Intel "Harpertown" Xeon vs. AMD "Barcelona" Opteron
by Jason Clark & Ross Whitehead on September 18, 2007 5:00 PM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
Scalable CPU
Unlike the AS3AP benchmark where AMD is able to lead at the lower load points, Intel is able to dominate this benchmark. Again we see the improvements which Harpertown brings over Clovertown. The Xeon E5472 is able to lead the Opteron 2350 by as much as 59%. We also see that the quad-core 2350 does provide much more headroom than its dual-core 2222 sibling.
All quad-core systems exhibit similar CPU utilization with the dual-core Opteron ramping significantly quicker.
The Harpertown system is much more competitive on this benchmark with regards to power consumption. In fact, all quad-core parts are within 4-8% of each other.
With Intel's better performance and much closer power consumption on this benchmark, Harpertown is the clear leader for all load points. The Xeon E5472 is able to lead by as much as 46% over the Opteron 2350. Barcelona is competitive with Clovertown, but it has a long way to go to match Harpertown
Unlike the AS3AP benchmark where AMD is able to lead at the lower load points, Intel is able to dominate this benchmark. Again we see the improvements which Harpertown brings over Clovertown. The Xeon E5472 is able to lead the Opteron 2350 by as much as 59%. We also see that the quad-core 2350 does provide much more headroom than its dual-core 2222 sibling.
All quad-core systems exhibit similar CPU utilization with the dual-core Opteron ramping significantly quicker.
The Harpertown system is much more competitive on this benchmark with regards to power consumption. In fact, all quad-core parts are within 4-8% of each other.
With Intel's better performance and much closer power consumption on this benchmark, Harpertown is the clear leader for all load points. The Xeon E5472 is able to lead by as much as 46% over the Opteron 2350. Barcelona is competitive with Clovertown, but it has a long way to go to match Harpertown
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
77 Comments
View All Comments
Justin Case - Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - link
Anyone else feel that the first image...http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/it/2007/barcel...">http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/it/2007/barcel...
...looks somewhat... er... phallic?
TA152H - Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - link
Oh my, you're absolutely right.That's really foul. Even the area between the Tick and Tock looks like the urethra. It's so wrong. Is that really the only way they could have presented the information? I mean, if they wanted to get pornographic, couldn't they have used a woman's breasts? Right one for Tick, left one for Tock? It's much more attractive than this.
Regs - Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - link
Marketing geniuses. Intel at its best. A better product, with a bigger...In all do seriousness, It's no surprise AMD can't compete with an architecture that's been out for over a year. AMD needs more tweaks and needs more clock speed. I just hope they don't disappoint again like they did with the K8. 4-5 years of stagnation.
TA152H - Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - link
I think it comes down to Intel being wiser than AMD. They were always smarter, as evidenced by their much more advanced processors like the P7 and Itanium. But AMD was wiser, and chose an easier path that also performed better. Intel had all the great technology, super-advanced trail blazing stuff that just didn't work that well. AMD made the same mistake by going native quad-core before they were ready. Consequently, they have a poor performing part compared to what Intel has, today, and promises for tomorrow. Obviously, the extent of their failure isn't as deep-rooted as the Pentium 4 was and at least the Barcelona can be improved (mainly by clock speed) more quickly, but the big problem is that the Barcelona is getting raped by Intel processors using FB-DIMMS. You add clock speed to the Barcelona, and the power goes up (everything else being equal). You change FB-DIMMS out, and you get better performance and lower power. So, the future doesn't look that bright for AMD, despite the fact they should gain clock speed pretty quickly. It's unlikely to help their power/performance much. Intel using more appropriate memory will to a great extent. Also, if AMD does manage to get close to Intel in performance, Intel will just release a higher performing part. They can hit much higher than 3.2 with their G0 stepping, so it's really a matter of whether it makes marketing sense.But, it sure sounds good to have native quad-core, and they sure were smart to do it. Right? Just like Intel was to come out with trace-cache, double-pumped ALUs, and super-pipelining and unheard of clock speeds.
But all that aside, if they can get the clock speeds up to a reasonable amount, and increase the size of the pathetic caches (yes, I know they are limited by the IMC and it limits it, but still 512K????) and in a release or two get full memory disambiguation, they will have a really good product. It will at least be competitive.
Justin Case - Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - link
Any reason why the AMD system had 16 GB of RAM (8x2GB) while the Intel system had only 8GB (4x2GB)?Also, any reason for the big differences in cooling (AMD system had 7 fans, Intel system had 3)? If the Barcelona system actually uses <i>less power</i>, as your numbers show, surely it can't dissipate <i>more</i> heat.
When you're measuring the power consumption of the whole system (and extrapolating that to the power efficiency of each CPU), you should try to make the configurations match as closely as possible, no? Not to mention that the amount of RAM can have an influence on the actual system performance.
I could understand different configurations if you were testing systems at a specific price point (and couldn't "afford" more RAM for the Intel system due to the more expensive CPUs, for example), but that wasn't the case here.
Xspringe - Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - link
I would really like to see updated benchmark scores as well! It only seems fair to add more ram to the xeon, for it might improve the benchmark scores and would also increase energy usage (which would be beneficial to the barcelona).Final Hamlet - Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - link
Yuk!I really would like to see an explanation from an editor on this critique...
Justin Case - Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - link
Add the unusual choice of benchmark and fact that Harpertown isn't actually due to be launched until November, and I think this is one (more) article we can file under the "iNandtel" section.Speaking of that, anyone know what happened to GamePC's "Labs" section? Along with the Tech Report they were probably one of the last sites with a steady output of meaningful, objective reviews of PC hardware.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - link
IMPORTANT UPDATE INFORMATION:There was a typo/error in the original config. We apologize for the confusion - I should have verified with Jason/Ross earlier. The Opteron setup was running 8x1GB, not 8x2GB. Sorry to pop all the conspiracy theories (again), but the systems are a lot more similar than you would apparently like to believe.
Note also the update at the end: 2.5GHz Barcelona is on its way and will be tested shortly. We'll see how that compares with the higher clocked Harpertown.
Proteusza - Thursday, September 20, 2007 - link
With the last Quad Core Comes to Play article, and now this, I've completely lost faith in Anandtech's benchmarks.These guys are too clever for them to make a mistake like that, and if they did I'm sure they would see the mistake and rebenchmark.
No, I think these benchmarks were just paid for by Intel, in anticipation of its November launch to steal AMD's thunder. I'm not accusing the entire site of constant bias towards Intel, but rather a bias towards advertising. AMD has probably done the same thing in the past, and I'm sure Anandtech has been happy to oblige.