Slashdot Mirror
Xeon vs. Opteron Performance Benchmarks
QuickSand writes "Anand got his hands on some of Intel and AMD's enterprise processors including 4MB L3 Xeons, and put them to the test. Results were a little varied as 4-way Opteron systems seemed to fare the best, although dual Xeon configurations almost always beat dual Opterons. The exact benchmarks are here."
Test Results can be found here:= 6
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982&p
Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!
I remember AMD's K6-3 would blow away the K6-2 at the same clock speed with the major difference being the cache.
Whomever is citing Anandtech as claiming the dual Xeons almost always beat the dual-Opterons needs to read the article again. Both Architectures in a dual configuration tended to perfom about the same with Opteron and Xeon each winning some of the time. The Opteron scales better above dual configurations. However the Opteron is HALF the price of a Xeon! Cost/performance (or else we would all have 12th generation DECAlphas or Power5s by now) is easily handed to Opteron. Nice spin!
Avrice
At two processors Xeon is still ok because the bandwidth of the memory coherency still isn't in serious contention. However, as the systems scale larger support for NUMA is critical to reducing memory latency because it means that memory does not have to flow in from the controllers on other processors.
That is why Opteron is required for good performance with eight to sixteen processors, and you can even see the improvement on the four way tests that Anand ran.
Some info here. SSE3 is the big thing.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Why can't AMD make a Dual AMD64?
They DO. It's called an Opterion!
Guess you are refering to the Athlon64 which is a one way processor (just like the Pentium 4).
BTW the Opterion is made in 3 flavors, the 100 series is a SINGLE way cpu with NO smp support. It's very nearly the same as the Athlon64-FX. The Opterion 200 series is a 2 way (2 cpus), and the Opterion 800 series supports up to 8 cpus. AMD dropped plans for a 400 series, but you can use the 800 series chips to build servers with 1-8 cpu's.
I don't really know, but I think Intel's 64-bit chips will probably use a Tejas-style clip system, not pins. Technology that won't work in a current motherboard. But, once AMD upgrades to socket 939 for the FX-51, it won't work in current boards either. AMD and Intel are both set to release the new sockets at about the same time PCI-Express comes out, so upgrade-happy people will need to buy new motherboards anyway.
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
Full text
Anand seems to conclude something a bit different then the submitter:
The comparison we've made here is a very important one; it identifies Intel's strengths and their weaknesses with Xeon, and it crowns Opteron a clear multiprocessor winner. An area that we didn't touch on is cost, which is where AMD truly shines. The Opteron 848 processors we tested are around 1/2 the price of Intel's 2MB L3 Xeon MPs and we have not seen retail data on how expensive the 4MB parts will be.
In a 4-way configuration AMD's Opteron cannot be beat, and thus it is our choice for the basis for our new Forums database server.
It's interesting to notice that in these tests, the Opterons were clocked quite a bit slower and had a lot less cache than the Intel CPUs, yet performed comparably in 2-way and better in 4-way than the Intel chips.
The Opteron clocked at 2.2ghz with 1MB of cache was very close in 2-way performance with the Xeon 3.0 and 3.2 ghz each with 4 and 2 mb of cache respectively. The 1.8ghz Xeon compared well with the Xeon 2.8ghz with 2MB of cache. The Opterons were typically within 3% or so of their Intel counterparts in 2-way benchmarks and closer to 10% ahead in 4-way.
If nothing else, this says a lot about the efficiency of the Opteron's design. Less silicon, and more importantly for AMD, less expensive silicon, manages to achieve very close results.
"although dual Xeon configurations almost always beat dual Opterons."
/. ?
Perhaps the submitter's screen reader doesn't work well with flash, but in the 2-way benchmarks, Opteron was on top twice, and Xeon was on top 3 times. All the 2-way benchmarks were fairly close (within 5%), and the Xeons never beat the Opterons by a margin greater than 1.7%. I don't quite know where 40% wins translate into "almost always" loses. In other words, the story submitter is a moron, or simply didn't look at the article.
"Results were a little varied as 4-way Opteron systems seemed to fare the best,"
Seemed? Let's see, out of five 4-way benchmarks, Opteron won... all of them - performing about 10% better than Xeons each time.
Since when did we start letting Tom Pabst submit articles to
Note to editors: When the submission is non-sequitur, either reject it or edit it.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
"Currently Intel's latest 3.0+ GHz offerings are spanking Athlon 64s in benchmarks with 32 bit applications."
...
What a bunch of crap! That's almost as big a lie as Intel makes of AMD cpu's. I didn't even bother reading the rest when you are obviously delusional.
BTW A64 chips can be had for the same prices as their A32 counterparts in the same speed rating, Motherbaords are almost equally expensive whether A32 or A64, & outperform them by up to 30%.
Ok well now I have read the rest of your comments & I have to reply to those as well:
"they're going to go to Intel because it has more upgrade possibilities"
What possibilities? They force upgrades way more often than AMD, & are known for being the best money sink for performance users.
"is cheaper than the Athlon 64 for the same level of computing power"
Uh not really, A64 costs the same or less than Intel for comparable performance as long as you don't follow the rule of 'Mhz/Ghz equals performance'. Take a look at pricewatch or Newegg and see for yourself...
"currently performs better"
Hogwash.
"So this is more of a plea for AMD to extend the Athlon "32" line a bit further. Please AMD, don't prematurely kill off 32-bit Athlon chip development!"
Uh they are building them at least through the end of this year, & probably next to some degree. The thing is their is no real future for A32, performance has been decreasing performance-wise in comparison & wasn't keeping up. AMD realized their best bet was to focus on A64 with it's integrated memory controller & higher IPC than A32 has. A64 is a real contender where as A32 wasn't keeping up & they knew it.
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
I think time will show (barring any major gaffes) that AMD made the right move. First and foremost, the Athlon XP appeared to be reaching the end of its run. Cranking up the speed of the processor didn't really seem to yield comparable performance gains. In the early days the performance ratings on the XP line were a little iffy, but they were close enough that most people didn't really care. With the XP 3000, and 3200 though those ratings were dubious at best. The speed ratings ratings for the Athlon 64, however, are pretty accurate, even understated in some areas.
I recently upgraded my principle system and at the time, I was determined that the P4 2.8HT CPU was going to be the chip the machine was built around. It clearly trounced the Athlon XP 2800 in all tests for about $100 more. I was about to order when the AMD Atlhon 64 3000+ was released. It outperformed the Intel chip in most areas, was 64 bit, backwards compatible, and only $20 more. In my opinion, and Anandtech and Tom's Hardware agree, the AMD Athlon 64 3000+ is the best bang for the buck CPU out there.
Pricewatch's Lowest Prices are...
AMD Athlon 64 3000+ - $205
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ - $251
AMD Athlon 64 3400+ - $401
Intel Pentium 4 3.0 (800) - $209
Intel Pentium 4 3.2 (800) - $273
Intel Pentium 4 3.4 (800) - $420
AMD Athlon XP 3000+ - $158
AMD Athlon XP 3200+ - $194
Looking at these benchmarks here and on the following page here. You can see, with the exception of pure media encoding, the Athlon 64's perform better. The margin is slim in some areas, and quite large in others. All this and the chips are a little cheaper.
In my opinion, the XP line was dead. It had gone as far as it was going to go. I think AMD knew that the 3000 and 3200 were more like the 2850 and 2900 and they weren't going to get any more mileage out of the design. I definitely think AMD made the right call putting all their eggs in the Opteron/Athlon 64 basket.
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
> Now its obvious you're trolling. [...] The long and short is that all PC sounds cards equally suck until you get to professional grade gear.
You must be joking. Most of the integrated sound I've had the joy to listen to produced noticeable background-noise. The most obvious one was the Eden-M board. Most mb-producers don't give much about seperating the analogue part from the digital, so accompanied with an intergrated graphics card, you can practically hear how a window is restored. It is usually not the quality of the on-board sound, which sells it, but purely the capability of producing some sound.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"