks relative to real world usage. These current benchmarks aren't very useful and incomplete as has been stated by a few people before me.hirschma - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
I'd really love to know the sizes of the executables where the Xeon won by a significant amount. I'd bet that everything just fits in the cache for the Xeon, but not for the Athlon.If that is, in fact, the case, then Anandtech's conclusion should be: sometimes 1 meg of cache beats 512k of cache.
Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
WizzBall - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
Uh you're right manno, how awful of us to not behave and thank KK for his effort... So here it is, thank you for wasting my time Kristopher!And btw, what's this bs about the 'service'... if WE wouldn't come here to read on a daily basis they would have no job, get it manno? Now go back and bow again to KK, thank you very much.
*We'll send kudos when we see something done right although it's true you can't please everybody but this time a majority of the people expressing their opinion think this is crappy work. It's weird how all the fanboys gather here on AT, huh?
Carfax - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
Manno, have you read ANY of the replies? Alot of the benchmarks are incorrect due to setup errors. It's not just the scores that we're bitching about, but the SLOPPINESS of the review..