Linux Shootout: Opteron 150 vs. Xeon 3.6 Nocona

92 Comments

View All Comments

• tfranzese - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

  Much better Kris, and I was only disappointed in not getting to see the 32-bit comparisons to see how well the current iAMD64 implementation is running.
  
  Only thing you left me confused on was the last paragraph on the John The Ripper benchmark. Might only be me who can't understand what you mean.

• KristopherKubicki - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

  datacipher:
  
  Datacipher, it really depends on your point of view. For server performance benchmarks, like the SQL stuff, another server chip was the way to go (like we did here).
  
  If we go the desktop route, the line becomes a little blurry, particularly on Intel's end. Intel defines UP servers and high end workstations almost identically.
  
  If we were to go on price alone, we still don't have the fairest comparison since the 150 is priced cheaper than the Xeon and the 3.6F. Some of my sources have said the 3.6F may debut considerably lower than its Xeon 3.6GHz server counterpart, even though they are the same processor with different pin outs.
  
  Regardless of what you think, the 3.6F and Xeon 3.6GHz processors will compete against AMD dual channel offerings in the 2.4GHz range. If you read some of our other reviews, L2 cache size doesnot seem as critical on the A64 platform.
  
  Whelp, anyway, hope that helps. When the 3.6F actually shows up at newegg with a price, then i will tell you for sure what it competes against :)
  
  Kristopher

• srg - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

  Stellar Job on this one, you earnt the vacation. Anyway the reason this one seems more correct is that in the 32-bit tests, opteron beats the Xeon (so why should this one be so different), now everywhere else I've read are saying that the Xeon's 64-bit performance wasn't much and yours was a contradiction. That's why there was the contravercy. Anyway, this confirms the party line.
  
  srg

• datacipher - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

  Kristopher:
  
  Now I'm really confused! In the original article you say that the chips were not meant to compete...but then you also said things like "it turned out to be more appropriate than antipated". Now you are saying that since the 3.6F will be marketed against the 3500+...that it is the correct choice...
  
  Now I'm trying to understand...forgive my ignorance. Basically you took a server chip as a stand in for the 3.6F against the 3500+ in what amounts to basically a desktop shootout? What I don't understand about this is how can Intel release a 3.6F with a roughly comparable cost to the 3500+ but with the same performance as the xeon 3.6?
  
  Also, if the cpu choice was correct...why did you then switch to the opeteron 150?
  
  Thanks in advance.

• KristopherKubicki - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

  Lynx516:
  
  I posted the GCC -v at the beginning of the review, please let me know if there is something else i should do.
  
  Kristopher

• KristopherKubicki - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

  To be honest i wouldnt have known some of the mistakes i made had people not been so critical. I am not upset with the final outcome, it happens to everyone.
  
  Kristopher

• Lynx516 - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

  Sorry to be a bit harsh there Kris but they are not in the standard GCC3.3.3 manual which I was using as a reference. It would be nice to state that you are using a ported compiler in your config to prevent any future confusion. Though its a pretty good article over all. much better than some recent ones on Anand. I hope this standard is kept up.
  
  Humblest appologies
  Lynx

• Spectre999 - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

  I posting because I was complaining about the first review on another board. The first review was horribly done.
  
  But it takes a real stand up person to take all the bitching that went on and be able to go back and look at what they did and decide to redo it because they made a mistake. For that I will give you much praise. The other hand is the first review shouldn't have been turned in the way it was but it isn't always the way someone does something that is the most important but the way they respond to the criticism they get.
  
  So thanks for all the effort on redoing the article and you provided you are a stand up guy who simply made a mistake. It happens and everyone can move on.
  
  

• manno - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

  "Now will all of you A-Holes get off KrizK's & AT editorial staff's back!!"
  
  HAHHAHAHAHAHA I'm laughing my ass off.
  Great Job getting in the first post, and a good first post at that.
  
  -manno

• hifisoftware - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

  Good review. All sins are forgotten now :-)