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
Adul - Friday, August 13, 2004 - link
prd00My understanding is the Nocona 3.6 is the same care os the P4 3.6F. Cache size and all. There is no L3 cache on this chip as far as I know of yet.
from page 1
AMD Opteron 150 (130nm, 2.4GHz, 1MB L2 Cache)
Intel Xeon 3.6GHz (90nm, 1MB L2 Cache)
prd00 - Friday, August 13, 2004 - link
Hmm... #68, that's nice.. I would also like Apache server performance as well, as this one is server CPU shootout. Try to reconstruct a page request response benchmark. kind like the one that used in Opteron review or in AcesHardware. Also, please check the scalability when adding second and 3rd/4th processor. how many percent can we gain over the single one.BTW, Kris.. in my opinion, Nocona 3.6 is not comparable to P4 3.6F, because Nocona 3.6 is way faster than 3.6F. It is much more comparable to P4 3.6EE than 3.6F vanilla. I think Intel will release a new 3.6F with vanilla P4 flavor when it is re-released as plain a plain one. So, I guess, 3.6EE is not comparable to A64 3500+ in many ways, as P3 3.4EE is comparable to AFX-53.
DrMrLordX - Friday, August 13, 2004 - link
Good review. This one was definitely thoroughly explained and well-thought-out.I'd like to see the 3800+ put through the paces next, but eh, you guys deserve a rest *)
Locutus4657 - Friday, August 13, 2004 - link
Good job Kris, you did a much better job this time! I guess the first article must really have been a learning experience! But that's what life is all about. So keep up the good work, and I look forward to reading more of your reviews.Arias74 - Friday, August 13, 2004 - link
One last comment as well, and then I'll shut up.I was wondering what the possibility of using Apache for benchmarking in future reviews? Just a thought...
Salvador
Arias74 - Friday, August 13, 2004 - link
I also posted after reading the first article, so I figure I may as well do so again.I'm still a little confused why KK still thinks that a 3.6GHz P4 will be marketed against a 3500+ A64. They do not occupy the same space, price-wise. If you're looking at a 3500 in the name, even Intel realizes that you can't judge by numbers alone, based on the fact that they are moving to an arbitrary naming convention for their processors. The only way to compare the two different product lines is by price, because that is the only constant. So, if the 3.6GHz P4 is the highest priced desktop cpu, then you would have to compare that to AMD's highest price.
For example, if you have 2 systems in the store side-by-side, and one was priced $500 more than the other, wouldn't you assume that the higher priced item would be that much better, hence the higher price tag? Especially nowadays when $1000 can get you a very capable system, $500 is a huge price difference.
Basically, all I'm saying is that it is faulty reasoning to assume that a 3.6GHz Intel cpu will be marketed against a 3500+ Amd A64 cpu. Heck, even AMD doesn't know how to market their own Semprons... apparently, a Sempron 2800+ is only equal to an AXP 2400+ in terms of performance... very weird and wacky stuff!
Salvador
Zebo - Friday, August 13, 2004 - link
Good job, Kris!As far as the chips used...These are very much in compitition with one another. Around the same price and "the best workstation processor" of the respective competing companies. Best vs. best and price. What else is there?
You still need to dump the old article... or at least get rid of the hyperbolye in the conclusion.
AnnoyedGrunt - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
T8000, it is interesting how you consider this second review biased, even though many people had pointed out legitimate problems with the first one.You bring up a good point about HT though. Even though it helps in some cases, it hurts in many others. How much of a selling point is it in that case?
I was impressed with both the constructive criticism of the readers and the profesionalism of Kris's responses in this whole affair. Very nice job on this follow-up review. Hopefully, more updates will follow as more 64-bit programs become available.
-D'oh!
Topnikko - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
Nice job on this piece, Kris. I like the way you handle criticism. I think it's fairly obvious to you and everyone else that if the Opteron is capable of such a showing in a UP configuration, the Xeon doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of outperforming the Opteron in multiprocessor configs. If you do decide to write an article comparing multiprocessor machines it'll be down-right ugly for Intel.drewintheav - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
Kris you are a w e s o m e !!!!!!