Opteron vs Xeon - a good comparison

Read this for web and database server comparison:

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1935

Useful.

[The Chief]

Originally Posted by Erwin

Read this for web and database server comparison:

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1935

Useful.

Thanks for the heads-up

[Zachery]

So, just more truth about the AMD systems destroying most Pentium classed systems? I could ahve told you that back in 2001

[Paul M]

Originally Posted by Zachery

I could ahve told you that back in 2001

Which is almost when that was written (well okay, December 17th, 2003, still 2.5 years ago). There are much faster Xeons around now (and presumably Opterons as well ?). Again, a more recent, real life comparison would be nice.

[Zachery]

Still, even if its dated, its true, the fastest Xeons still don't quiet catch up to their AMD counter parts.

I'm going to be switching several of our current Xeon systems to Opterons if I can find a host who supports both SCSI and the Dual Cores. Of course I haven't been looking that hard as I've been busy with projects.

[FlyBoy73]

There is a recent review (late 2005, I think) that put Intel's latest Xeon against Opteron again and the Opteron stomped it with no problem in almost every category.

Here are some other links to Opteron vs. Xeon reviews:

April 22, 2003 - Dual of the Titans
http://www.tomshardware.com/2003/04/...ans/index.html

March 2, 2004 - AMD Opteron vs. Intel Xeon: Database Performance Shootout
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982

Aug. 13, 2004 - Workstation showdown: Xeon vs. Opteron
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/...station_1.html

Sept. 13, 2004 - Intel Xeon 3.6 (Nocona) vs. AMD Opteron 250 - Dbase Test
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2205

I'm still looking for the latest shootout I read a few months back where AMD openly (In 100's of newspapers across the USA) challenged Intel to put up or shut up. Intel finally delivered one of their new Xeons and the Opteron that was not even their latest hot thing spanked it.

With the NUMA standard and utilization of hyper-transport Intel is just out of luck and I don't forsee that changing any time soon. AMD is far ahead in chip architecture.

[JohnBee]

There have been some recent reviews of intels latest dual core engineering samples. If memory serves me correctly intel came in at a much lower clockrate than the current crop of Opteron solutions (FX-60) but in turn won the overall benchmarks comparisson between the two by a good margin.

I think they pitted the new intel (2.6ghz) against a 3Ghz dual core Opteron series processor. Although this is not a current technology comparisson it does show that intels upcoming chip solution is strong and should have no problems given AMD a good fight the money.

Nonetheless as things currently stand anyone investing in a XEON workstation or server should have there marbles checked

[FlyBoy73]

Do you have a link to one of the reviews?

Intel (and fans) likes to try and point outa couple of specific areas like video rendering in one or two programs and a few other categories where they excel; however, that really isn't relevant to web hosting as far as I know.

Ok, check these links out..

Jan 1, 2006 - Dual core server duel: Xeon vs Opteron benchmark
http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2006/01...s-opteron.html

GamePC Review - Intel “Paxville” Dual Core Xeon (compares to Opteron deeper in the review)
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...axville&page=1
Performance review between Intel dual core "Paxville" vs. Opterons (ouch!)
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...axville&page=9

Here is a quote I pulled from the GamePC review that sums it up quite well...

Unfortunately, even a solid platform can’t help Intel’s performance numbers, as their new dual-core chips (while powerful in their own right) simply are bested across the board by AMD’s dual-core Opteron processors. Even worse, the Opterons typically perform much better while running at slower clock speeds and only having half the amount of on-die L2 cache to utilize. AMD’s chips also consume far less power and run quite a bit cooler, giving AMD an edge on nearly all fronts.

Here is another great review re: Opteron vs. Xeon, where an old Opteron steps on a new Xeon.

http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2005/11...246-beats.html

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

INTEL has been very shy these days, Paxville was launched over a month, and it's nowhere to be seen, the usual hardware sites such as tomshardware and anandtech have no benchmarks for it. Only GamePC had a benchmark showing dual core Paxville at about 50% of Opteron in Apache benchmarks. Now the rumor is INTEL started sending its Dempsey dual core chips with dual independent bus to reassure its customers, under NDA.

2CPU.com apparrently got a set of Dempsey dual core chips through some NDA crack and was able to do some tests. The candidates are:
Bensley: a 3.46GHZ Dempsey with 1066MHZ dual FSB dual core Xeon on Blackford chipset
Irwindale: 3.8GHZ single core Nocona Xeon with INTEL 7520 chipset
Opteron old dog: the 130nm, 3 year old, Opteron 246 single core at 2GHZ. Currently, the AMD's hot selling top dog is the 2.6GHZ dual core 90nm Opteron 885SE used in Sun's Galaxy line.

I don't think anyone is expecting the $100 single core Opteron 246 to sweep the floor on the $3000 2007 dual core Dempsey/Bensley, nevertheless, the single core Opteron 246 managed to beat INTEL's future dual core chip on some tests.

Sandra 2005 x64 -Memory: Opteron 246, 10400MB/s, INTEL Dempsey 3.4GHZ dual core, 4838 MB/second. Single core Opteron 246 is 200% of dual core Dempsey 3.46GHZ.

Sandra 2005 x64 - Cache/Memory @ 64MB: Opteron 246 single core, 5485MB/s; INTEL Dempsey 3.46GHZ dual core, 4430MB/s. Single core Opteron 246 is 25% faster than dual core Dempsey 3.46GHZ.

Cinebench 2003 x64: Single core Opteron 246 scored 366, dual core Dempsey 3.46GHZ scored 377, a virtual tie with less than 3% difference.

3DS Max 8.0 Ape: Single core Opteron 246 finished in 126 seconds, Dempsey dual core 3.46GHZ finished in 133.8 seconds, Opteron single core 246 is 5% faster than Dempsey dual core 3.46GHZ.

ScienceMark 2.0 FINAL x64 Mol-Dyn: Single core Opteron 246 finished in 26.97 seconds, dual core Dempsey 3.46GHZ finished in 32.97 seconds, Single core Opteron 246 is 20% faster than dual core Dempsey 3.46GHZ.

Power consumption: Dempsey system uses 438 watts, the old single core Opteron uses 262 watts. Remember, newer 90nm Opterons made on Dual Stress Linear Strained Silicon on Insulator technology uses even less power.

Conclusion: INTEL architecture is hopeless, even an obsolete 2GHZ single core Opteron 246 can beat its 2007 future chip on performance, and INTEL's heat production problem is beyond cure.

Update: I found that the Opteron 246 has been discontinued. The current highest AMD CPU is the Opteron 885SE.

[Erwin]

Wow, great links, keep them coming.

[FlyBoy73]

All the info that is out there really doesn't leave a lot of room to try and compare them in a head to head heat. I would love to see a shootout between the AMD's latest Opterons against anything Intel can put up against it. I think the results would be highly embarrassing to Intel and that is probably why they won't go head to head officially. If the 246 single core vs. Xeon dual core was bad, this would be shameful.