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
T8000 - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
I think it is justified to put the 3500+ in its place here. Either it is overrated or its 64 bit support is more of a marketing statement.For those wanting an 3800+ in the review, just add a little under 10% to the 3500+, since the 3800+ has about 10% more clockspeed and it usually scales close to that. Not that it would change that much, it would only make things worse for AMD fanboys, seeing the 3800+ unable to hold its own against a real 3.6 Ghz CPU.
Besides, you are welcome to try these tests at home with your FX53 or Opteron x50 and submit some scores. Don't have one? Don't worry, AMD hardly sells them anyway, especially to home users, since most users that can afford them do not buy AMD.
matman326 - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
Very disappointing.... thats all i'm gonna say.wildguy2k - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
"Even a intel fanyboy has to laugh at how off sided this failure of a "review" was.Come on anandtech, if we wanted to read stuff like this we go to tom's"
Exactly. Also, to all those who say that 200MHz & 512KB of cache don't really make much difference, there's an article on this same site that may point out the very difference they provide. Now, I know it's not utilizing the 64bit extensions, but this image
(http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/athlon%2064%203... DOES show a 10% difference between the FX-53 & the 3500+ while compiling...
rocketbuddha - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
AlexWade - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
Okay, deep breath ...Obviously, the Prescott does some nice math work. I'll keep that in mind. But, most of us, and I'll tend to believe most servers, don't crunch numbers all day. I wanted to see more benchmarks on stuff that is more likely to get done, not finding prime numbers. More encoding, more games, more SQL, more compiling, only one or two math benchmarks.
It is NOT a fair comparision of A64's weakness vs. Prescott's new strength on 60%+ benchmarks.
It is a fair comparision of CPU's. Although, not the best. The Opteron and Athlon64 come from the same mold. Variations aren't going to be that minor.
Please, next benchmark, make it more well-rounded. I could give a flip about Super Pi .
classy - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
I see no basis at all for this article. If you only had benchmarks for the 3500+ you should have even written this article. In all the years on Anandtech, I don't ever recall an article as uninformative as this one. Its nice to see the Athlon win a couple of benchmarks, but this is a very needless comparison.Marlin1975 - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
Even a intel fanyboy has to laugh at how off sided this failure of a "review" was.Come on anandtech, if we wanted to read stuff like this we go to tom's
Pollock - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
I just want to throw my comment in here that I agree with most of the other people here. The conclusion is what I find most ridiculous."Without a doubt, the 3.6GHz Xeon trounces over the Athlon 64 in math-intensive benchmarks."
Like many other people said, I find that statement very unfair, again considering it wasn't against a similar chip.
bhtooefr - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
OK, I posted that last comment in reply to one on the previous page, and didn't realize that some of the benchmarks were 32-bit ones, either by accident, or to make the AMD smearing more obvious...bhtooefr - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
All of the benchmarks were 64-bit. They couldn't have thrown in a regular Xeon 3.6, because it wouldn't be able to run the OS or the benchmarking apps.They should be testing chips against others in their price range and PR rating range. So, here's what they should have tested (I noticed further down why they used the 3500+ ($346):
Pentium 4 560 EM64T (3.6GHz, $637)
Pentium 4 550 EM64T (3.4GHz, $417)
Pentium 4 540 EM64T (3.2GHz, $278)
I obtained these P4 prices from Intel's price list. While these prices are for the NON-EM64T chips, I read in a press release that Intel isn't charging any more for EM64T.
If they did it right, with the Xeon DP 3.6, here are the CPUs:
Xeon DP 3.6 EM64T ($851)
Opteron 250 ($851 - looks like it's aligned EXACTLY against the DP 3.6)