Linux and EM64T; Intel's 64-bit Suggestion
by Kristopher Kubicki on August 9, 2004 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Linux
Audio Encoding
Lame was compiled from source without optimizations. We only ran ./configure and make, without any flags. We realize that some people would like to verify our binaries and sample files for their own benchmarks. In order to save bandwidth and prevent copyright infractions, we will provide our test files and binaries under limited circumstances to serious inquiries. We ran lame on a 700MB .wav file using the command equivalent to the one below:# lame sample.wav -b 192 -m s -h >/dev/null
Encoding time, lower is better.
POV-RAY
Although POV-RAY is limited in application (particularly when compared against Mental Ray), it does provide a free open source solution for basic rendering. POV-Ray 3.50c was our choice of render engine for this benchmark. For benchmark specifics, we run the exact benchmark as specified by the POV-Ray official site. We use the precompiled RPM for this test.Render Time in Seconds, less is better.
POV-Ray does not have multithread support, so we were not surprised to see the HyperThreading configuration slowing down to the configuration without HT. We see the Athlon 64 processor pull way ahead; render tasks are extremely CPU and memory dependant. With the memory controller on the CPU, Athlon 64 becomes the stronger offering in this situation.
GZip
To throw in some rudimentary tests for GZip, we used the included GZip 1.3.5 to compress the .wav file from the benchmark above. We do not want to limit our I/O on writing to the hard drive, so the operation is performed as below:# time gzip -c sample.wav > /dev/null
Intel wins their first bout of the analysis, albeit not by much. We will find a recurring pattern later on with integer based calculations and the Nocona Xeon processor. The entire Prescott family of Intel CPUs received a dedicated integer multiplier rather than continually using the floating point multiplier. This becomes extremely useful in some of our other benchmarks.
Database Performance
We will run the standard SQL-bench suite included with RPM MySQL 4.0.20d.
Of all our benchmarks, the SQL-bench becomes the most baffling. The extremely threaded database application performs particularly poorly with HyperThreading enabled. The Althon 64 outperforms Intel again in this benchmark, and a lot of it is almost certainly accredited to the on die memory controller again.
Update: We copied the 32-bit marks from our benchmark in previous testing instead of the 64-bit. You can view the previous articles here from a month ago. The graphs have also been updated.
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.