Slashdot Mirror
Opteron Benchmarked Against Xeon
jbmnuke writes "Tom's Hardware has posted a review of AMD's Opteron v. Intels Xeon." Nothing gets the blood pumping like a whole new generation of CPUs to compare numbers to, right? Update: 04/22 12:35 GMT by H : And there's the official benchmarks as well, with more coming - like Linux Magazine and Newsforge
It doesn't get my blood pumping, I can't afford such things (or cool them)! *Pats Duron 1000*
Nothing gets the adrenaline pumping like the flood of trolls this sort of comparison should inspire.
but it reminds me of a benchmark performed between desktop x86's and a sun machine. Given the different architectures, it really didn't make sense. However, the benchmark was supposed to show price::performance. Is this what Pabst is trying to convey? I don't take much stock in benchmarks anyway, as I would rather get my hands on it and try to break it.
Next Review: Apples vs Oranges, Which has more of an Orange taste?
Looking for hardware (Currently need: Large Etch-a-Sketch) Have one? See my journal!
So you do not believe that Intel got where they got today becuase of competition and pressure? You sincerely believe that Intel wouldn't sit back on their lazy ass and inflate prices, if there were no copmetition?
Naivity ensues obviosuly.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Suddenly, I feel this is old news... It came out five hours ago for gossake!
_ ____Very good____Good
Nonetheless here is the condensed version:
_____________Server_______Workstation
Opteron_
Xeon_________Good_________Very Good
Didn't I see this in an Evangelion episode?
-Tolerate my intolerance
Check the Spec benchmarks here.
SpecFP_rate, 2CPUs:
Itanium2 1GHz: 30.7
Opteron 1.8GHz: 26.7
SpecFP_rate, 4CPUs:
Itanium2 1GHz: 49.3
Opteron 1.8GHz: 49.2
Here we see the beauty of AMDs integrated memory contoller. Despite that 1GHz Itanium2 is a $4000 chip and has 3MB of cache, doubling the number of CPUs increase performance only by 60% because Itanium2 uses shared bus.
Opteron gets impressive 84% improvement because
memory bandwidth increases as more CPUs are added.
In SpecInt Opteron is much more faster than more expensive Itanium2.
The dual Xeon has 512 MB RAM.
The dual Opteron has 2 GB RAM.
Pretty sloppy, if you ask me.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Tom seems to be blocking referrals from slashdot, so copy and paste this to make it view the article: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030422/index.htm l
Considering how P4 3.06Ghz actually runs at 3Ghz and does much better at .....
/. readers seem to as well. Naive of me perhaps to think that /. readers would be more clued up, but hey.
Tell me, why is the fact it actually runs at 3Ghz important?
MHz is not a useful measure of performance.
Jesus. No wonder AMD implemented their 'marketing MHz' rating system - the average guy on the street thinks that's how you measure perfomance of CPUs, and even some
I'd love to see the MHz rating be completely scrapped from how we rate CPUs in stores. Yes, it's useful to see that an AMD 2000+ is faster than a 1800+, but it's not so great when comparing with Intel chips. The trouble is that since AMDs are better at some things, and Intels better at others, a number of figures would have to be provided to make a fair and useful comparison. Too many numbers though I'm sure might confuse people, so I guess we'll be stuck with the MHz wars for a while yet.
However, there's little doubt that they are meant to be compared to pentiums, and you raise an interesting point. Even stranger would be - what happened if intel adopted the same scheme? Then they'd both basically be making up numbers!
No, I don't want a free iPod
Ace's hardware as an in-depth review as well, and it isn't slashdotted.
http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=55000251