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
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!