Linux Shootout: Opteron 150 vs. Xeon 3.6 Nocona
by Kristopher Kubicki on August 12, 2004 2:35 PM EST- Posted in
- Linux
lame
If our other benchmarks were any indication, compiler flags seem to make or break our analysis of a processor. However, lame 3.96.1 seemed one of those programs that did not readily enjoy optimizations; at least with the test file we used. When we attempted to force any optimization, even - march or - O2, lame appeared to produce the same or worse results.
GZip
GZip was installed straight from RPMs, so optimization flags are probably minimal. We used the 700MB test file from the lame encoding test as dummy data.
# time gzip -c sample.wav > /dev/null
This becomes our first real world test where we see Intel come out ahead. This coincides with what we saw on the previous page with the synthetic benchmark.
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.