The Xeon 3.6ghz 800mhz fsb vs AMD Athlon 3500+. Surprising results here! <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2158&p=1" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2158&p=1</A>

oh my, wait til the Pentium 4 3.60F gets here with EM64T. it's gonna be awesome. I can't wait myself!

<b>Conclusion:</b> "Without a doubt, the 3.6GHz Xeon trounces over the Athlon 64 in math-intensive benchmarks. Intel came ahead in every severe benchmark that we could throw at it, particularly during John the Ripper. Even though John uses several different optimizations to generate hashes, in every case, the Athlon chip found itself at least 40% behind. Much of this is likely attributed to the additional math tweaking in the Prescott family core".

------
Prescott 3.2E 1MB L2 HT
1GB PC 3200 Dual channel(PAT)
Asus P4P800 Bios 1016
PNY Geforce 6800 GT 256MB DDR3
60,823 Aquamarks

Considering they'll sell at the same price point, that's a <i>great</i> comparison....

---
Epox 8RDA+ V1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
XP1700+ @200x10 (~2Ghz), 1.4 Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL/1x512Mb Corsair XMS PC4000 2.5-3-3-7
Sapphire 9800Pro @412/740

<A HREF="http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=28&threadid=1370368&enterthread=y" target="_new">Forum members review the review...</A>

...and they pretty much universally agree, the review got flubbed badly. Testing a 3500+ desktop chip against Intel's cream-of-the-crop best Xeon chip was only the start.

Crap, at least use the FX-53 or the Opteron x50. AnandTech really didn't have an excuse <i>not</i> to, so what's up with that?

<i>"Intel's ICH6R SouthBridge, now featuring RAID -1"

"RAID-minus-one?"

"Yeah. You have two hard drives, neither of which can actually boot."</i>

I'd have to agree, the 3500+ should be tested against nothing higher than the P4 3.6 with EM64T(or a 3.4 if there is one, can't remember off top of my head).

How much that would change things, I'm not really sure(due to fact that xeon and p4 cores really aren't hugely different, or at least haven't been in past, haven't researched the EM64T chips). Whether different cache, etc would be enough to make this up, won't know until there's a better benchmark by someone.

I will be itnerested in seeing the SMP Xeon vs dual opteron review they promise.

there wasn't any P4 3.6F available yet, so Anandtech used a Xeon 3.6ghz with EM64T. Both are the same chips, just targeted at different price point and market segment. I thought the comparison gave us a good preview on what the P4 3.6F EM64T would give us.

------
Prescott 3.2E 1MB L2 HT
1GB PC 3200 Dual channel(PAT)
Asus P4P800 Bios 1016
PNY Geforce 6800 GT 256MB DDR3
60,823 Aquamarks

Why didn't they pick Opteron?

That would have been the best comparison.

Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, Leadtek FX5900 w/ FX5950U bios@500/1000, 2X30gig Raid0

You do have a point. In any case, if anything, a P4F might even perform slightly <i>better</i> than that Xeon due to DDR2-533 instead of DDR2-400. If 1066Mhz FSB came into play, it would look better. Intel is still a few steps behind anyway, though. If P4Fs would be widely available, the playing grounds would be better, but hell, they aren't.

However, EM64T is nothing laughable, it seems. I think intel should consider a high dose of alacrity when introducing the Prescotts with 2MB L2 and 1066Mhz FSB and EM64T; these will probably be great. Won't do any good if they only become available in 2005, though; AMD isn't standing still either.

But agreed; in any case, we should wait until more information becomes available.

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Mephistopheles on 08/09/04 02:13 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

an Opteron would still get beaten by the Xeon, but as the point of the article is to give a 'sneak preview' of the 3.6P4F w/ EM64T, which is going to be Intel's new big hitter, they really should be comparing it with a FX-53, or 3800+, as at least these parts are actually available to the public ATM.

By the time these P4s are available in any quantity, no doubt AMD will have better stuff out too.

---
Epox 8RDA+ V1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
XP1700+ @200x10 (~2Ghz), 1.4 Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL/1x512Mb Corsair XMS PC4000 2.5-3-3-7
Sapphire 9800Pro @412/740

"Why didn't they pick Opteron?"

Good question. Not sure what was the point of the review. $850 chip vs $350 chip. so 250% more expensive 100% more cache, Top mhz for intel chip but not amd chip. not a good comparison. I'm thinking somone had a hissy fit over the doom3 tests. The doom3 showed all cpu's this test compared intels cream to a upper mid level amd cpu.

Reverse the situation and take an opteron or fx53 and compare to a prescott 3.4e. That would be a stupid review. I'm somewhat suprized anandtech would do that.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

How come people are having such a hard time in understanding that?...

...the point of this review is to preview P4F performance in 64-bit tasks, and it's looking good. Noone would consider either buying a 3.6Ghz Xeon ($850) or a 3500+ ($350).

This article's conclusion is that Intel's 64-bit implementation might not be flawed at all. That's it.

And P4Fs <b>don't carry a price premium</b>, so once they become more available to enthusiasts, they're a reasonable option against A64s. Even more so with all the new features (azalia, new chipsets, or even future features). Intel better move fast, though, because they seem to be stalled lately.....

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>

Re: "How come people are having such a hard time in understanding that?...
...the point of this review is to preview P4F performance in 64-bit tasks, and it's looking good. Noone would consider either buying a 3.6Ghz Xeon ($850) or a 3500+ ($350).
This article's conclusion is that Intel's 64-bit implementation might not be flawed at all. That's it."


I have no problem with showing how good p4f is or will be in 64bit tasks. HOWEVER, this statment at the end.

"Without a doubt, the 3.6GHz Xeon trounces over the Athlon 64 in math-intensive benchmarks. Intel came ahead in every severe benchmark that we could throw at it"

They are comparing intels best upcomming cpu to a mid level amd cpu. So the comment was not nessasary. If you want to make conclusions comments like that compare = cpu's.


Mephistopeles where would you draw the line on this? would it be ok in your book if anandtech did this 64bit test with a64 2800 vs 3.6 xeon?

To prove intels 64bitness is good but to compare it to a lesser amd chip like the a64 3500 is prolly not a good thing but aceptable, the conclusion however was over the top.

"Without a doubt, the 3.6GHz Xeon trounces over the Athlon 64 in math-intensive benchmarks. Intel came ahead in every severe benchmark that we could throw at it"


If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

>Crap, at least use the FX-53 or the Opteron x50

I have no problem with their cpu selection, remember Nocona is just Prescott, same FSB, same L2 cache, so when 3.6 Prescott with EM64T launches, that will be the exact same cpu. Comparing it to a 3500+ doesn't sound like such a terrible idea to me.

What really is f*cked up however, is:
1) they apparently messed up the scores for MySQL. They used 32 bit scores for A64 instead of 64 bit ones (like for Nocona). in reality, A64 whips the Nocona in this test
2) they used ridiculous synthetic benchmarks like SuperPI, a 5 year old mini app that tells you <i>nothing</i> or TSCP which fits completely in Nocona's L2 cache and according to Vincent Diepenveen on Aces' forum, wasn't properly compiled. If you honestly believe Xeon is better for chess programs, i also suggest you have a look <A HREF="http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/games/" target="_new">here</A> First 6 players on the computer chess worldchampionchips where opteron based. Funny for an Intel sponsored event
3) worst of all, we still don't know how intels implementation of EM64T is. Why on earth didn't they provide both 32 and 64 bit scores for both cpu's, *that* would have told us something. Now we still know nothing, unless you want to believe these results would somehow mean Nocona beats A64 hand down.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

I agree, P4Man.

Anandtech is in fact trying to preview how a 3.6F would stack up against a 3500+. This sounds like a good idea, because both of them are comparably-rated, that's all.

However, I can also agree that the benchmarking suite wasn't chosen with care. And it is still hard to know if Em64T makes a real difference in performance...

P4Man is right, they should have done something like % increase from 32->64bits on each platform. That would have made more sense.

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>

i dont know about you, but usually when any review site makes a comparison, preview or otherwise, they take the top models from both camps. i dont mind the review, but i dont see the logic in comparing the top model xeon versus the 'entry' level s939 part. i dont think you cna just say they are compareably rated so that means its fair, since when have reviews been done like that? top model versus top model is alot more fair, just becuase intel doesnt have a 3.8ghz xeon you think its fair to drop down to an athlon 64 3500+? i dont think so.

what really suprises me is that this is from anandtech, they are usually alot more cautious and complete wiht thier benchmarks and they always try to make a fair comparison. even a as a preview, its not a balanced review at all. not to mention the fact they did not show 32bit versus 64bit scores is another fault. it just seems kind of sloppy work for them.

the only thing i can pull form this is that it appears em64t will not be a ahndicap for intel, but it doesnt tell me wether its better then amd64, i dont see how anyone can pull that from this review. i mean goodness, they use opterons for thier webserver, youd think they might try one of them against the xeon. but oh wlel, maybe they will update the review soon.