Synthetic Benchmarks (continued)

TSCP

TSCP is a simple chess program, which you may read more about here. We compiled the program using our own Makefile, which you can download here. Once compiled, we ran the "bench" command inside the program. Using the -m64 flags provided no change in performance.

TSCP 1.8.1

As you can see, there appears to be no advantage with HyperThreading for this application. This also appears to be the largest lead that the Intel processor takes over the AMD during the duration of our analysis.
Update:We have retested this part of the benchmark with the -O2 flag in the correct place for both machines. The score has changed to reflect this. br>

ubench

Finally, we have ubench, which stands as the definitive Unix synthetic benchmark. Feel free to learn more about the program here. We compiled the program using ./configure and make with no optimizations. The benchmark was run on a loop ten times to assure that we were getting a true average.

Ubench 0.32 - CPU

Ubench 0.32 - MEM

Ubench 0.32 - AVG

Here, we see HyperThreading working against the Xeon processor in a distinct fashion. According to the Ubench website, both of these machines with single processors outperform dual Xeon 2.4GHz machines, even though they are only running on one processor. The program runs several math-intensive floating point and integer operations over the course of three minutes.

Synthetic Benchmarks Encryption
Comments Locked

275 Comments

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.

    -manno
  • 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!

    -manno
  • 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