Linux Shootout: Opteron 150 vs. Xeon 3.6 Nocona
by Kristopher Kubicki on August 12, 2004 2:35 PM EST- Posted in
- Linux
Although this latest attempt to produce an accurate, unbiased, real world comparison of these two processors is likely more thorough than the review earlier this week, there are still critical issues we will address to get out of the way.
First of all, AMD's Opteron 150 is the highest performing AMD workstation CPU money can buy. Thus, it is priced around $600 at time of publication. (The nearly identical FX-53 is priced slightly higher). Intel's Xeon 3.6GHz / Pentium 4 3.6F processor is the highest performing Intel workstation CPU money can't buy; although it has shown up in various OEM channels, it really has not hit the market in full force yet. When it does, we are expected to see it retail for $850. This automatically raises the question as to whether or not these two are directly competing processors. Since prices in the market fluctuate daily depending on vendor stock with such high end CPUs, we leave that decision up to the reader.
Secondly, GCC 3.3.3 optimizations became a larger than expected variable in these tests. As shown in the TSCP benchmark, changing the optimization flags wildly changed performance of the Opteron CPU, while the Nocona only received mild benefits. We also hear that GCC 3.4 tends to increase performance on the Opteron CPUs even further, although we ran out of time to complete that test.
After all is said and done it became difficult (nearly impossible?) to justify the Xeon processor in a UP configuration over the Opteron 150, but perhaps we will see significant changes in dual and four way configurations. We have Linux benchmark shootout between the two processors coming up, as well as a Windows analysis too.
Once again special thanks to Super Micro for providing us with the hardware on such short notice for this review.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
92 Comments
View All Comments
tfranzese - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
Much better Kris, and I was only disappointed in not getting to see the 32-bit comparisons to see how well the current iAMD64 implementation is running.Only thing you left me confused on was the last paragraph on the John The Ripper benchmark. Might only be me who can't understand what you mean.
KristopherKubicki - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
datacipher:Datacipher, it really depends on your point of view. For server performance benchmarks, like the SQL stuff, another server chip was the way to go (like we did here).
If we go the desktop route, the line becomes a little blurry, particularly on Intel's end. Intel defines UP servers and high end workstations almost identically.
If we were to go on price alone, we still don't have the fairest comparison since the 150 is priced cheaper than the Xeon and the 3.6F. Some of my sources have said the 3.6F may debut considerably lower than its Xeon 3.6GHz server counterpart, even though they are the same processor with different pin outs.
Regardless of what you think, the 3.6F and Xeon 3.6GHz processors will compete against AMD dual channel offerings in the 2.4GHz range. If you read some of our other reviews, L2 cache size doesnot seem as critical on the A64 platform.
Whelp, anyway, hope that helps. When the 3.6F actually shows up at newegg with a price, then i will tell you for sure what it competes against :)
Kristopher
srg - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
Stellar Job on this one, you earnt the vacation. Anyway the reason this one seems more correct is that in the 32-bit tests, opteron beats the Xeon (so why should this one be so different), now everywhere else I've read are saying that the Xeon's 64-bit performance wasn't much and yours was a contradiction. That's why there was the contravercy. Anyway, this confirms the party line.srg
datacipher - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
Kristopher:Now I'm really confused! In the original article you say that the chips were not meant to compete...but then you also said things like "it turned out to be more appropriate than antipated". Now you are saying that since the 3.6F will be marketed against the 3500+...that it is the correct choice...
Now I'm trying to understand...forgive my ignorance. Basically you took a server chip as a stand in for the 3.6F against the 3500+ in what amounts to basically a desktop shootout? What I don't understand about this is how can Intel release a 3.6F with a roughly comparable cost to the 3500+ but with the same performance as the xeon 3.6?
Also, if the cpu choice was correct...why did you then switch to the opeteron 150?
Thanks in advance.
KristopherKubicki - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
Lynx516:I posted the GCC -v at the beginning of the review, please let me know if there is something else i should do.
Kristopher
KristopherKubicki - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
To be honest i wouldnt have known some of the mistakes i made had people not been so critical. I am not upset with the final outcome, it happens to everyone.Kristopher
Lynx516 - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
Sorry to be a bit harsh there Kris but they are not in the standard GCC3.3.3 manual which I was using as a reference. It would be nice to state that you are using a ported compiler in your config to prevent any future confusion. Though its a pretty good article over all. much better than some recent ones on Anand. I hope this standard is kept up.Humblest appologies
Lynx
Spectre999 - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
I posting because I was complaining about the first review on another board. The first review was horribly done.But it takes a real stand up person to take all the bitching that went on and be able to go back and look at what they did and decide to redo it because they made a mistake. For that I will give you much praise. The other hand is the first review shouldn't have been turned in the way it was but it isn't always the way someone does something that is the most important but the way they respond to the criticism they get.
So thanks for all the effort on redoing the article and you provided you are a stand up guy who simply made a mistake. It happens and everyone can move on.
manno - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
"Now will all of you A-Holes get off KrizK's & AT editorial staff's back!!"HAHHAHAHAHAHA I'm laughing my ass off.
Great Job getting in the first post, and a good first post at that.
-manno
hifisoftware - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
Good review. All sins are forgotten now :-)