Beta
×

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!

EM64T Xeon vs. Athlon 64 under Linux (AMD64)

Hemos posted more than 10 years ago | from the pressing-the-limits-of-the-machines dept.

AMD 313

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.

cancel ×

313 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

whoa (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9919966)

i almost cared just then, for a second

Re:whoa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9920106)

yeah, i would have cared if it were opteron .. but this just isnt fair to compare with athlon .. what kind of stupidity is that?

More Slashdot Flamebait? (5, Insightful)

Bryan Ischo (893) | more than 10 years ago | (#9919973)

The editors of Slashdot seem to love posting articles whose sole purpose is to evoke flame wars between Intel fans and AMD fans.

For what it's worth, I read the article and the processors seemed pretty well matched except for some "synthetic" benchmarks. I don't know much about the synthetic benchmarks that they used, but I have found that synthetic benchmarks are almost always biased in Intel's favor. Do synthetic benchmark writers optimize for Intel accidentally or is there some kind of conspiracy going on here? You be the judge.

Finally, to try to balance out the article submitter's inflammatory comments about the Athlon being "trounced in FPU intensive benchmarks", here is a nice paragraph from the article summary:

"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. With only a few exceptions, the 3.6GHz Xeon outperformed our Athlon 64 3500+, whether or not the cost and thermal issues between these two processors are justifiable."

Obviously they are not comparing processors which have price parity, so one could spin this either as "look at how slow the Athlon is", or "look at how much money you have to spend to get an Intel chip that is faster than an Athlon", depending upon your bias.

Re:More Slashdot Flamebait? (5, Interesting)

callipygian-showsyst (631222) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920022)

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!

Re:More Slashdot Flamebait? (-1, Flamebait)

justkarl (775856) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920075)

The editors of Slashdot seem to love posting articles whose sole purpose is to evoke flame wars between Intel fans and AMD fans.

You're riding on a very thin assumption, that there are AMD fans...
Sorry, I think it's really good what you guys are saying, but I had to say it.

i used to know some die hards in high school who swore by overclocked k6's, and there's a computer shop in town which only sells AMD gear(tough shit for us Intels) and computers...After owning a Pentium and an AMD, I'd say for high end processing, Pentium takes the cake. I've also found that AMD procs crash more.
To parent, grandparent: Sorry for re-inciting the flame war you tried so hard to fight.

Re:More Slashdot Flamebait? (4, Informative)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920108)

Your processor doesnt "Crash". If you are having issues, chances are it is because you are too incomptent to be that close to the hardware. Try an OEM built AMD machine. A completely different experience.

Re:More Slashdot Flamebait? (1)

javax (598925) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920158)

CPUs really do not crash. They may get hotter or whatever, but they do not crash - why did parent got modded down?

Re:More Slashdot Flamebait? (1)

krunk7 (748055) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920277)

Nothing flame bait about this, except in the rare isntances where the proc is flawed (easily determined with free diagnostic software) processors do not crash...amd or otherwise. The gradparent's post was flamebait all the way. The parent simply set him straight.

Re:More Slashdot Flamebait? (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920258)

I'll bite:

I'm an AMD fan. I like their design decision. :)

indeed (1)

muyuubyou (621373) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920110)

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?

That's right. You'd only say it's "dissappointing" if you're talking to a supposedly pro-AMD audience and you're trying to sell some pro-Intel FUD , because as mentioned before, those processors don't run at the same speed, and there is a huge price difference so you're comparing a high-end chip to a medium-end chip.

Re:More Slashdot Flamebait? (1)

javax (598925) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920139)

If you don't want CPU choices, get a Mac!
  1. you can buy Macs with either IBM or Motorola CPU(s)
  2. If you use Linux or NetBSD you can see PowerPC as a third option besides AA64, IA64 and IA32 (and perhaps others)

Re:More Slashdot Flamebait? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9920187)

Except different Macs can have different CPUs. You know, G5s and G4s. They also have different FSB speeds and different cache sizes. You have plenty of choice. It's just a choice of performance, not architectures.

Re:More Slashdot Flamebait? (1)

DarkMantle (784415) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920257)

Umm.... Getting a Mac is choosing a third type of CPU... So essentially, you're still making a Choice.

Re:More Slashdot Flamebait? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9920267)

If you don't want CPU choices, get a Mac!
Nope [ibm.com] , absolutely [freescale.com] no [powerlogix.com] choices [sonnettech.com] here [gigadesigns.com] .

Re:More Slashdot Flamebait? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9920064)

The key part of the article is:

Although the Athlon 64 3500+ and the Xeon 3.6GHz EM64T processors were not necessarily designed to compete against each other, we found that comparing the two CPUs was more appropriate than anticipated, particularly in the light of Intel's newest move to bring EM64T to the Pentium 4 line. Once we obtain a sample of the Pentium 4 3.6F, we expect our benchmarks to produce very similar results to the 3.6 Xeon tested for this review.

That is, despite all the recent Intel-bashing, Intel will have a competitive 64-bit desktop chip very soon.

Re:More Slashdot Flamebait? (5, Insightful)

pe1rxq (141710) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920094)

How is over twice as expensive for a little bit faster 'competitive'?

Jeroen

Re:More Slashdot Flamebait? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9920127)

One could also say that AMD isn't competitive because they only have 20% marketshare and poor OEM support. Both companies chage what they can get away with.

Re:More Slashdot Flamebait? (1)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920160)

If AMD had a 20% market share, their investors would break out the champaign. AMD's target for server market share is 10% by the end of 2004.

Re:More Slashdot Flamebait? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9920071)

The editors of Slashdot seem to love posting articles whose sole purpose is to evoke flame wars between Intel fans and AMD fans.

Yeah, only if you're a moron with nothing better to do.

The rest of us just don't really give a damn.

Re:More Slashdot Flamebait? (0, Flamebait)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920115)

Why is it "dissapointing" that Intel's top of the line server CPUs can crunch more numbers than AMD's workstation CPU?

You can only be "dissapointed" by such news if you're a fanboy expecting a certain outcome.

The love-in with certain companies on slashdot is so sickening it's funny. I'm supposed to believe that AMD, Apple and IBM are friends to the world with big warm fuzzy hearts, and Microsoft, Compaq and Intel are sinister spawns from hell who always have an ulterior motive.

News flash: All public corporations exist for one reason only - profit for shareholders. Period. Despite what their PR and marketting departments say, it's all about the bottom line.

So who really cares which processor is faster? There's no competition in the CPU market, just two companies alternating who gets 60% or 40% of the pie. They work together to screw us all over. If there was any real competition, a mid to high end workstation CPU would be less than 50 bucks.

Re:More Slashdot Flamebait? (1)

DarkSarin (651985) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920282)

Yes, and since that's the case (that they are all their to make money), we can make decisions about which ones to support on the important issues--how they treat their customers and employees (which aren't that much different!), and what they give back to the community (and world in general). Those that give back are to be lauded, since they certainly don't have to.

Think about it like this: if you want to know what someone is like, look at what they do when they don't have to do anything. The same holds true for corporations, since they are run by people. Just remember that when the company changes leadership, it is quite likely that they will change too. (This also applies to governments).

Re:More Slashdot Flamebait? (2, Insightful)

The Conductor (758639) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920136)

Do synthetic benchmark writers optimize for Intel

Given the history of the industry, I would more suspect the reverse, that the processor is tweaked to the benchmark.

Re:More Slashdot Flamebait? (4, Insightful)

EulerX07 (314098) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920143)

Good point. I don't think being 9.27% faster on a "Super Pi 2.0" benchmark justifies paying 243% of the price of an Athlon. But maybe I'm just old fashioned.

Re:More Slashdot Flamebait? (1)

thogard (43403) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920170)

Years ago I got to play with an Intel Hypercube which was 32 286 processors all in one box. One of the other guys in the department talked to one of the benchmark coders at intel who described the bench mark numbers as "you can not exceed these speeds with this system".

Re:More Slashdot Flamebait? (4, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920185)

The editors of Slashdot seem to love posting articles whose sole purpose is to evoke flame wars between Intel fans and AMD fans.

Not just Intel and AMD fanboys, but anything with two (or more) highly-polarised camps. You see exactly the same thing with regard to Microsoft vs Linux, Closed vs Open Source, etc.

Were I being cynical, I'd say two things:

1) the editors have an agenda to push
2) the editors want to post flamebait articles in order to drive hits (and therefore ad impressions) up.

Hell, just last week there was a story about an autonomous plane, that mentioned in the summary here that it was running XP Embedded. What the hell does that have to do with the actual story?

Re:More Slashdot Flamebait? (1)

ViolentGreen (704134) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920255)

Or perhaps, posting flaimbait in as an article usually generates a huge response. The more one sided the topic is, the more of a response will get. This means more people will view the Microsoft ads at the top of the screen and slashdot will get more money.

Is this pointing to an unholy union between CowboyNeal and Bill Gates?

Re:More Slashdot Flamebait? (4, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920188)

Not only that, they should have compared the EM64T Pentium against a similarly rated Athlon64, or compared the EM64T against a similarly rated Opteron. Comparing Xeon against Athlon64 is comparing products for two different markets - corporate vs. consumer, server/workstation vs. desktop.

George Bush (1)

Pingular (670773) | more than 10 years ago | (#9919975)

Resume [bushandcheneysuck.com]

Why dissapointing? (4, Insightful)

ImTwoSlick (723185) | more than 10 years ago | (#9919982)

I'm all for the best processor out there. If it is made by Intel, then so be it. This will just give AMD more reason to compete for my dollar.

Re:Why dissapointing? (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920103)

I hope this will help drive down the price for the AMD 64 FX CPUs to a level I can afford. The AMD chips are plenty powerful for any home system.

fp? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9919984)

frist post!?

base64 failure (1)

Luke727 (547923) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920182)

iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAGAAAAAOCAIAAABfBI5FAAAACX BIWXMAAA7EAAAOxAGVKw4b
AAAB3UlEQVR42u1XsbHCMAyVGY IF2IA9lDk8RLJBJsgC7nNHadpQmhK6lKYKE/gX784YOzHh
Xw IN6qTIlvz0JDvCOUc/mZYNEQkhiqJIvxVFIYS43W5Qz+dzVVVC CCFEVVXX6zV0hj3dJG9P
ZTSHNL3QeSpEJhmRlac9nXNaayJS SrlAlFJEpLWG2rZtGq9tW+8Pi0skb08l9DHGeLsxZmrb
qRCZ ZPI4PnlipZSSiPq+h9r3PRFJKUOViLqug6XrOlj8kv8BlD9P0z SoHBE1TbMgQPONNIpI
hBcS9WyCRLxbAyAiYmbnHDNHzp8GyD eR1honD9sHeA3DEG4xDEOI6eIAob9QAJAo7LK1AZJS
4mgUWZ mZmf2x5x9ykRmU9tflcvEED7tsbYDquq7rOgbIzxqk9UWAQE/0 1yiLvwPQlHc6Arzz
Si3mL4FI/C2xNkBKKRB2M+f5AICOx2No PJ1ORLTf76Giwvf7PfSBiuVvyeFweMu+uGy3291u
NxfOOdc8 RkZZlt5irS3LMr2hX5Y9Gv8RkdFlazPo8XWmN+6RzEPRWjvKFG a21r4FENAPNw9z
QJFSgPIjf4Fr/mXexhgwAkyJnraovFIKvQ ZolFKj6OQDIUq60FqL0J8ESPx+VvPyB9dP3Iz3
y2MmAAAAAE lFTkSuQmCC

Opteron (5, Insightful)

UserChrisCanter4 (464072) | more than 10 years ago | (#9919989)

Wouldn't the larger cahced Opteron, the product actually positioned by AMD to compete with the Xeon series processors, have been a better comparison?

Re:Opteron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9920017)

If they were comparing server chips, yes. However the point of the article was to preview how Intel's 86-64 desktop chip will perform.

Re:Opteron (1)

borgdows (599861) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920037)

but Xeon is not a desktop chip...

Re:Opteron (3, Informative)

fitten (521191) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920053)

RTFA usually helps.... directly from the Conclusions section:

Although the Athlon 64 3500+ and the Xeon 3.6GHz EM64T processors were not necessarily designed to compete against each other, we found that comparing the two CPUs was more appropriate than anticipated, particularly in the light of Intel's newest move to bring EM64T to the Pentium 4 line. Once we obtain a sample of the Pentium 4 3.6F, we expect our benchmarks to produce very similar results to the 3.6 Xeon tested for this review.

Without a doubt, the 3.6GHz Xeon trounces over the Athlon 64 in math-intensive benchmarks. Intel came ahead in every severe benchmark that we could throw at it, particularly during John the Ripper. Even though John uses several different optimizations to generate hashes, in every case, the Athlon chip found itself at least 40% behind. Much of this is likely attributed to the additional math tweaking in the Prescott family core.

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. With only a few exceptions, the 3.6GHz Xeon outperformed our Athlon 64 3500+, whether or not the cost and thermal issues between these two processors are justifiable.

We will benchmark some SMP 3.6GHz Xeons against a pair of Opterons in the near future, so check back regularly for new benchmarks!

Re:Opteron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9920096)

Xeon is what the Inqurier calls "marchitecture" -- there's no real significant difference between the Xeon and a Pentium4 other than positioning and SMP.

Re:Opteron (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9920249)

Well, that and more on die memory and some other enhancements.

Re:Opteron (4, Insightful)

Gedvondur (40666) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920114)

Indeed. The comparison between the desktop grade Athlon 64 and the server grade Xeon is meaningless. It never comes down to those two when buying a server. A comparison with the Opteron would have been sensible.

Re:Opteron (0)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920166)


Wouldn't it be more interesting if you had read the article first?

From the FA:
We will benchmark some SMP 3.6GHz Xeons against a pair of Opterons in the near future, so check back regularly for new benchmarks!
Moderators, shame on you too.

Re:Opteron (4, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920235)

Your comment does not in any way contravene the parent. It would still be more interesting if it were a benchmark with Opteron vs. Xeon. Personally what I would like to see is benchmarks which compare processors with like prices rather than market positioning. In any case, the fact that they plan to do a Xeon vs. Opteron benchmark later does not change the fact that such a benchmark would/will be more interesting than this one.

Re:Opteron (1)

Webmonger (24302) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920269)

So? It's still an apples to pears comparison. The fact that they'll be making a better comparison "in the near future" doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't make this one at all.

Math Co-Processor (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9919990)

Back in the days of 386 and 486 processor, Intel made a math coprocessor to supplement calculations of the cpu to enhance performance. When Intel made the co-processor, they did a good job of embedded calculation in such a way to make them very good in math so good so that Intel decided to patent the idea.

Zip forward to 2000. Now AMD is a formidable threat to Intel's desktop market; however, Intel has a patent on the math calculations piece of the processors limiting AMD's usage of it. I imagine that AMD could license the Math processor circuitry and embed it on the chip at a hefty price but for business reasons didn't or Intel may have declined licensing the Math part.

I wish I had a link to the patent and when it expires but alas... If AMD can get a new FPU technology than AMD will be the front runner

Re:Math Co-Processor (2, Informative)

fitten (521191) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920019)

I don't understand your post at all. The Athlon line has historically been the better of the two (compared with Intel's P3 and P4 line) CPUs in FPU performance. In fact, the Athlon 64 and the Nocona both support x87, MMX, SSE, and SSE2 instruction sets.

Re:Math Co-Processor (0, Offtopic)

crow (16139) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920069)

The math co-processor goes all the way back to the original 8086 processor, which could be paird with an 8087 for hardware floating point support. There was also the 80287 for use with the 80286 and the 387 for use with the 386. The 486DX included a built-in math co-processor, but the 468SX did not. I do not believe that there was ever a separate 487 co-processor.

But that's irrelevant to patents. Intel may well have developed some clever implementation of certain key floating-point calculations which they patented. There have undoubtedly been floating-point improvements covered by new patents in every major new x86 release.

The question is which patents are really holding AMD back? Without talking to AMD engineers, we won't get a real answer to that question.

Re:Math Co-Processor (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920120)

487 was technically the 486 with the built in coprcessor. So 487 and 486DX was synonmous.

Re:Math Co-Processor (1)

GuidoJ (231456) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920201)

You mean the 486DX is the 386DX with the 387 built in. The 486SX is the 486DX with the coprocessor disabled, which is basically a 386DX that runs faster. The 386SX is a 16 bit CPU on the outside in stead of the 32 bit 386DX and higher. IIRC a pentium is actually two 486DX's using the same pipeline.

Re:Math Co-Processor (1)

fitten (521191) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920245)

You mean the 486DX is the 386DX with the 387 built in.

Nope. There are a number of architectural differences between the i386DX and the i486DX other than the FPU being on-chip.

The 486SX is the 486DX with the coprocessor disabled, which is basically a 386DX that runs faster.

No, see above.

The 386SX is a 16 bit CPU on the outside in stead of the 32 bit 386DX and higher.

The i386SX has a 16-bit memory interface (external pins to the CPU cores) instead of the 32-bit memory interface of the i386DX. Otherwise, they are basically the same.

IIRC a pentium is actually two 486DX's using the same pipeline.

Nope. The Pentium is quite a bit different from an i486DX architecturally... not the least being that the two integer pipelines are asymetric in function, which means that it cannot simply be "two i486DXs using the same pipeline".

Re:Math Co-Processor (5, Informative)

ergean (582285) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920121)

They have a cross licence agreement, so each one has what the other has in production in the term of 6 to 9 months. That is why we see the SSE in AMD processors, and AMD64 instruction in Intel64 processors.

http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreement s/ amd/intel.license.2001.01.01.html

So I don't see any problem fro AMD in licensing the cp-processor.

Why Not Opteron? (5, Informative)

thoolie (442789) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920000)

Isn't the xeon a "workstation" or "server" CPU? Being the case, wouldn't it be prudent to to a comparison VS. the highest end Opteron or even the FX series of AMD cpus? I haven't read the article, but it seems to me OF COURSE INTELS BRAND NEW SERVER CPU is going to be AMDs NON-SERVER CPU. I know that the Opteron and the AMD64 are same architecure (minus a couple of little things, but it is those little things that differentiat a server CPU from a NON-SERVER CPU).

These crack-pot benchmarks really don't mean much to me anymore.

If they want to be fare, use the highend Xeon VS. the high end Opteron Vs. the high end G5 all using 64 bit linux with 64 bits aps. THAT IS THE ONLY WAY TO BE FAIR!! (I know this won't happen, but COME ONE!!)

Psh....benchmarks...

Re:Why Not Opteron? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9920095)

Why not spell fare correctly?

Re:Why Not Opteron? (2, Informative)

fitten (521191) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920135)

Why not RTFA... especially the Conclusions section...

in other news (3, Insightful)

borgdows (599861) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920005)

Athlon64 are for desktop markets, Xeon are for server markets

for this comparison to be fair, Xeon should be compared to Opteron!

Might have to buy an Intel for a change (3, Interesting)

danormsby (529805) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920006)

There is a memory test using Ubench in the review here [anandtech.com] and Intel wins again.

So should I save up for an Intel processor or buy 2 AMD machines?

Re:Might have to buy an Intel for a change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9920077)

You should base your decision on your real needs or atleast on a remotely sane review. This particular review is comparing which makes the better orange juice; oranges or apples. The author of the review admits all he did was benchmark the xeon and added some old athlon64 results for comparison.

A more interesting comparison would be the xeon vs the dollar equivalent SMP opteron setup.

Re:Might have to buy an Intel for a change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9920204)

Do you need raw power, or desktop performance? The improved response time of an SMP system is wonderful, even if the pure number crunching power is lower.

Prolly get in trouble... (5, Funny)

hot_Karls_bad_cavern (759797) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920012)

for this, but:

"..No memory-bound benchmarks (where the Athlon is supposed to have an edge) are presented, though."

Why oh why do we continually have "reviews" posted that aren't comprehensive? Hell, i hardly even click on any of the posted reviews anymore...just read the comments later and find out what was missed or just plain wrong in the review.

Where does one go to get the real, straight scoop other than buying both, testing all products involved?

Yeah, i'm a little grouchy this morning...had to get that one out.

AMD vs Intel (2, Insightful)

nerd256 (794968) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920015)

What you're looking for is value as well as how much power you need. When your computer is sitting most of the time, hardly doing anything, is dropping $500 on a faster processor really worth it. The human eye pretty much stops distinguishing framerate past 30fps, so, unless your hosting an intensive server or work platform, ensuring a non idle CPU, getting the Intel is just a matter of bragging rights.

Re:AMD vs Intel (4, Insightful)

HFXPro (581079) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920236)

The human eye pretty much stops distinguishing framerate past 30fps

Everytime I here this I cringe. The human eye can most certainly distiguish beyond 30fps, especially when it comes to crisp computer graphics. Most people who believe that 30fps is the limit is because that is what film is usually the rate with which film is displayed. However, if you notice film, you often have blurring around the actual sharp image (including CGI movies). This is because they eye normally sees a slightly blurred image do to the way the chemical receptors are fired in the eye. Therefore they look more like you see in the world. However, computers are different in that they don't usually have this blur. Without the blur, a lot more frames are needed so that the eye blur occurs correctly rather then lots of little snap shots. I myself can tell the difference between a 60fps image and a 75 fps image. I can tell the difference all the way up to 110 fps where it gets hard. I've run into people though who had trouble with telling the difference between 30fps and 40fps. So a lot of it depends on the person. However, we shouldn't cripple everyone for some.

30 fps is a slideshow (2, Informative)

LightStruk (228264) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920293)

The human eye pretty much stops distinguishing framerate past 30 fps
Just as an example, try visually comparing GoldenEye 007 on the N64 to James Bond 007: NightFire on the GameCube. GoldenEye runs at 20-30 fps, while NightFire runs at a solid 60 fps. Then tell me that your eyes don't see the difference in smoothness and responsiveness.
The reason our eyes don't have a problem with 24 fps film is because movies have lots of motion blur! Video games have no motion blur at all, unless you're playing a PS2, in which case everything is blurry.

The newegg benchmark (5, Insightful)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920028)

I ran the newegg benchmark. The result: you can buy an Athlon64, but you can't buy a Xeon EMT 3.6GHz. AMD is teh win!

Seriously, Anandtech should just never compare widely available hardware with totally unavailable hardware. And what's with using a 512KB cache, second-rank Athlon64 to compare with Intel's flagship worstation processor? How 'bout the 1MB-equipped Athlon64 FX, or more appropriately an Opteron 150 (in stock at online retailers for $600-$650).

Re:The newegg benchmark (0, Flamebait)

hkb (777908) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920198)

Uh, which newegg did you go to?

I went to the NewEgg URL listed on the front page of the article, which you did not read:

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp?DE PA =0&description=19-117-020&ATT=Processors&CMP=OTC-d 3alt1me

BTW, the "teh" and "pwn" word fads are extremely stupid and juvenile. No wonder you don't get any girls.

Re:The newegg benchmark (1)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920254)

Nice work, genius. The linked CPU is a 3.2GHz, 32-bit Xeon with a 533MHz FSB and 512KB L2 cache. The reviewed CPU is a 3.6GHz, 64-bit CPU with an 800MHz FSB and 1024KB L2 cache.

Re:The newegg benchmark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9920272)

You still cant get girls though.

The Comparison is not really fair... (5, Insightful)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920029)

The slowest Socket 939 Athlon versus the fastest Xeon available. PLus the SQL test of the Athlon were in 32bit, not 64 bit (which would have resulted in a win for the athlon).
Some of the other synthetic benchmarks also show slighly suspicious anomalies.
Plus were are the Nocoma 32bit benches? How are we supposed to see how performance improved in 64bit mode without comparison?

A good review would have pitched the 3.6Ghz nacoma vs an Opteron 150, would have tested both in 32 and 64 bit and tried to use some application benchmarks.

Not just picking some old scores out of the datadump to create a "shootout"

Re:The Comparison is not really fair... (2, Informative)

vincecate (741268) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920164)

A good review would have pitched the 3.6Ghz nacoma vs an Opteron 150, would have tested both in 32 and 64 bit and tried to use some application benchmarks.
Different compilers would also be interesting. It seems that the pathscale compiler is the best for AMD64 [pathscale.com] . Much more optimized than gcc for 64-bit.

Re:The Comparison is not really fair... (1)

mcbevin (450303) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920184)

PLus the SQL test of the Athlon were in 32bit, not 64 bit (which would have resulted in a win for the athlon).


Why do you assume this exactly? The tested Intel chip is also 64-bit so would also presumably gain from the application being using the 64-bit instructions.

2 things... (5, Informative)

Pandion (179894) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920032)

For one the Xeon has more L2 cache and for another most of the math benchmarks looked to be integer based. The Xeon gets beat in POVray wich is FPU intensive if im am not much mistaken... I think it is unfair to say the FPU on the Xeon is better...
I would be nice to see more non-synthetic benchmarks.

Re:2 things... (1)

fitten (521191) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920193)

The Xeon has exactly the same size cache as the current Prescott cores that are desktop CPUs. To disqualify the Xeon simply for that reason means that you can't compare Prescotts to Athlon 64s either.

Re:2 things... (1)

Pandion (179894) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920252)

I was commenting on the FPU performance. Larger Cache will increase the performance regardless of how good the FPU is. I'm not saying it should be disqualified, i'm just saying the FPU doesnt suck on the Athlon.

Intel vs. AMD, Linux vs. Microsoft, etc. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9920044)

Okay, this is a case where Slashdot readers are unduly cheering for the "underdog".

Case in point: It is disappointing to see how the Athlon gets trounced in FPU intensive benchmarks.

Why exactly is this disappointing? I mean, Intel released a faster chip. It may be more expensive than AMD's offering, but it will: (a) foster more competition, and (b) offer you a product (if you have to buy a computer right now) which appears to be faster in synthetic benchmark tests (whatever significance that may mean to you).

This isn't "disappointing". It's capitalism.

Re:Intel vs. AMD, Linux vs. Microsoft, etc. (1)

klaussm (81352) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920173)

What is disappointing is that the only FPU intensive benchmark (powray test) is actually won by the Athlon. All the synthetic benchmarks seem to be integer benchmarks. The prime generator is, and super_pi is most likely also, just as TSCP (a chess simulator). MySQL is also integer intensive.

However it is strange that the Athlon wins the MySQL-insert benchmark, but looses select benchmark. The select benchmark should be memory intensive (because of the amount of RAM in the system), and the Insert should be disk-intensive (because of the need to sync).

Re:Intel vs. AMD, Linux vs. Microsoft, etc. (2, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920217)

The saddest thing is that everyone thinks there's "competition" in the CPU market.

Two companies is not real competition. They cross-license technologies, time their releases, fix their prices.. They work together to gouge as much cash out of us as possible.

Why can I not find a decent CPU to build a terminal out of for less than 50 bucks? How much should a 1.5ghz celeron (or tbred/whatever) be worth? Not anywhere close to what we're paying.

The same thing with ATi/nVidia. Two players means they each get half the market. All the fanboy knobbery (no matter who you're a fanboy for) just builds free hype. So long as whenever anyone anywhere goes to buy a video card, the only names in his head are "ATi" and "nVidia", both companies are happy.

Coke and Pepsi did the same thing to the soft drink market. There were really no "cola wars". They colluded until they dominated and controlled the market. Did you know that vending machine companies will not sell a backlit machine for any non-coke or non-pepsi product?

Just like you all think there's a real option this election day. Yeah, I'm suck of bush, I'm voting for "the other guy". There's no choice, there's no competition.

In a competitive market, Intel or AMD could both be knocked out by a third party. nVidia could go bankrupt tomorrow, like 3DFX did. Bush and Kerry could be golfing together in January, while President Nader is being inaugerated.

This fanboy idiocy creates these situations. It's ridiculous. Quit being such a bunch of stupid douchebags. I don't want to hear whether Intel or AMD is 2% faster on paper today. Tell me about Transmeta, VIA, Cyrix.. Tell me about PPC platforms (that dont cost $3000 extra for a fancy yet unneeded brushed nickel case) Tell me about the companies that may one day offer me an ACTUAL CHOICE and quit licking the balls of your corporate masters.

Re:Intel vs. AMD, Linux vs. Microsoft, etc. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9920297)

Wow.
I see someone got a new roll of tin foil.

Re:Intel vs. AMD, Linux vs. Microsoft, etc. (1)

arose (644256) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920281)

And isn't even true. Athlon beats the Xeon in the POV-Ray benchmark, which is very FPU intensive.

Intel wins, but give credit where it's due (4, Interesting)

Epistax (544591) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920049)

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.

Re:Intel wins, but give credit where it's due (1)

fitten (521191) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920111)

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.

To me, it says that the two designs follow different philosophies. Intel's design is narrower than the AMD design (Athlon 64s have more execution units than the P4). The logic and design of the AMD chip make it harder for them to reach higher clock speeds - by choice somewhat as AMD has designed the thing to keep the number of pipeline stages low. Intel's design reaches higher clock speeds at the expense of work done per clock. To be honest, it's harder to get the thing to run at high clock speeds than it is to just add more execution units.

Re:Intel wins, but give credit where it's due (1)

Quixote (154172) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920144)

The AMD is running at 2.2 ghz,

But can you overclock it? Is the 2.2GHz speed of the Athlon (and most of the other AMD offerings seem to plateau out around this figure) a limit for AMDs?

FPU intensive? (5, Interesting)

klaussm (81352) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920081)

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.

Re:FPU intensive? (1)

illectro (697914) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920244)

The only FPU intensive benchmark I see is POVRay - and the AMD chip wipes the floor with the intel newcomer. What we need is Doom 3 to be ported to linux so we can get some real benchmarks.

Disappointing? (1)

vuvewux (792756) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920093)

It is disappointing to see how the Athlon gets trounced in FPU intensive benchmarks.

Unless you're a major AMD stockholder (which you should state), stuff it. They're both corporations. AMD isn't a "good" corporation and Intel isn't a "bad corporation" so quit your partisan whinings.

Hog wash (5, Insightful)

I_am_Rambi (536614) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920097)

So you compare a highend server/workstation proc to a highend desktop proc. Sure the server chip will win the majority of the benchmarks.

Where are the 64bit benchmarks? They really didn't do any comparision to 32bit, so you can't say for sure if Intel implementation is good or not. Get the Opteron in there, do the same benchmarks in 32 and 64 modes and see if there is a difference. Also throw say 5 gigs of memory in the machines, that will see how each proc handles addressing above the 4gig limit.

Re:Hog wash (1)

fitten (521191) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920209)

So you compare a highend server/workstation proc to a highend desktop proc. Sure the server chip will win the majority of the benchmarks

Why do you say this? There isn't really difference between the Xeon and the P4 (Prescott in this case).

Re:Hog wash (1)

Ahkorishaan (774757) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920273)

Perhaps because the application were workstation and server apps?

Riots in the streets (5, Insightful)

Ahkorishaan (774757) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920119)

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.

Re:Riots in the streets (1)

fitten (521191) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920172)

The Xeon has double the cache, is double the price, and isa top end server chip, being compared to a midrange desktop chip.

There is no significant difference between the Xeon and the P4 cores. As far as having double the cache, that is simply a part of the design. Are you going to say the same thing when the EM64T Prescotts (complete with either 1M or 2M L2 caches) are released? The Prescotts are obviously aimed for the desktop but *gasp* will have 2X the L2 cache as the AMD desktop Athlon 64s and may likely have 2X the L2 cache as the Opterons at some point. The current Prescotts all have 1M L2 cache... does that mean we can't compare any of them to any Athlon 64 Newcastle core?

The amount of cache, clock speed, etc. are all parts of the design. You compare one CPU vs. another, not one CPU's individual pieces to the other CPUs individual pieces to the other.

Re:Riots in the streets (1)

Ahkorishaan (774757) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920207)

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.

What about scientific code? (2, Insightful)

endeitzslash (570374) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920125)

I am always disappointed in these reviews because they alway address gaming and multimedia (which I understand are most important to the greatest amount of readers) but rarely address scientific computing. I am most interested in how fast my FORTRAN/C math-intensive code will run (I have seen examples where AMD gets beat soundly in the "FPU" benchmark, but kicks ass in ScienceMark).

AMD has been consistently good at scientific computing, but I haven't seen any performance specs for the 64-bit ones. Has anyone else?

Ed.

Re:What about scientific code? (1)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920183)

>> they alway address gaming and multimedia

Thats funny, I was just thinking how they should have put some gaming benchmarks in this article.

Gaming behncmarks are good because leading-edge games really give the system a better work-out more than most other benchmarks, therefore represent real-world performance much better than synthetic benchmarks.

Wow, a $850 CPU beats a $350 one? (5, Insightful)

John_Booty (149925) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920145)

From the article: "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"

In other news, a Corvette just smooooookkkked a Ford Taurus.

Riiight (2, Informative)

Zebra_X (13249) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920152)

And the 3500+ and the Xeon are in the same processor class how?

The 3500+ is a mainstream, desktop processor. For a more accurate comparison, the FX series, and the opteron line should have been used.

The point is...? (0, Redundant)

Maul (83993) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920181)

The high priced server processor beats the more affordable desktop processor. These two processors aren't even competing for the same market share, so why even make the comparison?

Re:The point is...? (1)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920215)

To make Intel look good. Websites are run by people and people have biases. And lets not forget free hardware and maybe even cash via advertising.

synthetic benchmarks (3, Interesting)

the quick brown fox (681969) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920190)

I'm no expert on CPU architecture or synthetic benchmarks, but it seems like most of the synthetic benchmarks they used (primegen, super_pi, TSCP, uBench CPU) are the kinds of jobs that the Pentium 4 architecture is specifically designed to handle well: not much memory bandwidth required, little unpredictable branching. In these situations, the Xeon's 63 percent clock speed advantage is definitely going to make itself felt.

My guess is that if these same benchmarks had been run on any Athlon vs. the equivalent P4 throughout history, the outcome would've been similar. But the results would also have been as irrelevant yesterday as they are today, since we all know the Xeon isn't 40% faster than the A64 in anything like real-world usage.

3.6GHz vs 2.2GHz (2, Interesting)

zoid.com (311775) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920197)

This is the real compairson. Overclock the AMD to 3.6GHz and see who wins. As soon as AMD gets tthe 90nm process perfected I think we will see a huge boost in AMDs clockspeed.

Hyperthreading (2, Interesting)

mcbevin (450303) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920199)

While the Intel chip performed well against the AMD one, hyperthreading appeared to perform badly (i.e. the Intel chip without hyperthreading enabled tended to beat the same chip with it enabled).

It would however be interesting to see a test that somehow say ran two of these benchmarks at the same time to see whether hyperthreading had an effect in such a case. Presumably most of the synthetic benchmarks especially don't really favour hyperthreading.

The best improvement to Slashdot so far: (1, Offtopic)

Dark Lord Seth (584963) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920212)

  1. Optional: Wipe blood from eyes due to atrocious Slashdot "design", get pretty Mozilla/Firebox bookmarklet [electricstate.com] to solve it.
  2. Click "Preferences" on the left side, if you're logged in.
  3. Click "Homepage" at the top.
  4. Scroll down to "Exclude Stories from the Homepage".
  5. Under the "Authors" header, check "Hemos"
  6. Save settings, enjoy Slashdot a little bit more.

Yayyyyyyy!!!!! (2, Funny)

metalac (633801) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920214)

Finally Linux benchmarks :). They are sooo hard to find and finally they are being used.

Let's see.... (5, Interesting)

adiposity (684943) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920260)

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?

Re:Let's see.... (1)

adiposity (684943) | more than 10 years ago | (#9920275)

err, slowest of the socket 939s that is.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>