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
DerekWilson - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
#213:It is much easier for other members of the AnandTech staff to setup Linux boxes comprised of the hardware Kris wants to test than for us to ship everything to him, have him work on it, then ship it back -- the AT staff is global, and the fact that SSH allows us this freedom is invaluable in Linux testing.
A "remote location" will always be with another AT staff member unless very specifically noted (though we would not be comfortable taking someone elses word on the system without having physical access to it).
Derek Wilson
prd00 - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
I read all those comments, and some are nasty.. I think Kris is not providing thie valid benchmark suite, perhaps he doesn't know any optimization or anything inside there..I suggest, next time you provide benchmark that has proven to take advantage of both sides. Aces' Hardware comparison of server benchmark is a good example. Take a look at that..
About those fans that asking to compare against Opteron, I guess the figure will not so much difference, looking at some similarities between 3500+ and Opteron 150, or, should I say FX53 and 150, but I guess moving to FX53 will change the result a little. Remember P4 vs P4EE? Nocona is in P4EE position, while 3.6F is in P4 position. There is no way 3.6F is comparable in term of performance to Nocona. You forget about all Xeon having a huge L3 cache which help them tremendously here. But number that much difference are not supposed to change with move to Opteron 150. Granted, it will lessen the pain but Opteron is always on par with Xeon on single CPU config, some better, some worse. And with this new CPU, Opteron is supposed to be a little slower. But where Opteron really shines is when you put them into multi processor config which is normal on server system on which Nocona intended.
Well.. Kris, I'm waiting.. The only valid bench you provide are MySQL, GZip and Lame which is I know that it is 64 bit indeed. I can't consider your review is valid right now.
I suggest you void this review, and start a new review on real 64 bit vs 64 bit, in server environment vs server environment, and in server configuration vs server configuration. Dual Nocona vs Dual Opt and Quad Nocona vs Quad Opt will be good review. John the ripper is useless on server, and so does lame and SuperPI. We are talking about server CPU, so put server benchmark there. A real time database throughput, a request response, page per second, java performance, and so on. If you need reference, please look at this. This is the way server CPU comparison supposed to be done.
http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000275
JGunther - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
Kris, could you address comment #135?Basically, why is this Nocona located in a server "in a remote location". What does this mean exactly?
love4ever - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
KristopherKubicki im sorry for all that coments, that are against you.i suport you, and your page.
good work.
thatsright - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
For all the Bitching everyone here has done (including I), at least we have to give it to AnandTech and Kris for listening to it's audience and bending over backward in an effort to rectify the 'problem.'At least Kris K is address our complaints. Whens the last time you ever heard of Tom Pabst doing the same with one of his 'articles' on Tom's? While the overall nature of the article I read on AT was deeply troubling for it's incompleteness, its the only time I have really seen on AT. The same can't be said of Tom's Hardware guide.
Now stop whining, you bastards! It's not like were paying for these Articles. Just regard the article as a mistake, and save your whining for the Update.
LONG LIVE AnandTech.com!!!
tfranzese - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
Glad to hear it Kris.KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
I understand your concern for the other benchmarks, and the conclusions i drew were from those benchmarks. This is why we are doing another review as we speak. I hope the other article with more thorough realworld benchmarks makes more sense (should go live soon).Thanks,
Kristopher
tfranzese - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
I've grown to ignore things like Sandra benchmarks and I guess I find it difficult to ignore these because even though you state these are synthetic the conclusion just puts a lot of weight into the 'victory'.tfranzese - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
Okay, are you confident your other results are just as accurate? I only ask because John the Ripper, primegen, and ubench have also been mentioned in earlier posts. Not only in possible botched compiling, but perhaps their legitimacy as a valid benchmark - synthetic or not.KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
TSCP and the incorrectly copied numbers for MySQL have been changed as stated earlier.Kristopher