Since the excuse to not compare Athlon 64s to Intel Pentium based processors has always been "you can't compare apples to oranges," we found ourselves fairly entertained to come into the possession of a 3.6GHz EM64T Xeon processor. Intel's EM64T is Intel's true x86_64 initiative. This 3.6GHz Xeon processor is actually the exact same CPU in as the LGA775 Pentium 4F we will see in just a few weeks. We are offering a preview of an unreleased processor on 64-bit Linux systems. Now, we have Intel and AMD 64-bit x86 processors, 64-bit Linux operating systems and a few days to get some benchmarking done.

We are going to run the benchmarks for this review slightly different than we have in the past. We want to make our numbers easily replicable for those who have the necessary components, but we also want to show the fullest capabilities of the hardware that we have. Many of our previous benchmarks are not multithread (POV-Ray) or do not scale well. Unfortunately, this forces us to use a lot of synthetic benchmarks; but we feel the overall results are accurate and reflective of the hardware used.

The delicate bit for this review was using the SuSE 9.1 Pro (x86_64) installation rather than compiling it from scratch (à la Gentoo). This was done to preserve the ability to replicate our benchmarks easily. Fedora Core 2 refused to install on the IA32e machine because there was no recognized AMD CPU.

 Performance Test Configuration
Processor(s): Athlon 64 3500+ (130nm, 2.2GHz, 512KB L2 Cache)
Intel Xeon 3.6GHz (90nm, 1MB L2 Cache)
RAM: 2 x 512MB PC-3500 CL2 (400MHz)
2 x 512MB PC2-3200 CL3 (400MHz) Registered
Memory Timings: Default
Hard Drives Seagate 120GB 7200RPM IDE (8Mb buffer)
Operating System(s): SuSE 9.1 Professional (64 bit)
Linux 2.6.4-52-default
Linux 2.6.4-52-smp
Compiler: GCC 3.3.3
Motherboards: NVIDIA NForce3 250 Reference Board
SuperMicro Tumwater X6DA8-G2 (Only 1 CPU)

As there may have been a little confusion from the last review, the DDR PC-3500 only runs at 400MHz. The Infineon Registered RDIMMs used on the Xeon runs at slightly high latencies. All memory runs in dual channel configurations. We removed 1 CPU for the tests in this benchmark, but since HyperThreading was enabled, we used the SMP kernel. During the second half of the benchmarks, SMP was disabled and the tests were re-run under the single CPU generic kernel. These are both 64-bit CPUs, and so, all benchmarks are run on 64-bit OSes with 64-bit binaries wherever possible.

Content Creation
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • manno - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link

    Come on people this is Anandtech, have they ever appeared to be anything, but honest, and unbiased in their reviews? These are the number they got using these benchmarks. They did the work, and gave you the numbers. This site isn't here to advertise for AMD, or Intel. They give you the information, and you use it as a tool for you own purposes from there. I mean come on take of your uniforms, and accept what you see in front of you. This should be looked at as a favor. I don't see any other sites posting benches of Intel's EM64T chips, do you? You came to this site by choice, they don't charge you dime one for the service they provide, and you get pissed at them for not bending the truth so you can to advance your own personal agenda.

    Say thank you, and be on your way.

    These guys work hard, and they do a fantastic job supplying the enthusiast community with some of the best benchmark numbers around. They just posted numbers showing that EM64T is a huge step forward in terms of P4 performance. So what? If you want to buy an A64 or P4 Prescott and get worse performance in those benches then go out and buy one. I was just about tho buy a some PC's for the office here, and they were all going to have A64's in them. Thanks to Kristopher I've decided to sit on the fence a little longer.

    Again Thanks for the early release, it really and truly helped. I hope these fanboy's don't affect you decision to post early numbers in the future.

  • WizzBall - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link

    Is this what you call these days a *benchmark*? Just wondering... o.O
  • nastyemu25 - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link

    hello. someone effed up :(
  • coldpower27 - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link

    Not a bad article, though it might have been better if an Opteron 150 was benched which is priced @ 637US or the Athlon FX 53 @ 827US those would be closer in comparison to the Pentium 4 3.6 Nocona EM64T

    Though eventually a fairer comparison would be the Pentium 4 3.6F vs the Athlon 64 3500+ or Athlon 64 3700+. You could also throw in the Pentium 4 3.4F and Athlon 64 3400+.

  • noxipoo - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link

    at least compare the same thing, if you don't have the same class CPU for testing THEN DON'T POST THE ARTICLE.
  • tpinckney - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link

    Given the numerous errors in this article, I believe it is prudent that it be removed from Anandtech.

    This ludicrous article has damaged my opinion of Anandtech.
  • SKiller - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link

    Wow... and a big fat Intel ad at the bottom of the article. Never thought I'd see the day.
  • manno - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link

    Good review, thanks for the early benchmark release. I'm not going to lie to you I like AMD, and I own a bunch of Athlon 64s. But before I think I'll hold off on buying any new hardware until I get to see how well these new P4's do. Any chance we can get some Doom 3 numbers up? Again thanks for giving us the heads up. Looks like things could start heating up in the Chip market soon!

  • peter79 - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link

    wow intel fanboy alert.
    I also joined the forum just to post here.

    Numerous forums are all comenting on this article. Anand's is even compared by some to THG. So I think an update is appropriate here. A delete to.

    T8000, maybe you should read some of those comments, you would discover that , compared to an opteron, results would be very different. Results that aren't even correct btw. And that the benchmark choice is awfull.
  • redpriest_ - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link

    The gcc options used don't generate 64-bit binaries.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now