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.

Comments

Might have to buy an Intel for a change

[danormsby]

There is a memory test using Ubench in the review here and Intel wins again.

So should I save up for an Intel processor or buy 2 AMD machines?

Re:More Slashdot Flamebait?

[callipygian-showsyst]

The editors of Slashdot seem to love posting articles whose sole purpose is to evoke flame wars between Intel fans and AMD fans.

You've hit the nail on the head. Why on earth would you make a statement about how "disappointing" it is that Xeon may be better in some ways? Why is it disappointing to have a CHOICE?

If you don't want CPU choices, get a Mac!

Intel wins, but give credit where it's due

[Epistax]

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. Also, keep in mind that the AMD processor is clocked 1400MHz slower than the 3.6GHz Xeon.

I think this sums it up (besides the fact Intel kicked their pants). The AMD is running at 2.2 ghz, and retails $500 less. To me this says AMD is working smarter and Intel is working harder. Intel is reaching a (transient) ceiling with their clockspeeds and one day AMD will catch up to it. It will be interesting to see if Intel's multicore plan kicks as much ass as they are presently hoping. It'll also be interesting to see AMDs attempt at the same.

Personally I'm rooting for both. If either company gets screwed, we're all screwed.

FPU intensive?

[klaussm]

Where are the FPU intensive benchmarks that the Athlon is trounced in?

Under normal circumstances a prime finder application does not use the FPU. And I also doubt that the super_pi application uses the FPU. However the powray benchmark (which actually uses the FPU), is one of the benchmarks where the Athlon wins.

So it would seem that it is the Integer benchmarks where the Athlon looses, instead. This also corresponds with how the normal Athlon fares against the normal Pentium.

synthetic benchmarks

[the quick brown fox]

I'm no expert on CPU architecture or synthetic benchmarks, but it seems like most of the synthetic benchmarks they used (primegen, super_pi, TSCP, uBench CPU) are the kinds of jobs that the Pentium 4 architecture is specifically designed to handle well: not much memory bandwidth required, little unpredictable branching. In these situations, the Xeon's 63 percent clock speed advantage is definitely going to make itself felt.

My guess is that if these same benchmarks had been run on any Athlon vs. the equivalent P4 throughout history, the outcome would've been similar. But the results would also have been as irrelevant yesterday as they are today, since we all know the Xeon isn't 40% faster than the A64 in anything like real-world usage.

Let's see....

[adiposity]

Xeon = 3.6 GHz, A64 = PR 3500
Xeon = Server, A64 = desktop
Xeon = L3 cache 1MB, A64 = L3 Cache 512K
Xeon = $??? (probably > 800 when available), A64 = $345 (pricewatch)
Xeon = fastest of Intel's 64-bit chips, A64 = slowest of AMD's 64-bit chips

Anandtech = sold down the river? What the hell?