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
syadnom - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
i'm have been a loyal anandtecher for quite a long time, if i keep seeing reviews of this caliber, i'm going to have to delete my bookmark.syadnom - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
wow, WTF were you guys thinking!?!ANANDTECH
in our next review, we'd like to show your how an AthlonFX53 compares to a 2.8Ghz Celeron
........."as you can see, the Celeron just cannot keep up with the AMD monster, looks like intel is really going to have to pick up the pace or AMD could rule the frickin' world with this new behemoth"
--
really though, a Xeon3.6 vs. a A643500, WTF, where is the Opt 150? how about showing apples to apples, this is like comparing apples to bannanas.
kellymjones4 - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
This review was bizarre. Why compare a $345 CPU to a top of the line Xeon? An Opteron 150 is less than $700 from many retailers. What's next, Opteron vs. Celeron???Avalon - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
lol Shimm."Xeon processor retails for $850 and the Athlon 3500+ retails for about $500 less". $500 less than the Xeon, not $500 :)
I agree, weird article to put up, and very weird benchmarks.
mkruer - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
Kristopher:To reiterate what other people have been saying, your methodology is flawed. What you need to do is choose 3 processors from AMD and Intel (same class preferably) and run them both in an 32-bit environment and then 64-bit to see what the gain, if any, really is. For all we know the 64-bit scores for the Nocona might be even lower then the 32-bit brethren. If so this also points to the fact that most of the applications you tested are more megahertz dependant the 64-bit dependant, and not a good judgment of the how good Intel’s 64-bit implementation is. If the AMD is 64-bt scores higher then it does in 32-bit then this says that AMD did a good job and gets a boost, however if Intel’s chip falls compared to the 32 test this shows that Intel implementation is not good.
Shimmishim - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
for real though, did intel pay you off for this review???and you state that a 3500+ retails for less than $500... why don't you try less than $400 at most online vendors...
and you'll do a review later (opteron vs. xeon)??? why don't you do in the first place instead of being a lazy bum and trying to save face for intel...
Shimmishim - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
what in the world are you doing?is AT's review's getting worse and worse???
this by far has to be the worst review ever... comparable to those found at tom's...
kris... what in the world were you on when you did this review???
Zebo - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
Wow!In other news: "intel's offers 10M for anandtech.com"
Locutus4657 - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
Is it just me or is a Server/Workstation CPU v. Desktop CPU comparision anything but apples to apples? Perhapse apples to pears at best? Could please re-run every test with the correct hardware? While I'm in a mood to rant, why the heck is your site no longer storing passwords when posting comments to articles?murdmath - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
Why are you running a Server chip (ie Xeon) against a Desktop chip (ie Athon 64)? Get an Opteron 150 and do it right.