×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Xeon vs. Opteron Performance Benchmarks

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the for-your-summer-cottage's-data-farm dept.

AMD 362

QuickSand writes "Anand got his hands on some of Intel and AMD's enterprise processors including 4MB L3 Xeons, and put them to the test. Results were a little varied as 4-way Opteron systems seemed to fare the best, although dual Xeon configurations almost always beat dual Opterons. The exact benchmarks are here."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

362 comments

Support SCO (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453106)

Support SCO
----------------

SCO has had their IP stolen by unscrupulous GNU hippies. I wish them success in their mission.

Re:Support SCO (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453172)

SCO's telacon was kind of an intereting listen.

They say they own all rights to UNIX and its derivitive creations (Linux)

They will not refund the licensing fees if tehy loose, because they are giving the right to use their IP even if it turns out its same thing they already sold their customers.

I hope they publish a transcipt to the call.

Re:Support SCO (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453178)

I also support SCO in thier fight against the communist open source hippies who stole their IP.

If SCO finds the right Judge (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453389)

Maybe they can destroy linux in the USA. This would be fantastic! I want to see slashdot sued next, they are like the Al-Jazeera of the open-sores world.

xeon vs opteron? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453113)

How about Athlon? How Ghz is better, right?

I wish I had a new processors (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453121)

But I am broke...

fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453123)

fp

Why benchmark games? (-1, Insightful)

alen (225700) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453133)

I've read anand's results before and he is alwyas benchmarking games with corporate products such as xeon, opteron and windows64. I never understood that. Except for maybe a tiny percentage of people, who uses this stuff for games? And he actually had the nerve to slam windows64 because it didn't run games as fast as normal windowsXP.

Re:Why benchmark games? (5, Insightful)

Lomby (147071) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453173)

Hmmm, you should read the article before commenting.

The last two articles on Xeons used their forum database as the workload for the benchmark. In the current article he even managed to use an unnamed enterprise order management system.

Then, if you have the games and the 64 bits systems at hand, why not do a quick benchmark?

Their review of windows64 highlighted some obvious problems, probably with drivers/PCI, that may be relevant for professional use (think of CAD).

Re:Why benchmark games? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453198)

How could this get modded up? The article doesn't use game benchmarks at all. The poster obviously just wanted to get the first meaningful post and didn't even bother looking at the article.

Re:Why benchmark games? (5, Interesting)

Judg3 (88435) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453208)

It's probably due to the lack of knowledge/tools to benchtest anything else. I'd like to see SQL benchtests, IIS/Apache test/etc but just like a lot of other people, I don't know exactly how to do that. Though if I ran a site which made it my business to test hardware I'd definately find out and learn how to do it.

I'd like to see more "Consumer Reports" type tests to. Test hardware configuration X as a high-volume SQL server, and show me how it's held up after a month, 3 months, 6 months, and a year. Yes, maybe I'd upgrade before then, but not everyone would, and I'd like to see common failures and problems down the line - not a 1-2 day test.

Re:Why benchmark games? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453272)

It is bad enough that he didn't read the article but even after everybody else pointed out that the original poster was wrong you still posted your equally uninformed response. He is a troll but I am not sure what that makes you.

Re:Why benchmark games? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453224)

Did you even read the review? Why don't you read before you end up making yourself look bad.

And Anand's Win XP 64 review wasn't bashing it. He was using games to highlight that there are still several things that need to be addressed (Like drivers) before it will be ready for prime time.

IA-32e vs IA-32 (4, Interesting)

Stonent1 (594886) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453143)

Can somebody tell me if the IA-32e processors will be in the socket 478 format to work with existing boards, or will they require a whole new socket and chipset (rather than a bios update) If they really are just "extensions" then I don't see why anything special would need to be on the motherboard correct? The cpu should switch into 64bit mode whenever the OS tells it to right?

Re:IA-32e vs IA-32 (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453264)

No desktop versions will use new socket-775.

Re:IA-32e vs IA-32 (4, Informative)

irokitt (663593) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453266)

I don't really know, but I think Intel's 64-bit chips will probably use a Tejas-style clip system, not pins. Technology that won't work in a current motherboard. But, once AMD upgrades to socket 939 for the FX-51, it won't work in current boards either. AMD and Intel are both set to release the new sockets at about the same time PCI-Express comes out, so upgrade-happy people will need to buy new motherboards anyway.

Re:IA-32e vs IA-32 (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453577)

need to buy new motherboards

This makes me want to throw up. The last motherboard purchase I made, it was a chore finding one with the _least_ amount of features. Need an AMR riser slot? Fuck no, I'd rather have the PCI slot back. Need integrated sound? No, integrated sound makes my already bad speakers sound worse. It must've been tough figuring out how to make a decade's worth of improvements in technology amount to nothing. I have an ISA soundblaster from 10 years ago that sounds better than the onboard sound on my last motherboard. Need integrated video? I won't begrudge you this. Some people build clusters with their motherboards, and a video card is needed to boot, but if I have a choice I won't buy a mobo with integrated video.

In short, I want a motherboard with slots for RAM, an AGP slot, a socket/slot/hole for a CPU, PS/2 hookups, serial and USB connectors, and the rest of the board filled up with PCI (or PCI express) slots. That's the ticket.

Re:IA-32e vs IA-32 (3, Informative)

adler187 (448837) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453375)

Technically since the new Prescott chips have the instructions on them, yes you could buy a 478 Prescott. You would just have to hack the chip to activate the instructions (good luck with that!).

As for a real IA-32e chip with the instructions enabled, Intel has stated that they arent coming out for while, and since Intel is moving the P4 to the new 775 chipset in a few months, I would bet that they would also be released under this new chipset. Heck, they might not even release their IA-32e chips within the lifetime of the 775 chipset.

Personally my Athlon 2600 just fine enough for me.

Re:IA-32e vs IA-32 (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453398)

Intel has said that the initial 64-bit chips will be Xeon server processors -- which don't currently use Socket 478 anyway.

Pffft. These Intel vs. AMD flamewars are pointless (4, Funny)

Can it run Linux (664464) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453145)

because EVERYONE knows that Intel always wins.

Re:Pffft. These Intel vs. AMD flamewars are pointl (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453511)

Be careful, AMD lovers might have mod points ;)

xeons/opterons market share (3, Insightful)

chef_raekwon (411401) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453151)

dual xeons have owned the market for a long time...it will be difficult (although not impossible) for AMD to topple this.

many people did not upgrade to Intel's Itanium, but rather were upgrading to their high end dualie xeon systems -- they run very reliably, and very fast. a few instances where we've put in dual 2.x ghz xeons for web/mail servers...and only a slashdotting could bring them down...(well, an exaggeration...but you get the point).

Re:xeons/opterons market share (5, Interesting)

ePhil_One (634771) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453232)

many people did not upgrade to Intel's Itanium

Folks were avoiding the Itanium because it was a disaster; slow and expensive. We've been looking at 64 bit computing for a while, because of the seamless > 4GB RAM capabilities. Intel's PAE extensions are OK, but they really didn't solve any of the problems we were having.

The net result was we went to 64 bit PPC architecture 3 years ago on those critical systems, And everything has been fine. AIX works great, and IBM's embrace of GNU/Linux means an easy learning curve for us Linux users.

A point that isn't made in the artical (4, Interesting)

Pingular (670773) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453152)

Xeon's are almost always for servers, wheras Opeteron's can be for anything. Try running a windows xp workstation on a dual Xeon system and you'll be very disappointed.

Re:A point that isn't made in the artical (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453242)

I call bullshit. You make a blanket statement without anything to support it or any logical argument at all. Of course you will get modded up, though, because your post is anti-Intel.

OH GOODIE, PINGULAR IS POSTING AGAIN! HEY FAG, (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453271)

how about you take a nice big bite out of my ass?

Re:OH GOODIE, PINGULAR IS POSTING AGAIN! HEY FAG, (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453332)

shut up, asshole. i don't see you making any insightful comments. maybe because you're a fucking retard? yeah, that's probably it.

Re:A point that isn't made in the artical (1)

sheddd (592499) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453342)

Xeon's are almost always for servers,

So are Opterons at the moment.

wheras Opeteron's can be for anything.

Both run x86 code pretty fast; Xeon can 'be for anything' too.

Try running a windows xp workstation on a dual Xeon system and you'll be very disappointed.

Only if I had to pay for it. Of course if I were in the market for a speedy dual workstation it'd most likely be an opteron due to price (and performance).

Re:A point that isn't made in the artical (1)

skiflyer (716312) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453370)

I disagree. I'm running a Windows XP workstation with dual 2.4 GHz Xeons, and I'm not at all disappointed... neither are the 50 or 60 other developers surrounding me which are running on the same boxes.

What exactly would be our grounds for dissapointment?

Re:A point that isn't made in the artical (5, Insightful)

Pingular (670773) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453513)

I disagree. I'm running a Windows XP workstation with dual 2.4 GHz Xeons, and I'm not at all disappointed... neither are the 50 or 60 other developers surrounding me which are running on the same boxes.
What exactly would be our grounds for dissapointment?

That your company spent $3750x2x55= $412500 on processors alone (assuming you have the 1mb MP model Xeons), when you could have the same performance for a quarter of that price.

Re:A point that isn't made in the artical (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453556)

How about you post some reliable statistics instead of talking out of your ass, Sir Haxalot??? Maybe get one of your Anti-Slash buddies to cough up a URL?

Re:A point that isn't made in the artical (4, Interesting)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453401)

Xeon's are almost always for servers, wheras Opeteron's can be for anything. Try running a windows xp workstation on a dual Xeon system and you'll be very disappointed.

OK, lets go over this again. There is nothing really special about Xeons vs a P4 except the P4 is crippled so that it cannot do SMP, and there may be more cache options on a Xeon. Performancewise they are the same @ the same clock speed. FWIW, I've been dissapointed with XP regardless of the hardware :)

Now, back to this benchark thingy. 1st, I would appreciate in the article writeup that it said that it was only doing a simple read/write database benchmark, and that was it, but we don't come to slashdot for the stories, right? Also, in my opinion there was no significant difference between the two platforms regarding their speed on this benchmark. The difference between 1st and 2nd place, regardless of who won that test, was between 5 and 12%. I don't start to get interested until there is at least 20% difference, and even then that would only determine my choice for an initial purchase, I would never upgrade a system unless there was at least 100% speedup, preferably 200 -> 400% is worthy of doing an upgrade.

It would have been interesting to see results like this for more platforms, because I have not seen any significant numbers from the Opteron yet. For example, the memory bandwidth of the Opteron is 1/2 that of the Itanium2's.

Re:A point that isn't made in the artical (1)

Boba001 (458898) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453421)

Why would I be disappointed in my dual 2.4ghz Xeon workstation? There aren't many other choices for dual processor machines that don't cost an arm and a leg to build.

This machine totally destroys our dual P3 server or my single Athlon XP at home... Very happy with it.

Re:A point that isn't made in the artical (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453430)

Try running a windows xp workstation on a dual Xeon system and you'll be very disappointed.

I run Windows XP Pro (i.e. workstation) on a dual Xeon for controlling a VR haptic system, and I haven't been disappointed. Perhaps you could provide some evidence, or even reasoning, rather than just blanket statements?

Re:A point that isn't made in the artical (1)

theMerovingian (722983) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453484)


I'm runnning dual xeon (2.66) on XP to do some pretty serious image processing stuff, and the performance is pretty good. All my bottlenecks are a result of crappy GIS software. [esri.com]

Xeon vs. Opteron ? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453154)

I'll be a Klingon could take them both.

bet (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453175)

bet

Suck... (-1, Offtopic)

JoeLinux (20366) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453158)

...Why can't AMD make a Dual AMD64? I have a 3400+, and would gladly pay to get a second one and a motherboard to support them.

And I would *LOVE* it if Intel would support AMD in their motherboards, like they did in the old days. 'course, with AMD's reliance on Hypertransport, that might not be such a good idea...

Re:Suck... (5, Informative)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453263)

Why can't AMD make a Dual AMD64?
They DO. It's called an Opterion!
Guess you are refering to the Athlon64 which is a one way processor (just like the Pentium 4).

BTW the Opterion is made in 3 flavors, the 100 series is a SINGLE way cpu with NO smp support. It's very nearly the same as the Athlon64-FX. The Opterion 200 series is a 2 way (2 cpus), and the Opterion 800 series supports up to 8 cpus. AMD dropped plans for a 400 series, but you can use the 800 series chips to build servers with 1-8 cpu's.

Re:Suck... (5, Funny)

Hektor_Troy (262592) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453413)

It's called an
Opterion!
Well, you can get dual Opterions, that is correct, but they seem to be contact lenses [opterion.gr]. Not sure you're like to plug that in to a motherboard ... at least not while wearing them.

Re:Suck... (2, Funny)

Wrexen (151642) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453512)

Here at /. we have a long history of mispelling AMD products, going all the way back to the Athalon!

Dual AMD64 is made, and works great. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453312)

They call it the "Opteron".
Let's use the Athlon64-FX as a base.
Relative to that, the other chips are:

0. self
1. Plain Athlon64 (not FX) has narrow memory.
2. Opteron for 2-way systems
3. Opteron for 4-way systems
4. Opteron for 8-way systems

So that's 5 chip models.

Quick Link to Test Results (4, Informative)

hng_rval (631871) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453165)

Test Results can be found here:
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982&p= 6 [anandtech.com]

summer cottage? (3, Funny)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453167)

for-your-summer-cottage's-data-farm

Ah, so for all our college-student friends, that would be "the parents' house"?

Cache always help (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453168)

I remember AMD's K6-3 would blow away the K6-2 at the same clock speed with the major difference being the cache.

Re:Cache always help (1)

NeoTheOne (673445) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453351)

Yeah when you're comparing a 4mb cache processor against a 1mb cache processor what do you expect...not exactly rocket surgery people ;-)

I want a 4mb opteron tho :D

Re:Cache always help (2, Informative)

redshadow01 (113325) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453369)

Dude, read the article. The new Xeon has a 4meg L3 cache, but its effects are limited because the FSB is only 400Mhz.

Re:Cache always help (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453439)

And? The article says they use the cache because of the FSB bottleneck, which means the CACHE HELPS performance. That was my point. More cache = better performance.

I recommend Glasses (5, Informative)

Avrice (237283) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453170)

Whomever is citing Anandtech as claiming the dual Xeons almost always beat the dual-Opterons needs to read the article again. Both Architectures in a dual configuration tended to perfom about the same with Opteron and Xeon each winning some of the time. The Opteron scales better above dual configurations. However the Opteron is HALF the price of a Xeon! Cost/performance (or else we would all have 12th generation DECAlphas or Power5s by now) is easily handed to Opteron. Nice spin!

Re:I recommend Glasses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453471)

You're absollutly right. The few results that Xeon won was by a little margin and were allways in 2-way configuration. In 4-way Opteron cannot be beated... An remember top Opteron is 2.2GHz while Xeon is 3GHz... Damn, my windows machine (I have to use frontpage :-( ) has 800MHz!!! Besides being a cost/performance suberb ratio it's an even better performance/MHZ... "It's not the size that methers, it's what you do with it" (in this case, clock speed ;-) )

PS - Sorry for any bad speling, but I'm sure I write better english than you write portuguese :-P

Re:I recommend Glasses (5, Interesting)

embarcadero (568047) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453482)

In addition, Anand used sub-optimal memory in the Opteron, and non-NUMA config. Looks like he had some Intel "assistance" in designing the "benchmarks" as well... the database read/write ratio is not at all realistic, favors the Xeon.

NUMA means Opteron is Better (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453190)

At two processors Xeon is still ok because the bandwidth of the memory coherency still isn't in serious contention. However, as the systems scale larger support for NUMA is critical to reducing memory latency because it means that memory does not have to flow in from the controllers on other processors.

That is why Opteron is required for good performance with eight to sixteen processors, and you can even see the improvement on the four way tests that Anand ran.

Re:NUMA means Opteron is Better (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453301)

NUMA is rarely employed in systems at the 8 to 16 processor size. Those are typically SMP.

Saying Opteron is better for 16 way means nothing as those systems do not exist.

NUMA architectures are not without issue. I emphasize the "NON UNIFORM" aspect of the acronym. Even if SGI wants to change it to "nearly uniform". Sounds like you've been reading too much of their properganda.

Re:NUMA means Opteron is Better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453533)

marijuana does not kill brain cells or cause permanent brain damage. alcohol does. long term consumption of alcohol has shown consistent loss of brain mass (convoluted surface space). a joint is less harsh and harmful than a cigarette. all of the harmful properties of smoke inhalation can be avoided by using a vaporizer to inhale THC. THC only causes a lower sperm count while under the influence, but never after. everything the government shoves down your throat that it calls facts are lies. i hate it when it releases some dumb survery that says "ecstacy" is losing popularity. maybe, but that does reflect an accurate picture. more popular drugs are entering the market such as 2c-i. it does not reflect the drugs that they bash all day long by lies and misconception. the government is lying to you. fight [norml.org] thelies [druglibrary.org]!

Can someone please clear my ideas about this (4, Interesting)

SlashingComments (702709) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453213)

I saw this yeasterday on his site. Pretty good.

One thing I did not understand is how come the 3MB cache is helping with big database query ? I thought that will thrash the cache and there will be not much performance gain if you are working with bigger code/data set. Also, for the four CPU opteron, do they have hyper transport going from every cpu to every cpu ? Is it like a mesh or like a ring where every cpu has only two connections to it's next ones.

Another thing I did not get is how linux is handling ( not handling ) the local memory to the CPU. This thing looks like a mini-numa type system. Does linux actually try to keep the data in the RAM and process it with the cpu it is connected to ? how does this really work ?

May be you guys can help clear my ideas .

Re:Can someone please clear my ideas about this (3, Interesting)

chef_raekwon (411401) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453435)

ne thing I did not understand is how come the 3MB cache is helping with big database query

this is interesting, and i don't have an answer, except to say that SQL servers generally try to load all of the tables into available RAM. If the data is too large, then simply the indexes(??). If the server ever has to go back to the harddrive for data (which would make it bloody slow for a query) it will check recently cached stuff first - and larger caches means reduced time pulling data sets from a raid array or single harddrive.

that is atleast my take...it generally differs from server to server....MySQL does not run exactly the same way as MSSQL as Oracle. (which means I've generalized.)

Importance of compilers (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453227)

Believe it or not, Intel's compiler generates very good code for the Opteron. Far better than GCC or generic IA32 compilers.

So in any evaluation, the compiler and binaries that are used is an important question.

There was no mention of this in the article.

Re:Importance of compilers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453259)

i use skyos's compiler. much better performance.

Re:Importance of compilers (3, Informative)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453441)

Believe it or not, Intel's compiler generates very good code for the Opteron. Far better than GCC or generic IA32 compilers.

This is the experience I've had with the Intel Fortran compiler (ifort) on an Athlon XP. Codes compiled with ifort are around twice as fast as those compiled with GNU g77 (for Fortran 77), and around 1.5 times faster than those compiled with Lahey lf95 (for Fortran 95).

OS (3, Interesting)

millahtime (710421) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453228)

So I see that M$ Windows was used as the OS. Unless this was a prerelease of the 64bit XP then they were running a 32bit OS on the chips. So, wouldn't that mean that this isn't a true test of the power?? Your not taking full advantage of the 64bit power.

YIKES (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453230)

SCO has filed another lawsuit against daimlerchrysler! source [vnunet.com]

Back to Intel Fanboy (3, Interesting)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453236)

Alright I have had about 3 AMD processors die on me. I have owned about 4 Intel processors all the way back from original Pentium. Not one has ever had a problem.

Now... given this kind of statistics, as sad as it may sound I'd say I am willing to pay anything for an Intel just to avoid the headaches.

Back to trolling. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453295)

Maybe some adult should come and take your toys way from you if you can't play nicely.

I've never heard of a CPU just breaking down, there's always some kind of abuse (running without heatsink -- which is no longer an issue on the processors on topic -- or they've been 'chipped' due to cluesless users (redundant) who don't know how to install a heatsink.

Re:Back to Intel Fanboy (3, Insightful)

tuffy (10202) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453324)

I've owned 5 AMD processors from the K5 to an Athlon64 and all are still in perfect working order. But these sorts of anecdotes aren't very helpful in determining average chip reliability.

Re:Back to Intel Fanboy (5, Insightful)

hng_rval (631871) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453371)

Alright I have had about 3 AMD processors die on me. I have owned about 4 Intel processors all the way back from original Pentium. Not one has ever had a problem.
Now... given this kind of statistics, as sad as it may sound I'd say I am willing to pay anything for an Intel just to avoid the headaches.


That is an interesting use of the word statistics. In order to determine if your next processor is likely to break, you should look at thousands or hundereds of thousands of Intel procs and AMD procs. Your 7 processor study is inherently flawed.

Re:Back to Intel Fanboy (5, Funny)

hyperstation (185147) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453462)

you know, you're supposed to outfit those AMD processors with fans, heatsinks, and some of that thermal paste....

Re:Back to Intel Fanboy (3, Insightful)

John Courtland (585609) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453464)

Wow, I have a working AMD 386/40. Yet I have a score of dead Intel 286/386/486's. I just evened out your "statistics". Not to mention the 5th gen and above x86 class processors I have.

Re:Back to Intel Fanboy (0)

sp0rk173 (609022) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453538)

Fascinating case of perception vs. reality. I have four AMD systems that are rock solid and have been for atleast a year (in some cases, one processor goes back atleast 5 years and it's still running strong to this day as my router). I've also worked on my cousin's computers, which are all Intel-based, and until I bitched him out, he was calling me every other week with problems he was having - yet he stood by the mantra of "Intel is more stable, and worth the extra money." Given these "statistics," providing a mirror image of yours, it seems intel isn't worth the extra money. Of course, these statistics aren't statistics at all, rather fallbacks to consumer dogma and vendor-conditioning. Either way, do what makes you feel comfortable in your choice, and keeps you consuming. It's the American Way.

L3 cache (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453250)

I thought the very definition of L3 cache was off die. If it is on die, wouldn't it be L2 cache, unless is does not run at core CPU speed?

Re:L3 cache (2, Informative)

castlec (546341) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453520)

the very definition of l3 cache, is level 3 cache, hence the name, l3. do you not remember when l2 cache used to be on the mobo?

Basically... if you have more then 2 use AMD (5, Insightful)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453268)

The jist of the whole thing is that Intel's achitecture has a huge bottleneck in its FSB. All the processors share the same FSB and quickly max it out if there are more then 2 processors. So anyone building or buying systems with more then 2 processors will get much better performance out of an AMD opteron system then an Intel.

Re:Basically... if you have more then 2 use AMD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453400)

Exactly, Opteron arch. scales very nicely.

Price vs. Performance (5, Insightful)

maharito (626909) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453287)

I attend a university that is currently building a beowulf cluster, and when it came down to making a decision, the deciding factor was price/performance ratio. While it may make sense for enterprises to go with the Xeon, the Opteron is a clear winner, in my mind, when money is an object. Of course, if you have the money to burn, the Xeon may seem to be the more obvious choice.

Re:Price vs. Performance (5, Insightful)

Pingular (670773) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453354)

I attend a university that is currently building a beowulf cluster, and when it came down to making a decision, the deciding factor was price/performance ratio. While it may make sense for enterprises to go with the Xeon, the Opteron is a clear winner, in my mind, when money is an object. Of course, if you have the money to burn, the Xeon may seem to be the more obvious choice.
Even if someone has money to burn, wouldn't it be better to get more performance anyway?

tYuO fail it (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453290)

for the project. election to the l0ok at the it has to be fun can really ask of of America (GNAA) of various BSD Fact: *BSD IS A confirmed that *BSD

memory controllerS? (4, Interesting)

Bender Unit 22 (216955) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453304)

But these days days with all the virtualization getting hot(vmware etc), a server architecture with a single memory bus/controller is getting old.
I'd like to see some test on servers like the IBM x445 [ibm.com] with NUMA.

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453383)

So basically you want Opterons?

The Usual Problem (4, Interesting)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453345)

We've seen this same type of benchmark over and over. It wasn't interesting then, and it's not interesting now.

The tests in this article, involved running the same exact binaries (out-of-the-box Microsoft 386 stuff) on both types of CPUs, rather than the code being compiled to run natively. The Opterons were fighting with one hand tied behind their backs.

In other words, this benchmark is mainly only of interest to Microsofties. If that's what you run, then fine, the article may be useful to you and you may get something out of reading it.

If you are trying to maximize speed, though, then the software contraints that this test took place under, are totally contrary to what you'd actually be doing (running code that is appropriate for the hardware).

BTW, another weird thing I noticed about this article: these guys use flash for static images of bar graphs. WTF? Anandtech, your w3b d3$1gn3rz R S0 31337!!!1

Re:The Usual Problem (1)

Ancient_Hacker (751168) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453487)

What a weird way to benchmark a 64-bit CPU-- with 32-bit software, 32-bit OS, and a disk-intensive test. Perhaps a more releveant test would be to use 64-bit apps ona 64-bit OS, and tests that tend to exercise the element in question, the CPU. Methinks the test designers were either really, really dumb, or they were aiming to minimize the perceived speed differences between the contenders.... (or they're both).

-5, Clueless (4, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453491)

Firstly, Anandtech uses flash for its images so that people w/o the plugin can't see the data. This forces you to install it, so that you can see their OTHER Flash pieces... ads.
Secondly, you are not going to get MS to recompile an MS-SQL for Opteron. You're not going to get IBM to support a Linux installation, after you've rolled your own ueber-NUMA-patch-level-42 kernel.
The test was clear - out of the box, plug in servers, load OS, load app, run benchmark.
And the outcome was clear, the Opteron architecture is vastly superior, both performance and price-wise.
The MHz myth is over, at least in Slashdot and Anandtech circles.

Re:The Usual Problem (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453499)

Bah. In all likelyhood, even Unix/Linux users aren't going to be custom compiling their Inventory System for optimal performance.

You're right that these benchmarks only cover RDBMS-based client-server shrinkwrap apps, but that's a pretty common case. When Oracle and MS ship their DB Servers compiled for x86-64, the tests should be run again, but until then business customers will need to work with what they've got.

Claiming that this is "mainly only of interest to Microsofties" is borderline flamebait, especially since one of the marketing points of the Opteron is excellent performance with your existing software.

This review is pintless (-1, Flamebait)

garompa (714684) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453378)

Anandtech is a nest of wintel users (loosers), using a 64bits CPU tested with win32 makes no sense. what's the point of this?

2 is better than 1 (2, Funny)

ssbljk (450611) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453428)

Results were a little varied as 4-way Opteron systems seemed to fare the best, although dual Xeon configurations almost always beat dual Opterons.

well, I prefere 2 machines with 1 Opteron each than 1 machine with 2 Xeons :)

Umm.. wrong. (2, Insightful)

Egekrusher2K (610429) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453453)

There were but a very few benchmarks that the Xeons beat the Opterons on in the 2 way configuration. And even those were by a very small margin. And in the 4 way configs? It was a slaughter.

Why is this news, seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8453478)

There have been *SEVERAL* benchmark comparisons already, for MONTHS, and this one came to the same conclusion as the others. Nice to see that Anandtech is months behind the competition and their contribution is nil.

Conclusion... (5, Informative)

ERJ (600451) | more than 10 years ago | (#8453554)

Anand seems to conclude something a bit different then the submitter:

The comparison we've made here is a very important one; it identifies Intel's strengths and their weaknesses with Xeon, and it crowns Opteron a clear multiprocessor winner. An area that we didn't touch on is cost, which is where AMD truly shines. The Opteron 848 processors we tested are around 1/2 the price of Intel's 2MB L3 Xeon MPs and we have not seen retail data on how expensive the 4MB parts will be.

In a 4-way configuration AMD's Opteron cannot be beat, and thus it is our choice for the basis for our new Forums database server.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...