Intel Dual Core Xeon Benchmarked

An anonymous reader writes "A few weeks back, Intel launched a new dual core chip with little applause. It appears we know now why, as the chip has been benchmarked by the chaps at GamePC. In tests against the dual core AMD Opteron processor, Intel's new chip gets thoroughly thrashed, losing out in terms of raw performance while eating a lot more power. "

Comments

AMD's dual cores are great

[jarich]

I just bought my wife a dual core (3800 model) and it's just as responsive as my dual Opteron. I'm seriously considering selling my dual CPU box and getting a dual core myself just to have fewer fans in the box and generate less heat.

I had been considering an Intel dual core but it sounds like I need to aim for an AMD instead.

Re:AMD's dual cores are great

[Eukariote]

The AMD chips have got more memory bandwidth, so they can keep both cpus fed with data reasonably well.

Not just that. The AMD dualcore chips have an on-chip connection between the cores: both cores share a crossbar fronting the memory controllers and have the on-chip equivalent of a coherent HyperTransport connection. So, you see, the AMD design is in fact a real dual-core design. The current Intel dual-cores, on the other hand, share nothing on-chip.

Stupid pre-retail release

[dada21]

This release seems dumb for Intel. No optimized motherboards, outrageous power requirements and a really inefficient core? It isn't even alpha-release worthy. Why would Intel release a product that is just waiting for a poor review? Is the high end market that hungry?

The article didn't need 15 pages to explain Intel's mistakes. Intel will lose more customers to AMD than if they had waited until they had a viable and competitive product.

400W while idling? For sub-standard performance? Yay.

Power Consumption

[matr0x_x]

This is the 21st century in North America, since when do we care how much power a CPU uses. *Drives away in Hummer*

Bah

[Red Flayer]

Got through several pages of the benchmarking before it appeared /.ed.

First concern is that though the chip has been released, motherboards configured for it aren't close to release yet. I'd rather see it benchmarked as distributed, since that's what really matters to the end user.

Second concern is power usage and heat production. If you can't make a chip as powerful as your competitors, you better make sure it is not as expensive to operate. Really, why would someone choose to use a chip that is less powerful, intrinsically costs more to operate, and costs more to cool? Chips are cheap enough that the operating costs are often now more expensive than initial cost.

Coral cache link

[Freggy]

http://www.gamepc.com.nyud.net:8090/labs/view_cont ent.asp?id=paxville&page=1

Seems it's slashdotted already after 8 posts. Finally when will all slashdot-links be coralized automatically?

Stock market

[13bPower]

Hello, Stock market? Please read slashdot. I need to sell my AMD stock and buy a new amp.

Dude, you're getting whatever we sell you!

[Wesley Felter]

Dell is locked into Intel and they really needed dual core, so there it is.

Re:Dude, you're getting whatever we sell you!

[cbreaker]

Yes, I think this is exactly why. Other big vendors - IBM, HP, Sun - they all have Opteron/Athlon machines in their line-ups. When I asked a Dell rep why Dell had zero, and no intentions to ever have any AMD, he said it was because AMD wouldn't be able to supply them enough CPU's. I call bullshit. AMD has a great deal of production capacity, and adding more all the time. Dell wouldn't have to all of a sudden convert 100% of it's line up with AMD. But, therein may lie the problem. They very-well might have to, or lose some insane deals with Intel. I think that's why they stay Intel - and mention it on every single Dell ad.

If I could upgrade my existing 2P dell servers to even inefficient dual cores that run too hot, I'd do it. But I doubt my existing servers would be able to cool them, so it's probably not going to happen anywyas. If we could get 2x dual-Opteron servers, we'd jump on it for all our ESX servers - especially with ESX3 and native x64 memory support. SWEET! But no, we'll be stuck with Xeon "EMT64" bastardized x64 CPU's because we're locked into Dell.

HORUS

[Anonymous Coward]

These have been availible in Dell servers for a while now according to the online store. Intel are truly screwed for at least the next 6-12 months by the looks of things unless they are hiding something seriously good. I had thought that perhaps they had been based on Apple's decision to switch, it looks like they might just be pretending to be better than they really are though.

AMD looks like it's going to continue to be the winner on performance for the foreseeable future, especially with it's totally awesome HORUS chipset on the horizon which might just hail the beginning of commodity super computing.

For anyone wondering what HORUS is, it's an SMP system that can link 4 Opteron's together over HTT. The real killer is that it can it's self be linked to 4 other HORUS chips over InfiniBand. A HORUS SMP system appears as another Opteron chip to the other HORUS groups. AMDs current plans are for HORUS to scale to 32 CPUs in a hot swappable configuration. It's going to be great.

Re:Yet strangly...

[Glock27]

OK, troll...I'll bite.

Intel's sales will again beat AMD's by several fold.

Perhaps, although AMD has made impressive inroads into the server/enterprise marketplace and there's no sign of it slowing down.

The reason seems to be that most PC and server purchases are not intended for games, beyond Solitare of course,

Non sequitur, Opterons smoke Xeons at enterprise tasks like web serving, database hosting and so on, in almost every benchmark. Especially in the more enterprise-relevant 2-way and 4-way (4 or 8 core) configurations.

and people prefer the reliability, power savings and lower temperatures of the Intel chips.

RTFA. For several YEARS AMD's chips have been lower power and cooler than Intel's - a combination of doing more work at lower clock frequencies, and SOI. You're recalling something from the K6 days that is totally backwards today.

AMD should be happy they ran Cyrix out of the business but, they should have realized by now that they will not impact Intel sales no matter how vocal their fanboys might be.

AMD has already impacted Intel's sales in a big way. Did you hear about Intel's disappointing earnings today? Even worse for Intel, AMD has *creamed* the Itanium. Now 90% of what were potential Itanium customers (big bucks for Intel) are now going to do AMD64 instead...even if it happens to run on Intel silicon. Itanium is a financial and technical disaster for Intel.

Remember the days when AMD cloned Intel's instruction sets, not vice versa?

BTW, could I borrow your Opteron, I need to fry an egg for breakfast.

Wow, how...witty. At any rate, looks like Xeons are the hot ticket there... ;-)