Slashdot Mirror


In Tests Opteron Shows Efficiency Edge Over Intel, Again

Ted Samson writes "In their latest round of energy-efficiency tests between AMD Opteron and Intel Xeon, independent testing firm Neal Nelson and Associates find AMD still holds an edge, but it's certainly not cut-and-dried. Nelson put similarly equipped servers through another gauntlet of tests, swapping in different amounts of memory and varying transaction loads. In the end, he found that the more memory he installed on the servers, the better the Opteron performed compared to the Xeon. Additionally, at maximum throughput, the Intel system fared better, power-efficiency-wise, by 5.0 to 5.5 percent for calculation intensive workloads. For disk I/O intensive workloads, AMD delivered better power efficiency by 18.4 to 18.6 percent. And in idle states — that is, when servers were waiting for their next work load — AMD consistently creamed Intel."

4 of 98 comments (clear)

  1. Horrible picture in my head . . . by StefanJ · · Score: 5, Funny

    Opteron?

    Xeon?

    Why do these top of the line processors sound like character names from crummy 1980-vintage cartoons about giant robots who talk like street thugs?

    "I'm calling you out Xeon! You will be defeated and all Processaria will bow before my superior power stats!"

    "You're a fool if you believe those benchmarks Opteron! The true power is Inside!" (duh-Dah-dumm!)

    1. Re:Horrible picture in my head . . . by lotho+brandybuck · · Score: 3, Funny


      Maybe because the folks currently running these companies grew up watching crummy 1980-vintage cartoons about giant robots who talk like street thugs?

  2. Efficient Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This just in! AMD is more efficient than Intel when doing nothing!

    For a really good test, they should compare AMD to an empty carboard box, and see which one uses more power when processing no transactions.

  3. FTFA by JedaFlain · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Further, in cases where Intel outperformed AMD in power efficiency, the servers were configured with smaller larger memory sizes."

    It's all so clear dark to me now...