AMD speed against Intel - Hardware

This is a discussion on AMD speed against Intel - Hardware ; Hi All, How should one compare AMD to Intel nowadays? In the old days AMD used to have something like 3000+ Now there is 252, 275, etc. What would be an opteron 252 be equivalent in Xeon terms? TIA, Tom...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: AMD speed against Intel

  1. AMD speed against Intel

    Hi All,

    How should one compare AMD to Intel nowadays?

    In the old days AMD used to have something like 3000+

    Now there is 252, 275, etc.

    What would be an opteron 252 be equivalent in Xeon terms?

    TIA,

    Tom



  2. Re: AMD speed against Intel

    "Tom Szabo" wrote:

    > How should one compare AMD to Intel nowadays?


    I used to compare AMD cpus for a gigaherz performance like intel Pentium
    III. With Pentium 4 I used to say that AMD and Pentium III was roughly 1.5
    times faster at the same clock frequency.

    > In the old days AMD used to have something like 3000+


    Those AMD CPUs were intended to be in single CPU systems and were called
    3000+ as they were roughly as fast as a Pentium 4 running at 3 GHz. An AMD
    3000+ was actually running at a lower speed than 3000 MHz.

    > Now there is 252, 275, etc.
    >
    > What would be an opteron 252 be equivalent in Xeon terms?


    The opteron 252 is rather old. I haven't found any spec cpu2006 results
    for that CPU, but there are some results of cpu2000 at
    http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/cpu2000.html
    There you can compare it with different xeon macines. It seems to be
    roughly as fast as a 3.6 GHz Xeon.

    regards Henrik
    --
    The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is:
    hc1(at)poolhem.se Examples of addresses which go to spammers:
    root@localhost postmaster@localhost


  3. Re: AMD speed against Intel

    Henrik Carlqvist writes:

    >> What would be an opteron 252 be equivalent in Xeon terms?

    >
    > The opteron 252 is rather old. I haven't found any spec cpu2006 results
    > for that CPU, but there are some results of cpu2000 at
    > http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/cpu2000.html
    > There you can compare it with different xeon macines. It seems to be
    > roughly as fast as a 3.6 GHz Xeon.


    That would be an old P4 based Xeon. The currently fastest Xeons are
    the 5100 series which are based on the Core2 core and run are quite a
    bit faster although they run at lower clock speeds.

    --
    Måns Rullgård
    mans@mansr.com

  4. Re: AMD speed against Intel

    Tom Szabo wrote:
    > Hi All,
    >
    > How should one compare AMD to Intel nowadays?
    >
    > In the old days AMD used to have something like 3000+
    >
    > Now there is 252, 275, etc.
    >
    > What would be an opteron 252 be equivalent in Xeon terms?


    A 246 was roughly the same as a 3.2Ghz 533Mhz Xeon
    (I know because I owned both)

    So... I'll guess that a 252 would be around a 3.6Ghz Xeon.

    A 275 is in a different class, much faster since it is
    dual core (compared to an old netburst style Xeon).

    I'm afraid you'll just have to look a comparative
    benchmarks out on the web and draw your own
    conclusions.

    Btw... there isn't too much difference between:

    * Really, really, blazin, ultra hot, FAST

    and

    * Really, really, really, blazin, ultra host, FAST

    Not matter what someone tells you.

  5. Re: AMD speed against Intel

    On May 1, 1:35 pm, Chris Cox wrote:
    > Tom Szabo wrote:
    > > Hi All,

    >
    > > How should one compare AMD to Intel nowadays?

    >
    > > In the old days AMD used to have something like 3000+

    >
    > > Now there is 252, 275, etc.

    >
    > > What would be an opteron 252 be equivalent in Xeon terms?

    >
    > A 246 was roughly the same as a 3.2Ghz 533Mhz Xeon
    > (I know because I owned both)
    >
    > So... I'll guess that a 252 would be around a 3.6Ghz Xeon.
    >
    > A 275 is in a different class, much faster since it is
    > dual core (compared to an old netburst style Xeon).
    >
    > I'm afraid you'll just have to look a comparative
    > benchmarks out on the web and draw your own
    > conclusions.
    >
    > Btw... there isn't too much difference between:
    >
    > * Really, really, blazin, ultra hot, FAST
    >
    > and
    >
    > * Really, really, really, blazin, ultra host, FAST
    >


    Which mobos support ecc for the blazin ultra hot
    275?

    Intel marketing does not plan to rename Xeon to Shell Duon to
    reduce confusion with the older models. Do they?


  6. Re: AMD speed against Intel

    On Wed, 02 May 2007 03:18:59 +1000, Tom Szabo wrote:

    > Hi All,
    >
    > How should one compare AMD to Intel nowadays?
    >
    > In the old days AMD used to have something like 3000+
    >
    > Now there is 252, 275, etc.
    >
    > What would be an opteron 252 be equivalent in Xeon terms?
    >
    > TIA,
    >
    > Tom



    It depends on your application but my measurements show that a Core2 Duo
    is usually about 30% on a clock for clock basis. The best case is 69%
    faster on a program that is very cache sensitive (the Core2 has 4M of
    unified cache, the X2s and Opterons have dual 1M caches).


  7. Re: AMD speed against Intel

    sndive@gmail.com wrote:
    ....
    >
    > Which mobos support ecc for the blazin ultra hot
    > 275?


    Actually, you'll find that most Opteron mb's probably
    require ECC. I know my Iwill board does.

    A good place to post this question is the 2cpu.com
    forums. You can find some good info about board
    recommendations, etc. For both AMD and Intel.


  8. Re: AMD speed against Intel

    sndive@gmail.com writes:
    >Which mobos support ecc for the blazin ultra hot
    >275?


    I doubt you will find any Opteron board that does not support ECC.
    However, it's probably getting rather hard to find Socket 940 boards
    and CPUs. You might want to look into Socket-F Opterons; e.g., the
    2214 is the Socket-F variant of the 275.

    >Intel marketing does not plan to rename Xeon to Shell Duon to
    >reduce confusion with the older models. Do they?


    I doubt it, but the numbers are clear, so the confusion should not be
    that bad: For the new models based on the Core microarchitecture, the
    numbers for dual-socket Xeons are 51xx (dual-core) and 53xx
    (quad-core).

    One important difference is that the dual-socket Xeon machines require
    fully buffered (FB) memory (which is quite hot and requires a vary
    fast fan in our Xeon server), whereas the dual-socket Opterons require
    registered (R) memory. I have heard that Intel is also going to offer
    Xeon chipsets that work with registered memory.

    - anton
    --
    M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed
    anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen
    http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html

  9. Re: AMD speed against Intel

    Thanks to ALL for you input I really appreciate is, Tom







    "Tom Szabo" wrote in message
    news:46377648$0$17230$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
    > Hi All,
    >
    > How should one compare AMD to Intel nowadays?
    >
    > In the old days AMD used to have something like 3000+
    >
    > Now there is 252, 275, etc.
    >
    > What would be an opteron 252 be equivalent in Xeon terms?
    >
    > TIA,
    >
    > Tom
    >
    >




+ Reply to Thread