Linux Shootout: Opteron 150 vs. Xeon 3.6 Nocona
by Kristopher Kubicki on August 12, 2004 2:35 PM EST- Posted in
- Linux
Our preliminary look at Intel's 64-bit Xeon 3.6GHz Nocona (which happens to be identical to the Intel 3.6F Pentium 4) stirred up a bit of controversy. The largest two concerns were:
- We tested Intel's Xeon server processor against an Athlon desktop CPU.
- We chose poor benchmarks to illustrate the capabilities of those processors.
Fortunately, with the help of the other editors at AnandTech, we managed to reproduce an entire retest of the Nocona platform and an Opteron 150 CPU. We also managed to find an internet connection stable enough for this editor to redraft en entire performance analysis on his vacation.
| Performance Test Configuration | |
| Processor(s): | AMD Opteron
150 (130nm, 2.4GHz, 1MB L2 Cache) Intel Xeon 3.6GHz (90nm, 1MB L2 Cache) |
| RAM: | 2 x 512MB PC-3200 CL2 (400MHz) Registered 2 x 512MB PC2-3200 CL3 (400MHz) Registered |
| Memory Timings: | Default |
| Operating System(s): | SuSE 9.1 Professional (64 bit) Linux 2.6.4-52-default Linux 2.6.4-52-smp |
| Compiler: | linux:~ # gcc -v Reading specs from /usr/lib64/gcc-lib/x86_64-suse-linux/3.3.3/specs Configured with: ../configure --enable-threads=posix --prefix=/usr --with-local-prefix=/usr/local --infodir=/usr/share/info --mandir=/usr/share/man --enable-languages=c,c++,f77,objc,java,ada --disable-checking --libdir=/usr/lib64 --enable-libgcj --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/g++ --with-slibdir=/lib64 --with-system-zlib --enable-shared --enable-__cxa_atexit x86_64-suse-linux Thread model: posix gcc version 3.3.3 (SuSE Linux) |
| Libraries: | linux:~ # /lib/libc.so.6
GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.3
(20040405), by Roland McGrath et al.
Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation,
Inc.
This is free software; see the source for
copying conditions.
There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY
or FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Configured for i686-suse-linux.
Compiled by GNU CC version 3.3.3 (SuSE
Linux).
Compiled on a Linux 2.6.4 system on 2004-04-05.
Available extensions:
GNU libio by Per Bothner
crypt add-on version 2.1 by Michael
Glad and others
linuxthreads-0.10 by Xavier Leroy
GNU Libidn by Simon Josefsson
NoVersion patch for broken glibc
2.0 binaries
BIND-8.2.3-T5B
libthread_db work sponsored by
Alpha Processor Inc
NIS(YP)/NIS+ NSS modules 0.19 by
Thorsten Kukuk
Thread-local storage support included.
Report bugs using the `glibcbug' script
to |
The Intel Xeon 3.6GHz has HyperThreading enabled by default, so we use that
with the SMP kernel during the review. The entire review uses 64-bit binaries
either compiled from scratch or as installed from RPM. We only used a 32-bit
benchmark during the synthetic analysis, but still on SuSE 9.1 Pro (x86-64).
As one reader has pointed out, the GCC 3.3.3 used in this review has a few back ported optimizations from GCC 3.4.1 care of the SuSE development team. Thus, architecture specific optimizations for nocona are included.
Special thanks to Super Micro for getting us additional Intel components
for testing on such short notice!
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
92 Comments
View All Comments
epicstruggle - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
"The 3.6F will still be marketed against the 3500+/3800+ dual channel AMD CPUs. The benchmarks were messed up in that article, not our processor choice. This was addressed at the beginning of both articles"First great redo. :) I dont care who wins or looses, but at least now the comparision is fair.
About the above quote, who is doing this marketing/comparison. Im assuming Intel? Doesnt it look suspect that they want to compare a 800+ dollar processor with one in the low 300s? Why fall for marketing pr/fud?
again, thanks for the info.
epic
dke - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
I enjoyed this article much more than the first one. This one is much more accurate in my opinion.I would like to point out that you can purchase an Opteron 150 (boxed) for $594.49 with free shipping at
http://www.chumbo.com/info.asp?s=030143803701&...
and not $850 like you quoted in your "Final Thoughts" page. Additionally, AMD's pricing page suggests that the Opteron 150 be priced at $637. Any store pricing the Opteron 150 at $800 or $850 will not make any sales, so, I don't think you can justify your statement, "Thus, it is priced around $850 at time of publication." That is the only thing I think you should change with this article. That sentence should be changed to, "Thus, it is priced (by AMD) at around $650 and can be purchased at around $600 at time of publication."
Other than that, I think you've written a wonderful article. I'd also like to thank you for doing this during your "vacation" time. I suppose that wasn't much of a vacation. I think what you did shows quite a bit of dedication to your work, and I (for one) appreciate it.
love4ever - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
thanks Kristopher.very nice review.
Carfax - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
Kris, that's fine man.. Good work on this review, and I look forward to seeing the 32 and 64 bit Nocona benches in a future review!KristopherKubicki - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
datacipher: The 3.6F will still be marketed against the 3500+/3800+ dual channel AMD CPUs. The benchmarks were messed up in that article, not our processor choice. This was addressed at the beginning of both articles/Kristopher
datacipher - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
Sorry for the empty posts, I just signed up to say this....I think I can speak from a different perspective as I am not a techhead. I do keep a casual eye on hardware and have done extensive programming so I would not classify myself as computer illiterate.
Still I WOULD not have noticeed the rediculous choice of cpu's used in the 1st article. I would have just skimmed the article and assumed that a reasonable choice of benchmark material was used. I would not have known about any of the flaws in the benchmarks. I WOULD have accepted and given weight to the conclusion...which was clearly unwarranted given this second review.
I would like to thank all the posters who criticized that review because without you watchdogs, I would have blindly accepted the article as I used to do with Anandtech which I always though was a reliable source.
Kristopher, it's good you posted a new article, but honestly, your first article was extremely misleading...almost fraudulent...it really changes the nature of Anandtech in my mind...I thought I could rely on you fellows...
If you had initially even written of your reasoning as to why you were using such an uncomparable processor and then properly framed your conclusions it would have been fine....but in the article itself you seemed to be saying that it was a reasonable comparision and the conclusions were not given proper reference.
I'm really disappointed.
KristopherKubicki - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
Carfax:I will address that in a future review. I just didnt have the time to do it all over again :'(
Kristopher
Carfax - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
This review is MUCH better.. But still, WHY aren't there reference 32 bit scores for the Noconca, so we can see how much of a difference between 32 and 64 bit performance there is?TotalImmortal - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
thanks to all you guys at anandtech, never let it be said that you don't listen to your readership!sprockkets - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
At the end of page 5, the last paragraph is worded weird. Page 6 graph at the top, "Opteron 250"?I realize that you probably were sleeping when you did this :).
The only thing else I don't like and I know it's out of your control is those stupid "get the facts" propaganda from Micro losers.