Opteron Humiliates Xeon Paxville

20 Oct, 2005 at 5:45pm ET Article published in Tech

GamePC has a comparison of AMD’s Opteron versus Intel’s new Xeon Paxville CPU.

The comparison details how Intel’s Xeon dual core Paxville is severly outshined by AMD’s Opteron. The slowest Opteron outperforms the fastest Xeon Paxville, and the fastest Opteron uses less power than the Xeon Paxville.

The Register is running an article with details as 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. AMD’s top of the line dual-core Opterons are quite a bit more expensive compared to the top of the line 2.8 GHz Dual Core Xeon (which will sell for ~$1,000 per CPU), putting it roughly on par with AMD’s Opteron 270 (2.0 GHz) processor. Even comparing the Opteron 270 to the Paxville Xeon 2.8 GHz, we still would opt for an AMD based solution.

A great submission by Leonardo.

Source: GamePC

Comments

20 Oct 2005 ~ 6:03pm Sledgehammer70 wow I knew The new Dual Xeons were going to tank, but that is a huge difference in numbers, and the power it consumes is wow!!!!!

What happened to intels new moto Price per watt! I know they said that about their new chips but this Xeon will most likely only see the shelves and not a Mobo!
21 Oct 2005 ~ 10:28am muddocktor Hey, one thing the Paxville smokes the Opty's in though is power consumption. They can also double as room heaters, which will be nice for the winter.

Can you imagine what the electric meter would look like, running a rack or 2 of those.
21 Oct 2005 ~ 11:21am mmonnin

Sledgehammer70 wrote:

What happened to intels new moto Price per watt! I know they said that about their new chips but this Xeon will most likely only see the shelves and not a Mobo!

This is not the CPU you are thinking of. This is based off the smithfield core and not the Pentium-M core. Those wont be out for awhile.
21 Oct 2005 ~ 12:04pm lemonlime Yikes, Intel's netburst architecture simply cannot compete. I'm really looking forward to seeing intels next processor generation. The PM architecture is where it's at.
22 Oct 2005 ~ 4:22pm CyrixInstead Erm, is it me or is the site now displaying a pictures of a man's arse being stretched to f**** at the top of the page, with the review lower down. Are they stealing bandwidth or something????

~Cyrix
22 Oct 2005 ~ 4:33pm airbornflght I knew the opertons would smoke intels excuse of a processor anyday. their new marketing campaign should be : "you'll never be cold, you [
22 Oct 2005 ~ 4:50pm Shorty I've reported it in to the guys over at GamePC and have removed the link until it's fixed
22 Oct 2005 ~ 6:44pm airbornflght it looks like gamepc took their servers off line. I cant even find it. that sucks. i had my webserver defaced once, but that was when i had a static ip. cant have a webserver anymore thanks to cox taking it away without my knowledge and then saying it'd cost $15 a month for "business cable" which is the same thing with a static ip..i hate cox.
22 Oct 2005 ~ 7:02pm Leonardo Until GamePC is in order again, here's a summary of the GamePC article posted by the ever irreverant Register.

Intel server chip chief Pat Gelsinger. Behind him, Paxville is caught during a critical phase of its boot sequence
23 Oct 2005 ~ 12:11am airbornflght ahhh ahahahhahahahah hahhah shahah hahah i think that may be an understatment.
23 Oct 2005 ~ 12:52am Jengo dude, that was the most disgusting thing i have ever seen..

YUCK!
23 Oct 2005 ~ 12:00pm Shorty Link removed from airborneflights post :shakehead
23 Oct 2005 ~ 12:38pm tmh88 i read somewhere that you need at LEAST a 400 watt psu if your going to use even the lowest xeon paxville.
23 Oct 2005 ~ 3:31pm GrayFox

tmh88 wrote:

i read somewhere that you need at LEAST a 400 watt psu if your going to use even the lowest xeon paxville.

A 400W brand name just for the cpu alone.
23 Oct 2005 ~ 5:52pm Thrax I've been sleeping on the job. Sorry.

AAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA. ****ing newbs.
23 Oct 2005 ~ 7:15pm tmh88 ok im sorry 2 of them....

"Even when idling, two dual-core Xeons consume nearly 400W of power at any given time, which is amazingly high, even by Intel's standards"

taken directly from slashdot news (thankyou grayfox for the site) in this article http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/05/10/22/0714240.shtml?tid=118&tid=137
23 Oct 2005 ~ 7:19pm Leonardo The GamePC article is up again.
23 Oct 2005 ~ 9:02pm airbornflght

Shorty wrote:

Link removed from airborneflights post

mehh...shorty, you could have at least cleaned up my typos that im to lazy to fix. i gave 'em fair warning about the link. oh well, your site, not mine.

you did hurt my feelings though, you didnt even spell my name right...:bawling:
23 Oct 2005 ~ 9:03pm airbornflght

Thrax wrote:

I've been sleeping on the job. Sorry.

AAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA. ****ing newbs.

?????