Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EM64T Xeon vs. Athlon 64 under Linux (AMD64)

Posted by Hemos on from the pressing-the-limits-of-the-machines dept.

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.

4 of 313 comments (clear)

  1. Re:More Slashdot Flamebait? by callipygian-showsyst · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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!

    --
    Best Buy can have you arrested
  2. Intel wins, but give credit where it's due by Epistax · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  3. FPU intensive? by klaussm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. Let's see.... by adiposity · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?