Sunday, January 01, 2006

Dual core server duel: Xeon vs Opteron benchmark

AMD challenged INTEL to a dual core duel, INTEL is not responding. For that, AMD has given a list of 10 reasons that INTEL won't duel.

For those who like to see an interesting fight, be disappointed. If INTEL does get to the stage, it will get beat up so bloody by AMD, you will shed tears of sympathy for the INTEL folks.

GamePC had a benchmark on the rare to find Paxville DP at 2.8GHZ, and INTEL got punched right and left, left and right.... Paxville had only about half the performance of Opteron in Apache bench.

Now INTEL is readying the dual core Xeon MP 7040, which is dual core for 4 way and up servers. Luckily for us, HP has submitted SPECINT scores for this spanking new INTEL wonder chip.

Here is the summary:

INTEL: 3.0GHz, Intel dual-core Xeon MP 7040, 4 cores, 2 chips, 2 cores/chip , SpecInt rate 57.2

AMD: Opteron (TM) 880, 4 cores, 2 chips, 2 cores/chip , specint_rate 75.1

INTEL: 3.0GHz, Intel dual-core Xeon MP 7040, 8 cores, 4 chips, 2 cores/chip specint rate 105

AMD: Opteron (TM) 880, 8 cores, 4 chips, 2 cores/chip , specint_rate 144

Now the math: (75.1-57.2)/57.2 = 31.3%,
(144-105)/105 = 37.1%


Now, let's look at number crunching speed, the SpecFP_rate scores:

INTEL: ProLiant DL380 G4 (2.8GHz, Intel dual-core Xeon Paxville), 4 cores, 2 chips, 2 cores/chip 40.3

AMD: ProLiant DL385 (AMD Opteron (TM) 280), 4 cores, 2 chips, 2 cores/chip , 74.4

Woops, INTEL dual core is only about half the speed of AMD in number crunching. Looks like INTEL needs at least a 5.16GHZ dual core Xeon to have to same performance of Opteron 280.

Now, if we compare 8 core, specfp_rate scores, INTEL looks tiny.

ProLiant ML570 G3, Xeon MP 7040, 8 cores, 4 chips, 2 cores/chip, SpecFP_rate2000, 48.2

Sun Microsystems, AMD Opteron (TM) 880, 8 cores, 4 chips, 2 cores/chip, SpecFP_rate2000, 153.

4 Xeon MP 7040 dual core is only 30% of 4 Opteron 880 in number crunching speed.

Maybe HP is not good at making Xeon servers? Let's look at IBM's dual core Xeon machine:
IBM eServer xSeries 346 (2.8 GHz dual-core Xeon Paxville, 2MB L2 Cache), SpecInt_rate 59.9, not bad, IBM pushed the score up two points.

AMD home made using offshelf TYAN Thunder K8QSD Pro (S4882-D), AMD Opteron (TM) 280, SpecInt_rate 76.8 .

Actually, the fastest AMD dual core CPUs are the Opteron 285SE and 885SE used in Sun's Galaxy line. The SpecFP_rate is 82 for 4 Opteron 285SE cores. I will update the link when SUN's score is published on spec.org .

Here is a preview of INTEL Dempsey processor performance benchmark.

(I changed the article date to 01/01/2006, as servers with INTEL's new chips won't be available by then)

8 Comments:

Blogger whoisj_galt said...

Hi Shark, this is whoisj_galt from the Yahoo AMD board. I hope you are not giving up on your blog--it is great. It could be the definitive week-by-week chronicle of AMD. At least here Tiltbillings, AMD monkey of AMDACE can't screw everything up. Keep up the good work!

4:54 PM, November 11, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou this article is obsolete now. Intel is #1 again....
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713
"Spring IDF 2006 Conroe Preview: Intel Regains the Performance Crown"
On average Conroe 2.66 MHz is 20-30% faster than overclocked to 2.8MHz Athlon Fx.

2:53 PM, March 07, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes, its faster than an AMD system built by Intel. Intel has cheated before on benchmarks, and anandtech has given Intel cpu's unfair advantages in benchmarks before. I'll believe it when they release the chip and motherboard to an unbiased review site(Tom's Hardware guide would be nice) to let them compare against an AMD system built by the reviewer, not intel.

4:48 PM, March 07, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes, its faster than an AMD system built by Intel. Intel has cheated before on benchmarks, and anandtech has given Intel cpu's unfair advantages in benchmarks before. I'll believe it when they release the chip and motherboard to an unbiased review site(Tom's Hardware guide would be nice) to let them compare against an AMD system built by the reviewer, not intel.

4:49 PM, March 07, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Benchmarks have limited use. It's just like passing an IQ test. Complying to pre-programmed set of instructions increases the IQ number. But, does that mean that you are smart? There are a lot of geniuses out there that are allergic to human conditioning.

Benchmarks are only good in a lab. The end user operates differently. So who cares about lab tests? According to theoratical testing, we can also make an elephant fly.

2:50 PM, May 07, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And if im not mistaken... The Athlon FX60 has been out for quite a while now. Why compare the new Conroe to something that's been out for a long time rather than comparing it to something that comes out at a similar time?

Its like saying my P4 beats your P3. Both we're top of the line, but at different timelines. Compare the best processors during the same time.

10:02 PM, May 18, 2006  
Blogger nyx said...

INTEL has geared its focus towards competing with AMD's existing CPU lines. What ignorant fool actually believes that AMD's next generation line is going to be equivalent to its prior line? If INTEL even managed to compete with AMD's current line (which is debateable when comparing to Opteron 285) now, what hope do they have when the next generation hits the market? This is like the calm before the storm. The final days of INTEL's futile struggle before all out obliteration. Hey why don't we add another 2MB to the cache size and stress the FSB another 500MHz so we can squeeze a little bit more performance out of an already burdened infrastructure? INTEL is sad in every respect.

1:08 AM, July 03, 2006  
OpenID webhostinginkenya said...

Intel has won this war. I have always been pro Intel and never had any problems so far

12:29 AM, September 08, 2014  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home