Slashdot Mirror
EM64T Xeon vs. Athlon 64 under Linux (AMD64)
legrimpeur writes "Anandtech has a nice performance comparison under Linux (AMD64) between the recently introduced 3.6GHz EM64T Xeon processor and an Athlon 64 3500+. It is disappointing to see how the Athlon gets trounced in FPU intensive benchmarks. No memory-bound benchmarks (where the Athlon is supposed to have an edge) are presented, though." Update: 08/09 23:34 GMT by T : As the Inquirer reports, many Anandtech readers take issue with the comparison.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
For one the Xeon has more L2 cache and for another most of the math benchmarks looked to be integer based. The Xeon gets beat in POVray wich is FPU intensive if im am not much mistaken... I think it is unfair to say the FPU on the Xeon is better...
I would be nice to see more non-synthetic benchmarks.
Your processor doesnt "Crash". If you are having issues, chances are it is because you are too incomptent to be that close to the hardware. Try an OEM built AMD machine. A completely different experience.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
They have a cross licence agreement, so each one has what the other has in production in the term of 6 to 9 months. That is why we see the SSE in AMD processors, and AMD64 instruction in Intel64 processors.
t s/ amd/intel.license.2001.01.01.html
http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreemen
So I don't see any problem fro AMD in licensing the cp-processor.
Your comment does not in any way contravene the parent. It would still be more interesting if it were a benchmark with Opteron vs. Xeon. Personally what I would like to see is benchmarks which compare processors with like prices rather than market positioning. In any case, the fact that they plan to do a Xeon vs. Opteron benchmark later does not change the fact that such a benchmark would/will be more interesting than this one.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I though that these benchmarks looked a little strange when you're using Jack the Ripper as one of your major comparisons. There's a nice thread going on over at Ace's bashing the benchmarks, including a post from the author of the chess benchmark stating:
this test they did was flawed in all respects.
The "primegen" program listed where the Xeon beats the Athlon slightly does not do any floating point.
/dev/null, not anything useful.
I looked at the code and played with it a little (I got it from http://cr.yp.to/primegen.html and it seems the benchmark is mostly limited by the implementation of putchar().
My system was an dual AMD Opteron 1.8GHz running Win XP pro with Cygwin. I modified the benchmark to not use putchar() but instead just write the characters to a 1MB buffer, and it got 16 times faster! To be specific, "primes 1 100000000 > file" went from 24.2 seconds to 1.497. Note that it's generating 51MB of output for primes under 100 million. I didn't bother running it for the 100 billion max, but would expect it to be around 50GB.
This is a very poor benchmark since it's just measuring your stdc implementation of putchar and your system's ability to sink data to