Why do you persist like this... Xeons are server and workstation chips. End of story, they are not meant to be run against an A64 3500+.
1. They are targetted at entirely diffrent markets.
2. The Xeon has more cache than any current desktop P4
3. The clockspeed diffrence is substantial, even with the Athlons IPC being higher.
4. the Xeon is using ECC Ram, so though it is unlikely, if a memory error occurred in the A64 it would take a performance hit, this wouldn't happen on a Xeon system.
5. The article is invalid on the fact that there are several errors in performance recording, including using a 32bit performance example against a 64bit performance example. And also the fact that none of the tests were labelled as to whether they were 64bit or 32bit tests.
6. If they are exactly the same, please explain to me why an A64 3400+ Absolutely stomped all over a Prescott 3.4ghz? We have nothing to go on that would give us reason to believ that 64bit would make such a drastic change. And also P4s scale no where near as well as Athlons, so I somehow doubt that the extra 200mhz will make that significant of a change.
Don't be stupid, I know full well that cache is part of design. I pointed it out more to show that they were designed for diffrent applications. And all the applications run in this article favored Workstation and server chips, not desktop chips. The extra cache is also why it cost twice as much. And the reason it needs that much cache is because the longer pipeline makes it uneconomical for the CPU to use system memory.
If this was a Prescott vs an A64, I wouldn't be complaining about the article.
This article should not have been posted here, or on Anandtech for that matter. It has already caused a riot over there, both in the comments section of the article, and the forums. This article was grotesquely sub-par for Anandtech, and should have been removed immediately. Several of us avid AT readers have spotted discrepencies in the charts, stats that are totally bogus in comparison to previous AT articles. Particularly the MySql chart.
To put it simply, there is absolutely no way to compare those two chips, as someone in the forums put it, "It's like comparing apples to a slab of meat."
The Xeon has double the cache, is double the price, and isa top end server chip, being compared to a midrange desktop chip. The two simply cannot be compared. The article should have included an FX chip and/or an Opteron 150.
Discount the article entirely. Hardcore Intel fanboys have spoken out against this article, that should really tell you something.
I wonder if you could get a pockettop keyboard and use it through the IR port, then attach a little USB mouse to it and quite literally have an incredibly mobile computing center. That would rock for note taking in college...
Only problem is it probably doesn't support the mouse... But then again it's Linux and on a java/Qt platform so you may be able to do that sorta thing yourself...
I admitted that P-M is based off P3. But the fact still exists that it needs the cache so it's pipeline stays full. Otherwise the cache wouldn't be neccessary and Intel wouldn't put it in there, it does cost alot to have that much cache on a chip, so it wouldn't be smart to do unless there was a good reason.
Why does the mhz myth still exist? Intel will get there first I assure you. Who will be the better performer at the time? That is another question entirely.
Your very uninformed sir... The Pentium - M has more cache for precisely the thing you blamed AMD for having. Their core is woefully inneficient, though I must say the Banias core is heads and shoulders and then some over the P4 in that aspect.
OK here's a crash course on how a Pentium operates diffrently from an AMD. The Pentium has a much longer pipeline than the AMD, a pipeline is the route the information travels to be computed. The longer the pipeline, the longer it takes to fill with information, the longer it takes to get things done. Fortunately for intel, it also allows you to ramp up the clockspeed to ridiculous speeds. So, to keep the pipeline full after a missed claculation a Pentium needs more cache, so that it doesn't have to go all the way to the system memory for the informaion.
AMD has a shorter pipeline, a better branch predicter, and that allows it to complete more instructions per clock. Therefore the AMD is actually the more efficient processor.
Ok Intel finally made an intelligent move with the Pentium M core, the shortened the pipeline... alot. This allows them to do more instructructions per clock, as AMD does. The main reason that Pentium Ms have such low power consumption is that they are a core that has been designed ground up for mobile computing. They have no desktop counterpart. The closest there is is the Pentum 3, and that is an ancient ancestor.
Performance. I guarentee the AMD will sweep the floor with Pentium in gaming, and office, and will likely have equal battery drain in normal usage due to Cool n' Quiet, which is the best throttling there is.
Don't be so quick to write them off because of mere history. Historically, they don't innovate, they follow. But who made x86-64?
Slashdot Mirror
1. They are targetted at entirely diffrent markets.
2. The Xeon has more cache than any current desktop P4
3. The clockspeed diffrence is substantial, even with the Athlons IPC being higher.
4. the Xeon is using ECC Ram, so though it is unlikely, if a memory error occurred in the A64 it would take a performance hit, this wouldn't happen on a Xeon system. 5. The article is invalid on the fact that there are several errors in performance recording, including using a 32bit performance example against a 64bit performance example. And also the fact that none of the tests were labelled as to whether they were 64bit or 32bit tests. 6. If they are exactly the same, please explain to me why an A64 3400+ Absolutely stomped all over a Prescott 3.4ghz? We have nothing to go on that would give us reason to believ that 64bit would make such a drastic change. And also P4s scale no where near as well as Athlons, so I somehow doubt that the extra 200mhz will make that significant of a change.
Perhaps because the application were workstation and server apps?
Don't be stupid, I know full well that cache is part of design. I pointed it out more to show that they were designed for diffrent applications. And all the applications run in this article favored Workstation and server chips, not desktop chips. The extra cache is also why it cost twice as much. And the reason it needs that much cache is because the longer pipeline makes it uneconomical for the CPU to use system memory. If this was a Prescott vs an A64, I wouldn't be complaining about the article.
This article should not have been posted here, or on Anandtech for that matter. It has already caused a riot over there, both in the comments section of the article, and the forums. This article was grotesquely sub-par for Anandtech, and should have been removed immediately. Several of us avid AT readers have spotted discrepencies in the charts, stats that are totally bogus in comparison to previous AT articles. Particularly the MySql chart. To put it simply, there is absolutely no way to compare those two chips, as someone in the forums put it, "It's like comparing apples to a slab of meat." The Xeon has double the cache, is double the price, and isa top end server chip, being compared to a midrange desktop chip. The two simply cannot be compared. The article should have included an FX chip and/or an Opteron 150. Discount the article entirely. Hardcore Intel fanboys have spoken out against this article, that should really tell you something.
I wonder if you could get a pockettop keyboard and use it through the IR port, then attach a little USB mouse to it and quite literally have an incredibly mobile computing center. That would rock for note taking in college... Only problem is it probably doesn't support the mouse... But then again it's Linux and on a java/Qt platform so you may be able to do that sorta thing yourself...
Lighten up people. If you don't want to read the articles then don't, nobody has a gun to your head. No need to flame slashdot...
I admitted that P-M is based off P3. But the fact still exists that it needs the cache so it's pipeline stays full. Otherwise the cache wouldn't be neccessary and Intel wouldn't put it in there, it does cost alot to have that much cache on a chip, so it wouldn't be smart to do unless there was a good reason.
That sir, is the truth. But you'd think that after XP and now 64 and word of Intel moving toward the Pentium M core, people would get the hint.
Why does the mhz myth still exist? Intel will get there first I assure you. Who will be the better performer at the time? That is another question entirely.
Your very uninformed sir... The Pentium - M has more cache for precisely the thing you blamed AMD for having. Their core is woefully inneficient, though I must say the Banias core is heads and shoulders and then some over the P4 in that aspect. OK here's a crash course on how a Pentium operates diffrently from an AMD. The Pentium has a much longer pipeline than the AMD, a pipeline is the route the information travels to be computed. The longer the pipeline, the longer it takes to fill with information, the longer it takes to get things done. Fortunately for intel, it also allows you to ramp up the clockspeed to ridiculous speeds. So, to keep the pipeline full after a missed claculation a Pentium needs more cache, so that it doesn't have to go all the way to the system memory for the informaion. AMD has a shorter pipeline, a better branch predicter, and that allows it to complete more instructions per clock. Therefore the AMD is actually the more efficient processor. Ok Intel finally made an intelligent move with the Pentium M core, the shortened the pipeline... alot. This allows them to do more instructructions per clock, as AMD does. The main reason that Pentium Ms have such low power consumption is that they are a core that has been designed ground up for mobile computing. They have no desktop counterpart. The closest there is is the Pentum 3, and that is an ancient ancestor. Performance. I guarentee the AMD will sweep the floor with Pentium in gaming, and office, and will likely have equal battery drain in normal usage due to Cool n' Quiet, which is the best throttling there is. Don't be so quick to write them off because of mere history. Historically, they don't innovate, they follow. But who made x86-64?